It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 10
64
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You have hit the nail on the head. DUI laws along with 90 percent of all laws are just a money making scheme. I was a bail bondsman for 11 years so I have seen how good people get taken be this shady system. Personally I don't think any laws really work including theft, rape and murder. The personality types who are capable of doing these things are doing them. Those who don't won't!




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blueracer

I can see the point you are making. I do not think that your views should bring the threats of violence and ill will toward you that people have mentioned in this thread. One thing that I want to mention, though, is that driving is not considered a right. Driving is considered a privilege.


you would be mistaken in that assumption...

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Iicenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

www.realtruth.biz...


Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose. Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right;

www.rense.com...


The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived
www.apfn.org...

americans have the right to travel on



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hows about a more friendly solution to the probelm?
Firstly it is immensly profitable business, as well , it is a huge taxgrab at the jar store....more than 50 % some places..
The trouble begins when the drinker contemplates the alternatives to getting home from where he is currently at.
Why not save the goverment, a bunch of money, and the people who lose loved ones a bunch of heartache, and give free taxi rides home to drunks wherever they may be within reason.?
No reason this couldnt be arranged through the goverment and simply payed for by the taxes and fees charged over alchohol?
Why should the huge taxbill being paid by dr4inkers be going to all nondrinking related stuff?
Point being if we gave anybody a free ride home on the goverment dime, it would be a huge net saving, of money and lives.
It would get people in the habit of taking other transport home when drunk.
What im saying is these people are paying for a lot of goverment programs buying the booze they prectically push at you through every social avenue and nuance.
First they make it an institution, then they charge outrageous prices and taxes, then they prosecute you for consuming too much.
Then they lower the limit...
>05 now here......thats not much booze.you could eat two marischino cherries and blow .05 for petes sake!
The whole thing is getting way out of whack thats for sure...
I think the concept of a crime really needs re defining.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Did those economics journals survey every American to see if they have driven after drinking? There is no possible way to know what you claim to know.


While statistics may be open to some interpretation, there is no doubt about the costs incurred.

Given my back of the envelope calculations, even if we say the marginal reduction in fatalities from DUI laws is TEN THOUSAND - that is still TWO MILLION DOLLARS in cost for every live saved.

Is that worth it?

No.


Are you really serious, or do you just get off by getting a rise out of us?

Is my childs life worth two millions dollars? Well gee, let me think about that for awhile.


Now let's examine where that price tag for people's lives comes from. Fines, fees and legal costs levied against "gasp" DRUNK DRIVERS. Now you'll forgive me OP if I don't share your same concern for these thoughtless drunks that put their lives and the lives of everyone else out there on the street at risk by making the CHOICE to get behind the wheel.

I have worked as a support officer and not only seen the direct result of this CRIME in the mangled bodies, but also in the mangled hearts, souls and lives of the loved ones left behind. These laws not only protect the public but also the drunks from themselves. Countless lives have been saved by the fear of being caught drunk, and by the police that have stopped them before they committed the 'CRIME' of killing someone.

Your logic is not only backwards, it is twisted and completely unfounded and lacking any grounds in reality.

Why don't you just admit you're mad you got caught and had to pay a bunch of fines instead of trying to justify your selfish view by making up a bunch of crap?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
So is it just me, or does there seem to be a common thread between those supporting this ridiculous viewpoint and anti-christain avatars/names? You guys are creepy.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
I think the concept of a crime really needs re defining.

and this is the whole point of the OP from what I gathered...


its good to see that I am not the only one that sees where he's coming from

DUI laws are entirely about fear and profit for/by the state

just wait though.. they will most likely start attacking you soon as well



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


The governments data says the actual cost is 30.5 million per live saved, not 2 million.

And no, your kid is not worth 30 million dollars.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And your life is obviously not worth a dime.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by kalisdad
 


No offense to you, but drunk drivers often feel they are in complete control. That's the thing about alcohol: you lose control and don't always realize it.
edit on 18-12-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross because: (no reason given)

that may be the differance between you and I...

I've been drinking hard liquor for over 20 years(14 of which I have been driving) and I know my own tolerance

I know long before I have had TO MUCH to drink and I stop drinking alcohol

this is what allows me to go out and have a few long island iced teas and a beer in a 2 hour period and still know I am in complete control of my faculties to drive the 3-4 miles it is from the bar to get home

I agree wholeheartedly that not everyone knows their limits and that people will and do drink more than their bodies are capable of processing in a given period of time.

however, by instituing a blanket law, saying that anyone that has 'x' amount of alochol in their bloodstream will be arrested is not solving the problem... we can see this by the continued statistics showing that DUI is still an issue

the cost of the taxpayer for the arrests of people that are causing no harm to person or property out weights the risk of letting those same people just go home

DUI laws are entirely about making money for the state and less about protecting the public

if you really think that LEO are there to protect the public, then you have been missing out on alot of threads that would say otherwise...

LEO are there to make money for the state... thats as simple as it gets... and DUI laws are just one peg in that wheel of injustice


You crack me up. Maybe you've already had those three long-island ice teas and a beer so you don't realize that everything you have said here and in other posts does just the OPPOSITE of supporting the OP.

