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: 16
64
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

The people who died are also responsible as much as the drunk driver. They were also not paying enough attention to protect themselves and their families. I expect the worse when I am out on the road and plan for it.


My sisters first husband was run over, while walking on a roadside, by a drunk driver. He lay vegetative for 15 years as a result. He never saw the birth of his child. I had to help raise a child who visited a drooling flesh bag, rather than a real "dad" for 14 1/2 years.

And you really think that this situation was HIS fault?

Do you really take the "Don't blame the drunk, blame the guy who was too stupid to get out of the drunks way." point of view?

Unreal.

~Heff

How many parents have hit or killed kids in the morning while taking their own kids to school. If I can show that young mothers are more likely to hit kids in crosswalks, should we take away their licenses beforehand to prevent this? What if I give a big sad story to go along with it? What if a truck driver hit your sister's husband? Should we ban truck drivers. What if a piece of debris hit him in the head and killed him? Does it make a difference. Walking on the side of the road is dangerous and so is driving. Taking away everyone's freedom is not going to make you safe.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   
This is the most ignorant post on here I have ever seen, and I've seen bizarre post on here...Legalize drunk driving? U serious? What made you put those words legalize and drunk driving into a post? If u want people to hit random people while driving while intoxicated, and not get thrown in jail for "manslaughter" your WRONG....



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


wow..how naiv.

u call it prevention!! U call it statistics. U call it danger. U call it risk.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

The people who died are also responsible as much as the drunk driver. They were also not paying enough attention to protect themselves and their families. I expect the worse when I am out on the road and plan for it.


My sisters first husband was run over, while walking on a roadside, by a drunk driver. He lay vegetative for 15 years as a result. He never saw the birth of his child. I had to help raise a child who visited a drooling flesh bag, rather than a real "dad" for 14 1/2 years.

And you really think that this situation was HIS fault?

Do you really take the "Don't blame the drunk, blame the guy who was too stupid to get out of the drunks way." point of view?

Unreal.

~Heff

How many parents have hit or killed kids in the morning while taking their own kids to school. If I can show that young mothers are more likely to hit kids in crosswalks, should we take away their licenses beforehand to prevent this? What if I give a big sad story to go along with it? What if a truck driver hit your sister's husband? Should we ban truck drivers. What if a piece of debris hit him in the head and killed him? Does it make a difference. Walking on the side of the road is dangerous and so is driving. Taking away everyone's freedom is not going to make you safe.


You are equating the banning the entire notion of driving, with the criminalization of drinking and driving?

Fortunately there is a constitution to keep your perspective in the margins where it belongs.

I have known a great many of people who did not drive drunk, due to the risk of arrest posed by the police.

Read sentence 2




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
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.



Actually, the only person who dropped down to a single post related to a personal attack was yours, Bill. Anytime an internet tough guy talks about "you can't handle me" on a message board, it usually means they are losing the fight. Your defense of drunk drivers is disgusting and beyond the pale. There is no reliable stats that show that sober, alert drivers are worse drivers than drunk drivers and you know that.
Drunk Driving death stats

Tens of thousands of people die every year because someone wants to have an extra shot of vodka, not pay for that cab (funny, they had enough money to run up a 70 dollar tab at a bar), and not take personal responsibility for putting human lives at risk. You can keep bleating and taking stats out of context, but the fact is, you WILL get caught drunk driving, YOU WILL get convicted, and these laws will NEVER be repealed, because throwing drunk drivers in jail is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. When a drunk driver gets behind a wheel a car turns into a MURDER WEAPON, and those of us who choose to do these things and end up killing someone should be charged with MURDER, end of story.

What. are you facing a trial sometime soon? Maybe you killed someone? Who knows! The only people I know that defend drunk drivers are the worst kind of alcoholics--even the sane ones won't dare to defend murder.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


OP, this topic is complete hogwash. Utter trash.

First off, I got a DUI December 2009 in California. I didn't hit anyone, I didn't crash, in fact I was driving perfectly... I was pulled over for a trivial reason and they happened to smell alcohol on me because I was driving home from a party. I passed the physical tests, but not the breathalyser.

1: First time DUI's do NOT cost 10,000 to 50,000 like you claim. I only had to pay $1,850. So you are wrong.

