Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by mnemeth1


You need to grow up.
I`m done arguing with you.
One day you will see how flawed your logic is and I only hope it`s not because some great harm has come to you.
I don`t hate you but I think you are a moron because you are saying it`s ok to drink and drive but not ok to drink and drive and then accidentally kill someone.
You make no sense.
It`s like saying it`s ok to fire a gun into a crowd so long as you don`t hit anyone.
"Yea officer I was aiming for the floor".
But you hit someone so now we will try you as an intended murderer.
If only that bullet didn`t ricochet the two could go down to the bar and get drunk together.
Good night, I am done here.
for your thread.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
In the greatest society there must be places, by law or decree, that must accept some of the most deviant of behaviors, and that there should be other that demand the most strict and rigid of behavior.

The greatest society is one in which all men are free to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as whatever it is they are doing is not harming others or damaging their property.

There are those who wish to damage others or their property, or at least do not care. They go well with others that share that attitude. Why deprive them of their liberties?

Do we need to ban the fight clubs where all participants are willing?

Looks like I won this round if that's the best you have to offer.

I didn't relize there was a contest to win. If it looks like we are in agreement I would say we both win. If not I would have to wonder why.

Hey memmeth1

My brother died from a drunken driver.

I hope everyone realizes what moronic reasoning you've presented here and goes back over some of your previous threads to further realize the absurdities that's displayed throughout your black and white idiocy.

I wish you were within tapping distance from me.

I'd be sure to do more than just tap.

I have known a few drunk drivers who actually believed they were driving just as well, if not better while they were drunk, while I was in the passenger seat clinging to the door handle, praying to god that we made it down the street alive, trying to decide whether or not to jump out of the vehicle at the next light.

People who have been drinking are not capable of judging how well they can drive

reply to post by mnemeth1


I completely disagree with this statement and will compile a counter-argument. But for now, i will say HEY! Why not legalize psychopaths to carry around Automatic Weapons around with them at all times! It's not like they know how to use them.

Originally posted by shiman
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I completely disagree with this statement and will compile a counter-argument. But for now, i will say HEY! Why not legalize psychopaths to carry around Automatic Weapons around with them at all times! It's not like they know how to use them.

If there are sufficient psychopaths to be found that mutually accept those terms, wish to form their own community to permit that sort of expression, and agree to keep those actions within their own confines, then I would say, "Why not?"

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes, I'm sure you'd be okay with the legalization of drunk driving until you or a family member are killed by some twat who thought that someone's life was worth the 30 bucks it would take to drive a cab home.

I say ban drunk driving, and if you kill anyone behind the wheel...25 to life. End of story.

edit: how does this inane, redneck tripe get 21 flags? You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Never thought I'd see so many people defending murder.

As a person who has had his brother killed by of a 19 year old kid drinking under the influence of alcohol and got nothing but a slap of a wrist as a consequence... I have to say the the OP has no idea of what he is talking about..

reply to post by mnemeth1


You did a good job OP.
I don't see alot of posts that are answering what it is to me you are conveying.

DUI laws serve two purposes in my mind;
1-source of revenue for the state, and
2-restitution for damages

What I think you are conveying is number 1 as I mentioned above, as the primary directive in invoking such laws.

Hence the country music songs of yester-year. I drink because everything I had is gone...

Mnemeth you are correct. The reason driving is dangerous is not because of people on drugs or alcohol. You have hunks of metal traveling at high rates of speed controlled by one person. Why? Because people of money and influence want it that way. The automobile and oil industry have used their influence to suppress widespread use of public transportation. People are forced to use and travel by car so the few can make money.

By using statistics I can show how people who are sober are more likely to be in and cause a fatal accident than someone under the influence. So by that logic, we should make everyone drive under the influence to cut down on fatalities. The government and groups like MADD will try to bump up their figures by using a term called alcohol related. For instance, an old sober man makes a wrong turn down the Santa Monica Promenade and mows down a few people. Alcohol related because one of the people he killed was sitting at an outdoor cafe drinking a beer. A huge pile up on the freeway because of the fog. Alcohol related because the last car to hit caused minor damage but the officer smelled alcohol on his breath. This situation is only going to get worse, because people are easy to brainwash and will fall for the propaganda.

You, the OP and his couple of backers on this thread must be drinking from the same pot.

By using statistics I can show how people who are sober are more likely to be in and cause a fatal accident than someone under the influence. So by that logic, we should make everyone drive under the influence to cut down on fatalities.

please.....your 'logic' is about as ridiculous as it gets.

I completely disagree with your statement. And here's why.