I sure hope to God that I never travel those same three to four miles of road at the same time as you.
edit on 18-12-2010 by westcoast because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by westcoast
 


The governments data says the actual cost is 30.5 million per live saved, not 2 million.

And no, your kid is not worth 30 million dollars.



And that my friend is why we have the laws to protect us from people like you.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I will be honest, i did not even bother reading the op.

But going on the title "Legalize drunk driving", I would have to say this is very juvinile and irresponsible.

Drunk driving is dangerous, it kills people. It will be a stupid idea to legalize drunk driving, and there is absolutely NO justification for it either, no matter how much argueing is done.

When you are drunk you just cannot, respond or react as good as when you are sober.

This thread and topic smells suspeciously like a troll thread to me.

Being controversial for controversy sake, there is no justification!!!!

Vvv



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If it is a right, like you say it is, why are you submitting to the laws of the state? By doing so you are admitting that the state's view that driving is a privilage is correct.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by westcoast

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by westcoast
 


The governments data says the actual cost is 30.5 million per live saved, not 2 million.

And no, your kid is not worth 30 million dollars.



And that my friend is why we have the laws to protect us from people like you.


We have laws so lawyers can make money and the State can collect revenues.

If the State was actually interested in saving lives, they would focus on charging violent offenders with real crimes instead of locking up several million Americans each year for non-violent offenses.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by westcoast
You crack me up. Maybe you've already had those three long-island ice teas and a bear so you don't realize that everything you have said here and in other posts does just the OPPOSITE of supporting the OP.

I sure hope to God that I never travel those same three to four miles of road at the same time as you.


despite the few drinks I have had, am I not coherent enough to have been arguing the past 4 pages?

and even with said drinks, I can at least spell BEER correctly



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The costs incurred for a single DUI are enormous, no matter if you hurt someone by your actions or not. This article places the number of annual DUIs in the US around 1,396,888. If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.


BS. My DUI cost me $5,000. Where do they get $15,000?


Is the public made more safe? Obviously the law does next to nothing to deter drunk driving. Just like drug laws and gun laws, DUI laws are another form of “pre-crime.” They are laws that attempt to prevent actual crime (hurting someone) from occurring.


As a person who was caught DUI, I have to disagree. I am glad the cops stopped me that night. I am glad that I didn't hurt mothers, fathers, and/or children. I am glad to be able to look back and know how wrong I was to do it.


The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.


I agree. take the "adult responsibility" for your actions and suck it up.

ANYONE on the road after drinking is a hazard. Period.
edit on 18-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
While DUI laws are mostly for state profit, they do have a reason.

It's a preventative measure, you shouldn't be drinking and driving and DUI laws make some people think twice before getting behind the wheel drunk.

But our OP friend seems to want to tie one on and go plowing through a schoolyard full of children with no repercussions whatsoever.

I get the general idea of what you are going for. Everything should be legal as long as no one gets hurt. It's a pathetic premise and doesn't hold up in reality.

Amazingly enough the flaw is, if you don't drink and drive, these laws will never ever affect you. It's a pretty simple concept, as long as you don't drink and drive, you will never have to worry about a DUI law.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



BS. My DUI cost me $5,000. Where do they get $50,000?


Add up your insurance increase cost, lawyers fees, the cost of operating the court, the cost of your jailing, the cost of any classes you had to attend, the cost of missed work, the cost of a temporary license, and any other ancillary costs that you or the State would not have had to incur had they not charged you.



edit on 18-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How about this. You can build your own roads with your own money and drive on them as drunk as you want. But public roads also belong to me and 250 million other Americans. And most of us do not want a disinhibited, slow reaction driver who can't tell the difference between an on-ramp and an off-ramp on the same roads.

Prevention is key. Granted, some of the populace do not adhere to all the laws, but it helps. I would not dare to even think of the carnage and unnecessary deaths that would occur if the DUI law was repealed.

I agree that DUI's are a victimless crime...thank God for that. The dangerous and fatal potential of drunk driving is, in itself, too great of a risk to ignore.
edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by westcoast
You crack me up. Maybe you've already had those three long-island ice teas and a bear so you don't realize that everything you have said here and in other posts does just the OPPOSITE of supporting the OP.

I sure hope to God that I never travel those same three to four miles of road at the same time as you.


despite the few drinks I have had, am I not coherent enough to have been arguing the past 4 pages?

and even with said drinks, I can at least spell BEER correctly


Yah, thanks for pointing out my silly little spelling error, but I had already corrected it.

Oh, and I guess maybe you HAVE had more than a few, because my whole point was that NO, you are NOT coherently argueing your point. But that's okay, I'll bet you sing GREAT karaoke!!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


Sounds good, as long as I and the rest of the people who agree with me don't have to pay any taxes related to public roads and the government removes all restrictions on private road building.

Such claims sound nice, but since the government operates as monopoly, they are not possible to even contemplate within our current system.

We will however be moving to that system you just described shortly after the Fed finishes off the dollar.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join