2: Yes, DUI's do prevent people from drinking and driving because I will NEVER drink and drive again, EVER. So you are wrong again.

Along with the $1,850 fine, I also lost my license for 9 months. I was forced by the court to go to alcohol education classes, and alcoholic anonymous classes. Everyone who gets a DUI in California has to do it. No, I am not an alcoholic, in fact, I don't even like drinking and probably drink 2 times a month.

Having to sit in a class for 2 hours once a week for 6 months. Then having to go to AA for 1.5 hours every two weeks for six months. And not having a license for 9 months. And having to pay $1,850.... was TORTURE. I NEVER want to loose my license again. I never want to have to sit through those mind numbing classes again. I never want to pay that fine again.... This means I will never EVER drink and drive again.

The law is about the punishment. You learn your lesson from the punishment. The punishment makes you think twice about driving again. I'd say the law works perfectly.

Sure, people still do drink and drive after the punishment, but those people are idiots with no lives, and they just don't care. If I get another DUI, I could lose my license for 2 years. I would die if that happened. I would also have to do a year or more of classes, and pay even a greater fine. The fear of that alone is enough to make people never drink and drive again.

When I was in alcohol class, I met a guy who killed 4 of his friends while drinking and driving. He blacked out while driving his friends home, and woke up with everyone dead. He was facing life in prison. I wouldn't wish that on anyone in my life. It's dangerous and needs to be reduced or stopped completely.

I think your topic is complete b.s. and shows complete ignorance.

-edit to add-
I didn't even mention my insurance costs going up....
edit on 18-12-2010 by 22Eleven because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nonetruegod
cars are 100s of times safer than they were if some twat steps in my way sober or not theyre gonna die drink driving is not wrong driving while trashed is wrong too many statistics are bent to include alcohol when someone is 5 mg over the limit are they evil and wrong or just made a mistake like murder drink driving has degrees enjoy your christmas pud thatll put you over most limits


W.U.I

Are you writing under the influence ?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
The only people I know that defend drunk drivers are the worst kind of alcoholics--even the sane ones won't dare to defend murder.


No this political idiocy and Bill has dug himself a tunnel under the low road, because the OP set the bar below sea level in the first place, Bill can only one under it.

Next we will hear a gripe about the lack of sharks in the public pool or why we cannot crap in the sink at Walmart for freedoms sake


Jim Beam and Clorox on me
edit on 18-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

How many parents have hit or killed kids in the morning while taking their own kids to school. If I can show that young mothers are more likely to hit kids in crosswalks, should we take away their licenses beforehand to prevent this?


Oh how I detest logical fallacies. They bore me.

Alcohol and drugs (which by the way are included in DUI/DWI laws) cause diminished capacity. It's pointless to argue otherwise. Drunk people are impaired.

If anyone wants to state that the laws have become too strict in the last few years, I might be inclined to agree. If they want to be upset that DUI has turned into a cash cow for local governments, I would also agree. But to simply say that "Freedom dictates that people who are completely inhibited should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to drive drunk."

They lose that right of choice while they are impaired. They regain it when they are no longer so.


Originally posted by BillfromCovina

What if I give a big sad story to go along with it? What if a truck driver hit your sister's husband? Should we ban truck drivers.


Again with the logical fallacies.

If the truck driver was negligent and took unnecessary risks that contributed to the accident then he should be punished accordingly. If enough truck drivers engaged in these unnecessary risks then laws would be passed to prevent it. Such as the current laws regarding log books and hours truckers are allowed to drive.


Originally posted by BillfromCovina

What if a piece of debris hit him in the head and killed him?


Act of God, and an inappropriate comparison to what we are discussing. More apt would be "What if somebody dropped debris from an overpass, randomly, and that killed him?" Drunk driving is NOT an unavoidable act of god, it is a deliberate act of negligence.


Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Does it make a difference. Walking on the side of the road is dangerous and so is driving. Taking away everyone's freedom is not going to make you safe.


Your "freedom" does not include the right to put others at risk through personal negligence. It never has. Ever.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by 22Eleven
 


Star for you.

Interesting thing, you are correct about DUI costs. I've never had a DUI, but here in AZ, it usually runs between 3,000-5,000, sometimes even 50% less, and we have some of the strictest DUI laws in the nation.