Drunk driving accidents results in the most horrific and most devastating forms of accidents. Whole families have died from drunk driving: the Gonzalezes, for example. People driving drunk have killed other people while intoxicated and they now have to deal with the fact that they have killed somebody while serving jail time for vehicular manslaughter.

Here is a chart listing fatalities per year compared to fatalities caused by drunk driving, with a percentage. There is also a chart listing drinking and driving fatalities in 2008 per state in the same manner, and another chart showing cases where the BAC is 0.08 or over, from 2008 per state. I would say 38% of total deaths in 2008 being drunk driving caused or related is pretty high, when you consider there are MANY ways to die in the US.

Alcohol severely impairs your judgment, too. Creating, what is known as, the "superman complex", where the drunkard feels invincible with his twisted judgment, thinks he/she could do anything. This, of course, is not true.

Taken examples from this and this and this article,

Most drivers who have had something to drink have low blood alcohol content or concentration (BAC) and few are involved Princess Diana's car crash photoin fatal crashes. On the other hand, while only a few drivers have BACs higher than .15, a much higher proportion of those drivers have fatal crashes.

* The average BAC among fatally injured drinking drivers is .16 1

* The relative risk of death for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 707 times that of a sober driver, according to estimates by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 2

www2.potsdam.edu...


(From the same website, chart of BAC to relative risk of crashing.)

According to that same website, the number of alcohol related fatalities have gone down 35% since 1982.

Whatever the individual variations, there is an established sequence of symptoms which correspond to different degrees of intoxication. The first mental processes to be affected are those connected with training or previous experience. One skill impaired at the initial stages of intoxication is driving ability, particularly for individuals who have not been driving very long. After a few more drinks, the ability to perform familiar and habitual tasks requiring relatively little thought, attention or skill is impaired. At this stage, you may find you have to concentrate on opening a bottle of wine. Simply moving around in a crowd of people at a party may require your full attention. You may drop things and conversations may be difficult to follow. As the alcohol level rises in the blood, muscular coordination is further affected and basic reflexes become progressively depressed. There is reduced hand steadiness, difficulty in standing and emotional outbursts. The drinker may become aggressive or hostile. Beyond this stage, the drinker risks falling into a stupor and eventual coma. If the coma persists for more than 10 hours, a person usually dies of asphyxiation due to paralysis of the respiratory center of the brain. Alcohol poisoning usually occurs at BAC's above 400-mg%.

www.hangovertips.com...

Impairment of motor skills and concentration is a big factor in crashes. When you have to really concentrate to move around in a crowd, much less stay upright, then it would be REALLY difficult to drive a car properly, much less having to pay attention to the surroundings, keep your car inside the lane, and remember/follow road rules.

Tracking, or steering, is a relatively difficult psychomotor task. The driver must maintain the vehicle within the lane limits and in the correct direction while monitoring the driving environment for other important information. Unlike simpler psychomotor skills, the ability to steer a vehicle is impaired at low BACs (Drew et al. 1959; Hamilton and Copeman 1970; Linnoila et al. 1980).

Alcohol slows the rate of information processing by the brain. This effect has been noted on many different kinds of tasks even at the lowest BACs (Kobayashi 1975; Moskowitz and Burns 1971; Moskowitz and Murray 1976; Attwood 1978). For example, a moderate alcohol dose (0.52 g alcohol/kg body weight) slowed subjects whose only task was to respond with the names of familiar, visually displayed objects (Moskowitz and Roth 1971). If there are two or more stimuli and if several responses are possible, response times lengthen significantly (Boyd et al. 1962; Evans et al. 1974; Mortimer and Sturgis 1975; Linnoila et al. 1980; Palva et al. 1982; Antebi 1982). More complex tasks are even more severely degraded by alcohol.

findarticles.com...

More examples as to why driving drunk is dangerous. Sure, somebody may THINK they're alright to drive, and I would be all for it, but it is not a victimless crime. Alcohol related car crashes and fatalities due to drunk driving is too high not to be noticed. The price of a DUI is so high so you do not do it again.

mnemeth1:
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.

Not only does the DARE program teach against drunk driving, there are also classes you have to take if you are caught, you are taught the effects of drunk driving in Driver's Ed, there are commercials everywhere about it, websites, MADD goes to many middle and high schools across the USA and teach about it, this site has a commercial on almost every channel, and their website has information about drunk driving.

Now, I need my sleep. I hope this proves something for you. TTFN

I had a good friend die from a sleep deprived driver. The person had been up all night (without any blood-alcohol content) and hit him head on after crossing the median.

CNN - Sleep Deprivation and Driving

Should the penalty for failing to get 8 hours of sleep and then driving be the same as drinking and driving?

