Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by kalisdad


The right to travel does not equate to the right to drive.
We live in a society.
We as a society have an obligation to respect and not harm one another as that is what we want for ourselves and our loved ones.
As populations grow, we have no choice but to institute laws to protect people from idiots.
I think car insurance rates are rediculous and a lot of the fees associated with driving should be abolished in a free and open society.
But I in no way agree that driving is a right.
You need to prove to me that you are a responsible individual to operate a machine capable of delivering death to my family.
Therefore some driving lessons and a road test are completely reasonable.
Then some agreements as to how we will use and not use are vehicles is also completely reasonable.
There are many of us on this planet and we need to share it as it belongs to all of us.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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)

Ummmm....I already did. My out of pocket cost was 2,000. I gave a good 3,000 for what you said.

Question: Have YOU ever been through it? Do YOU really know what the cost is? If not, then why the diatribe?

reply to post by csulli456


Yes, the right to travel does equate to the right to drive.

A "right" is any action that you decide to take that another does not have a legitimate authority to stop you from doing.

A "right" is any action you decide to undertake that is not harming anyone else or damaging their property.

Thus, driving is a right.

reply to post by mnemeth1


You are the most arrogant ick that starts with a d that I have ever heard spew this crap.

under your logic you needed a permit to drive a horse and buggie.. lol.. history shows that people used to get drunk and drive and still kill people even back than and still cause damage to property as well as kill people just as much..lol.. it is a right..

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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)

Ummmm....I already did. My out of pocket cost was 2,000. I gave a good 3,000 for what you said.

Question: Have YOU ever been through it? Do YOU really know what the cost is? If not, then why the diatribe?

I'm citing a journal article.

If it cost you that much, I believe you.

I also believe the article I'm citing.

Well, you guys have been good for a bit of entertainment, but you know what? This whole topic simply isn't funny. I find your sensless, careless attitude sickening. This whole discussion is a waste of time so I will leave you to your drinks and mindless drivel.

Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You are the most arrogant ick that starts with a d that I have ever heard spew this crap.

Being mad at me because you are losing the logical argument does not change anything.

abolishing the DUI laws and charging an intoxicated driver with reckless driving

how does this not accomplish both what the OP is asking for and satisfy the opposers to the OP?

point being... there should not be a blood saturation level which determines ones ability to be aware and cognative of ones driving ability

if they used strictly a road test that could determine my ability to walk striaght lines, have comprehendable conversations, even the alphabet backwards) and I failed said test, then obviously I would be guilty of reckless driving...

but to say that I am not in full control of my car based upon a slight overage of a breath test is rediculous

the amount of alochol on ones breath could have many factors not including how the each body handles said amount of alochol... what 2 beers does to me, will have a totally different effect on someone elses body, but because I burped at the wrong moment, the fumes of alcohol from my stomach caused the breath test to register that I was over the limit when I am entirely in control of my faculties is just wrong...

the fact is, DUI laws can and should be superseded by other laws already in place... reckless driving, driving to endanger, destruction of property, assault...

I agree to certain extent, people who drink and drive don't stop just because they got slapped with a fine or a little jail time, if anything, that makes them go to the bar and drink more. A person does not have to be drunk to do something dumb in a vehicle and kill someone else. So laws against drinking and driving will never totally stop the problem, a better alternative would be to take a little bit of money that would have been spent on arresting and convicting drunk drivers and put it towards public transportation in areas where lots of alcohol is consumed. If drunk drivers had a way to get home without driving themselves less people would be injured or killed by them. Some alternative needs to be met so everyone is safe and we don't need to keep losing fellow Americans to automobile accidents and jail sentences.

This just goes to show that the people who make the laws could really care less about our personal safety and would rather stuff their pockets. I don't want to hear about taxpayer dollars either, seeing as our tax money is going towards things we aren't even allowed to know about, but yet nobody has a problem with that apparently.

reply to post by RSF77


An even better idea would be to let the public keep their money and deregulate taxis.

Thus, taxi prices would fall and people could more easily afford cab fare.

No one takes the bus out in the country.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It is your perception of "right" that is so wrong.
Operating potentially deadly machinery however the hell you want, only because you have no desire to harm anyone does not make it your right.
When the possibility exists for danger, precautions must be made.
Your understandings of free society are very immature.

reply to post by mnemeth1
Imagine how much it would have cost me spiritually if I would have killed somone. Maybe even YOUR daughter or son. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR ONCE.

But, go ahead and drink and drive. Just don't ask me for sympathy when you DO kill another.

reply to post by Reaper2137


And caveman used to club a woman over their head to get laid.

Times change and we adjust.
We learn from past mistakes.
People who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It is your perception of "right" that is so wrong.
Operating potentially deadly machinery however the hell you want, only because you have no desire to harm anyone does not make it your right.
When the possibility exists for danger, precautions must be made.
Your understandings of free society are very immature.

My definition of right comes from Jefferson.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

My cousin was killed several years ago by a drunk driver. My cousin was 17years old, a straight A student, and working two jobs so he could pay for his future wedding. He got engaged that Valentines Day, was turning 18 the next month and was to be married later that year. Unfortunately he was hit and killed only 3 days after getting engaged.
Technically the drunk driving laws did nothing to stop the other driver...that bastard had no license [suspended] and no insurance, which is also illegal. Laws don't actually do anything to stop crimes however, I still support drunk driving laws, they aren't perfect and I do not agree with DUI check points but maybe they do save lives

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Imagine how much it would have cost me spiritualy if I would have killed somone. Maybe even YOUR daghter or son. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR ONCE.

But, go ahead and drink and drive. Just don't ask me for sympathy when you DO kill another.

We have laws against murder.

Murder laws are good.

I'm talking about DUI laws, not murder.

Originally posted by csulli456
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It is your perception of "right" that is so wrong.
Operating potentially deadly machinery however the hell you want, only because you have no desire to harm anyone does not make it your right.
When the possibility exists for danger, precautions must be made.
Your understandings of free society are very immature.

people have been doing it since we rode horse's and buggies and they still killed and destroyed property in the process.. and you didn't need a permit to ride a horse it was a right.. a car or horseless carriage is the same you didn't need one when they first came out and people carried on getting drunk and killing your point. what ever it is your trying to make is mute. or rather pointless lol..

Great Post OP. I Drink and drive occasionally and I have been doing it for about 5 years already. Never hit anyone or damaged property. But I have gotten a DUI and I still drink and drive. The only reason they caught me was because my tail light was out. I feel like the people who crash into other people when they D&D are going to do what they have done regardless of the laws in place. I dont like having to pay fines and go to court just because I can possibly hurt someone even though i havent done so. But I understand why the laws are there. Some people just cant handle their alcohol, but the laws dont stop them from driving and they wont stop me either

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by RSF77

 

An even better idea would be to let the public keep their money and deregulate taxis.

Thus, taxi prices would fall and people could more easily afford cab fare.

No one takes the bus out in the country.

Great point. If we really wanted to stop drunk driving, free taxis would be key. I understand where you're coming from. BUT. We CAN NOT tolerate drunk drivers killing people.

And trust me. I'm a double offender. But, thank GOD I didn't kill anyone. THAT is the biggest deterent for me. Not any laws.