However, if you are convicted of a super-extreme DUI (BAC .200) in Arizona, you will be paying more than 10,000, as you should be, considering that's alcohol poisoning (causing blackouts), no one would be able to operate a bicycle, let alone a motor vehicle. It seems that the OP may be drawing his numbers regarding the fees from his own personal experience. I guess the rules just shouldn't apply to the drunk who made this original post.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
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.



Actually, the only person who dropped down to a single post related to a personal attack was yours, Bill. Anytime an internet tough guy talks about "you can't handle me" on a message board, it usually means they are losing the fight. Your defense of drunk drivers is disgusting and beyond the pale. There is no reliable stats that show that sober, alert drivers are worse drivers than drunk drivers and you know that.
Drunk Driving death stats

Tens of thousands of people die every year because someone wants to have an extra shot of vodka, not pay for that cab (funny, they had enough money to run up a 70 dollar tab at a bar), and not take personal responsibility for putting human lives at risk. You can keep bleating and taking stats out of context, but the fact is, you WILL get caught drunk driving, YOU WILL get convicted, and these laws will NEVER be repealed, because throwing drunk drivers in jail is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. When a drunk driver gets behind a wheel a car turns into a MURDER WEAPON, and those of us who choose to do these things and end up killing someone should be charged with MURDER, end of story.

What. are you facing a trial sometime soon? Maybe you killed someone? Who knows! The only people I know that defend drunk drivers are the worst kind of alcoholics--even the sane ones won't dare to defend murder.


Zclient you label your stats drunk driving death stats but when I read the stats they say alcohol-related. You have no drunk driving death stats. An earlier poster admitted he was wrong about it and you have just made the same mistake. If you read my earlier posts you will see what alcohol related is. For instance if a truck driver plows through an intersection and kills the passenger of a car who had some alcohol in his system it is alcohol related. Even though both drivers in the accident were not drinking it is still an alcohol related fatality. Do a little better research before you pipe in.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina

Originally posted by zcflint05

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
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.



Actually, the only person who dropped down to a single post related to a personal attack was yours, Bill. Anytime an internet tough guy talks about "you can't handle me" on a message board, it usually means they are losing the fight. Your defense of drunk drivers is disgusting and beyond the pale. There is no reliable stats that show that sober, alert drivers are worse drivers than drunk drivers and you know that.
Drunk Driving death stats

Tens of thousands of people die every year because someone wants to have an extra shot of vodka, not pay for that cab (funny, they had enough money to run up a 70 dollar tab at a bar), and not take personal responsibility for putting human lives at risk. You can keep bleating and taking stats out of context, but the fact is, you WILL get caught drunk driving, YOU WILL get convicted, and these laws will NEVER be repealed, because throwing drunk drivers in jail is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. When a drunk driver gets behind a wheel a car turns into a MURDER WEAPON, and those of us who choose to do these things and end up killing someone should be charged with MURDER, end of story.

What. are you facing a trial sometime soon? Maybe you killed someone? Who knows! The only people I know that defend drunk drivers are the worst kind of alcoholics--even the sane ones won't dare to defend murder.


Zclient you label your stats drunk driving death stats but when I read the stats they say alcohol-related. You have no drunk driving death stats. An earlier poster admitted he was wrong about it and you have just made the same mistake. If you read my earlier posts you will see what alcohol related is. For instance if a truck driver plows through an intersection and kills the passenger of a car who had some alcohol in his system it is alcohol related. Even though both drivers in the accident were not drinking it is still an alcohol related fatality. Do a little better research before you pipe in.


Yea, you're right, none of those "alcohol related" deaths were due to some moron chugging off of a beer bong and killing someone by running a red light or driving down a highway one way.

Give me a break. I think that anyone with a brain can reason that about 95% of drunk driving deaths are not because a sober person decided to run a red light and hit a drunk driver. Keep living in fantasy land, Bill, hope the judge gives you the max.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
The contents of the blood are not punished. It is merely used as evidence to punish the ignorant idea of driving smashed... it's a fact that the more people drink, the more false confidence they gain. Most often leading to the very unfit to get behind the wheel.