Not only that, but speeding is involved in up to a third of ALL traffic fatalities. Should a speeding ticket be as involved and destroying to a person as a DUI? (Source)

"Fifty-five percent of those killed in passenger vehicle occupant crashes in 2008 were not wearing a seat belt. Sixty-four percent of those killed during the night were unrestrained, compared to 45% during the day." (Source) Should the penalty for failing to wear a seatbelt be dealt with in the same manner as DUIs? Considering how much easier it is for another person to kill you in an accident (and for the weight of blame to then be laid on them), and the costs involved in the added injuries and so on, it could only help to drastically and heavily penalize failure to wear seat belts.

There are plenty of other examples of dangerous road behavior that is barely a slap on the wrist, but accounts for much of the problems of people dying on the roadways.

Personal opinion about public matters should never be acquired by a singular, powerful personal experience, by the way. Such as a family member or close friend being killed by a drunk driver. Bad things happen, and the problem doesn't go away if it's shouted down. The statistics are there, drunk driving still happens, and DUI laws do not fix that, so when someone brings up their own tragedy, they don't solve the problem.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I completely fail to comprehend this thread. I won't even take time to explain my views in detail. I think the least you deserve is a ban from posting on this site. And don't get your defense on about having the right to have a personal opinion.

Just because many idiots such as yourself have the right for a personal opinion, there are so many innocent people who have suffered from the lack of actual thinking capabilities from the people of your kind.

At times like these, I feel disappointed that the government doesn't actually have some sort of total mind control device to turn us all into saliva dripping sheeple. At least then, people like you will have their right for personal opinion and judgement taken, which will definately make this world a better place...

This thread saddened my day. Humanity is pathetic.


Edit to add - I'm planning on doing some drugs, then drinking, then I'll start a thread on here asking people to join me in going to a school and killing hundreds of kids. Explanation behind my reasons you deserve a ban.

Edit 2 - I am astonished by the patience that people on this forum show towards this guy, especially those who have suffered one way or another from the issue he is addressing.

reply to post by shiman

Shiman you are wrong. You have to use the numbers from the NHTSA. They do not have a statistic of fatalities caused by drunk drivers. That statistic is not kept. They use alcohol-related. What happens is some other organization will then take that number and say drunk driving or drunk drivers caused these fatalities. It is not the same thing. To get to alcohol related is the same game as the six degrees of Kevin Bacan. You need to do a little more research.

reply to post by ch1n1t0


Drama queen much?

You are more of a danger to the ideas of liberty, intelligence, and common sense if you want someone banned because of their opinion.

Perhaps you need to unplug for a while.

Only for those that can handle it.

I think if you can pass a test it shouldn't matter if you've been drinking, nor should it matter what you blood alcohol level is. The fact is some of us can handle it and some folks can't, yet those of us with superior abilities are punished at the same level as those who are completely out of it.

The fact of the matter is most people who drive in he U.S. shouldn't even be allowed to drive with or without having consumed alcohol as it seems it's far too easy to get a license in America.

If we took all the inept retards off the road, that is those who are too uncoordinated or don't have the ability to pay attention there would be allot less accidents.

When I first began driving having an open container inside the car was not illegal. I can't remember whether or not the driver could drink, but I know it was not illegal for passengers to be drinking. It was also not illegal to have an empty or partially full alcohol container in a cup holder or within reach of the driver. Now having an open container is nearly as bad as being drunk - which is ridicules

Here's how it would look in the OP's world.

Officers reported seeing Joe Drunk swerving all over the road firing a gun out of his window, and chugging on a 40 at 10:00 AM, and again at 11:30, unable to stop Joe Drunk for the erratic driving because, well, he wasn't hurting anyone so it was all ok, Joe Drunk proceeded to plow into John and Jane Doe's minivan killing John, Jane, and their 5 year old son Jimmy Doe. The police were then able to arrest Joe Drunk for vehicular manslaughter.

Oh if there were only some way to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place.

Originally posted by whatukno
Here's how it would look in the OP's world.

Officers reported seeing Joe Drunk swerving all over the road firing a gun out of his window, and chugging on a 40 at 10:00 AM, and again at 11:30, unable to stop Joe Drunk for the erratic driving because, well, he wasn't hurting anyone so it was all ok, Joe Drunk proceeded to plow into John and Jane Doe's minivan killing John, Jane, and their 5 year old son Jimmy Doe. The police were then able to arrest Joe Drunk for vehicular manslaughter.

Oh if there were only some way to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place.

Given that the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone who isnt in their custody, youre solution is what? Arrest Joe Drunk for something he might have done?

reply to post by westcoast

Westcoast, you should know not to tangle with me. If anyone reads our debate they will clearly see that you can not handle me. You will always start to name call and go off topic. Say something meaningful if you are not afraid to be embarrassed.