I do really appreciate that you have chosen the hard side to argue and provoked thought into a societal taboo with this thread. Bravo!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
AMEN!
I think the laws stopping us from having fun have gone way overboard.
I think we should also be allowed to shoot firearms while blitzed by schools and churches. Whats a little target practice? I mean come on, how many people a year have died because someone was target practicing?!

While I am out in the parking lot, it stands to reason to shoot at things like bottles wedged in the fence, and for safety sake there should be a building in the background.. If someone gets hit because they decided to walk behind my targets: Their fault, it was obvious I was shooting there, they should have maintained themselves in a manner proper to gun safety laws. Besides-kids are short and small targets-it's easy to miss them when accidents happen-seriously, look at the statistics: How many kids are shot a year in gun related TARGET practicing accidents?

Not a whole lot.

Yet we let those kids eat super fatty and profoundly unhealthy foods-we as a society are killing our babies with bad food, yet I can't shoot at my bottles with a school in the background..


Fascists.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

What we are talking about is driving under the influence and driving over a certain BAC. Because someone is doing this does not automatically mean they are more negligent than anyone else. Someone who has twice the legal BAC can be a very conscientious and safe driver. It also does not mean they are drunk. They could also have a very high tolerance. Drinking and driving is not illegal.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
My sisters first husband was run over, while walking on a roadside, by a drunk driver. He lay vegetative for 15 years as a result. He never saw the birth of his child. I had to help raise a child who visited a drooling flesh bag, rather than a real "dad" for 14 1/2 years.

And you really think that this situation was HIS fault?


When I was a kid, I was told not to walk on the roadside because I MIGHT GET HIT.

So lemme get this straight... If it was sober drivers involved in these accidents, all the hate-filled folks on here would be saying "Well, accidents happen"? Seems to me a drunk driver is just an easier scapegoat in a painful situation then, well, someone who simply $#@%ed up. Or wasn't paying attention to the road. Or was changing songs on their iPod. Or etc.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0


Yet we let those kids eat super fatty and profoundly unhealthy foods-we as a society are killing our babies with bad food, yet I can't shoot at my bottles with a school in the background..


Fascists.


This last line puts the insanity of the rest of your post in perspective.


It's all going down the drain anyhow. This is just mental masturbation on the internet, at best. Of course, it's easier for most folks to get fired up about drunks and potsmokers than it is for them to get fired up about the totally INSANE people we're letting run our government right now... Or the police state... Or, really, any of the "bigger picture" problems going on right now.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


that is the most assanine statement ever

of course DUI laws prevent drunk driving

every single person who despite owning thier own car , books a taxi cab to take them to a function , party , wedding , the pub , a sports event etc etc etc where they intend to drink - is a clear example of DUI laws preventing drunk driving



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by BillfromCovina
 


A very quick lesson in semantics -

A) alcohol and drugs lower or even completely take away the ability of a person to have critical thinking and make justified decisions. these also affect the time for sudden reaction, when needed (FACT!)

B) driving a car, a truck or a bob-sleigh requires critical thinking and justified decisions, these sports also require quick reactions (FACT!)

C) there are people with higher tolerance to alcohol and drugs and are OK drivers under the influence, who don't comply to fact A as well as other people do (FACT!)

D) the people from fact C are just a few among the majority (a FACT we all know!)

Question - Should we ban everyone from DUI just because the majority of people are far worse drivers under the influence?
Answer and conclusion - .... you fill this in for homework.

I don't see what's to debate here anymore - we all know that Bill (replace "Bill" with any of the people who stand behind his idea) will continue DUI because of his self-centered need for falsely understood freedom. All we can do now is hope he doesn't kill or injure anyone in the future.

edit to add - Bill, a word of advise, rethink your definition of freedom... drinking and driving doesn't mean you are free... and trying to convince us you're right with telling us IF you provided us with proof that young mothers are worse drivers than drinkers (something that's not provable) and twisting the main topic (that is DUI) to how we should ban airplanes from flying cos they can fall on our heads (it's just as equivalent to your points in your previous posts). ... well this doesn't do the thing for me. I'm not convinced. guys, are you?

add2 - and now is a good time for me to unplug myself from this non-sense
edit on 18-12-2010 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join