Legalize Drunk Driving

In the United States the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40% of total traffic deaths in the US.

Drivers with a BAC of 0.10 are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Seriously, this is one of the most absurd ideas I have seen on this forum.

Endangering lifes of other people should be a crime, even if nobody gets hurt. Thats common sense, something that extremist anarcho-libertarians utterly lack (like any other extremists in fact..). If you want to drive under the influence of alcohol, go drive on some empty race track if you want, not on public roads.

This thread is an insult to intelligence. An insult to common sense.
It is clearly a troll attempt and a successful one it seems.
If the OP actually believes what he is saying and it's not a troll, then I fear for his sanity.

Originally posted by 22Eleven

Originally posted by Reaper2137
a human life is worth nothing.. no more than the dog who gets hit on the street...

Ok, come here then little doggy, let me run you over.

you could try but like most people who spew crap like that are small and still live with their parents lol.. your life or mine is worth no more than a dog.. we are all animals after all.. just because we have cars and can get drunk doesn't mean we are worth more.. or less..

reply to post by LongSeptember


Awww..
Who needs accountability when we can whine and stomp feet to get our ways?
Who needs any sort of self control when we can go all sorts of hedonist?

Somethings are just ZERO TOLERANCE, because, well, thats what rational adults with a shred of personal accountability and responsibility and common decency do.

You don't take sledgehammers to kittens. You don't try and eat your neighbors and you don't take chances killing people because you were too cheap for a taxi ride.

It's that simple.

The laws have a legal limit because it must in order to define too much as "Too much". This is a reasonable expectation as is a reasonable expectation of driving to the store in a safe manner. If there is no deterrent and in turn punishment for this sort of thing... It's just absurd to contemplate.

Originally posted by LongSeptember

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

So a person on the sidewalk should be blamed for any cars that flatten them? This is like saying that shooting victims are to blame because they just suck at dodging bullets.

Originally posted by LongSeptember

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.

The driver who hit my brother in law, AND the bar who overserved him were sued for 1.2 million dollars in this particular case. Think the jury were just some "hate filled folks"?

Oh and the idiot drunk driver? He's free to live his life now. My nephews father does not have that choice. It was TAKEN from him. TAKEN by somebody elses NEGLIGENCE.

Accidents happen. When people make irrational personal choices that unduly endanger others then these things are NOT accidents. They are the result of negligence. I can drive to the store, right now, sober, and there is a slight risk of accident. If I impair myself I RAISE that risk and therefore am negligent. Not a hard concept.

FFS if drunk drivers tended to kill only themselves, trust me, I'd be offering to buy several people in this thread ALL the shots they could drink.

~Heff

The driver who hit my brother in law, AND the bar who overserved him were sued for 1.2 million dollars in this particular case. Think the jury were just some "hate filled folks"?

Oh and the idiot drunk driver? He's free to live his life now. My nephews father does not have that choice. It was TAKEN from him. TAKEN by somebody elses NEGLIGENCE.

Accidents happen. When people make irrational personal choices that unduly endanger others then these things are NOT accidents. They are the result of negligence. I can drive to the store, right now, sober, and there is a slight risk of accident. If I impair myself I RAISE that risk and therefore am negligent. Not a hard concept.

FFS if drunk drivers tended to kill only themselves, trust me, I'd be offering to buy several people in this thread ALL the shots they could drink.

~Heff
[/quote

sorry to tell you heff but you assume that the op or any one else for that matter cares about your brother in law! I know I don't... he is just an animal such as us all... what the OP says does make sense and it is also absurd.. would drunk drivers still be punished? under what he said yes.. would it work any better than it would now? who Knows it won't happen.. at least not in this decade but after the U.S collapses and there is no one to fund the police officers.. I'd watch my self not only for drunk drivers but for people like the O.P who would kill you for you food..

Originally posted by 22Eleven

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by 22Eleven

Originally posted by Reaper2137
a human life is worth nothing.. no more than the dog who gets hit on the street...

Ok, come here then little doggy, let me run you over.

you could try but like most people who spew crap like that are small and still live with their parents lol.. your life or mine is worth no more than a dog.. we are all animals after all.. just because we have cars and can get drunk doesn't mean we are worth more.. or less..

You have proven that you are a horrible guesser and a heartless troll.

I am not small nor do I live with my parents.

Life is sacred.

If you think your life is worthless then do everyone a favor and die in a grease fire.

I think you lie its so easy to threaten on the internet.. your all the same.. and life is not sacred if it was people wouldn't die in the millions each day. show me were life is sacred? your an animal just as I am as we all are.. if your so arrogant to think you are better than every thing else. maybe you should be the one to die in a grease fire I know I won't

reply to post by ch1n1t0

I never stated that drinking and driving is a good idea or that I plan to do it. I have stated that all driving is dangerous. Making a law does not make you safer. What is happening is a process of acclimation. The constitution does not apply anymore when it comes to drinking and driving and people readily accept this. They go along with the brainwashing by big brother. A bad guy is pointed to and laws are made in the name of safety. The safety never comes.

Originally posted by Reaper2137

sorry to tell you heff but you assume that the op or any one else for that matter cares about your brother in law! I know I don't... he is just an animal such as us all... what the OP says does make sense and it is also absurd.. would drunk drivers still be punished? under what he said yes.. would it work any better than it would now? who Knows it won't happen.. at least not in this decade but after the U.S collapses and there is no one to fund the police officers.. I'd watch my self not only for drunk drivers but for people like the O.P who would kill you for you food..

You have missed the point entirely and you betray either a severe immaturity or deep emotional issues with the things you say. I don't give a damn if the OP, nor anyone else, cares about my brother in law. I did not enter this thread to have a pity party. I entered it to explain why the premise of the OP is morally wrong.

But here is a bit of advice... One day somebody you are close to will die. It happens to us all. On that day think back to your behavior, in this thread, and try to think of your loved one as "just an animal". And then try not to hate yourself as you do it.

Fortunately society is NOT going to collapse. Anarchy is NOT going to reign. And, if it happened in spite of probability, I can assure you that have made some incorrect assumptions and you might want to hide your food because people like me will be out there. And we'll be hungry.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Reaper2137

sorry to tell you heff but you assume that the op or any one else for that matter cares about your brother in law! I know I don't... he is just an animal such as us all... what the OP says does make sense and it is also absurd.. would drunk drivers still be punished? under what he said yes.. would it work any better than it would now? who Knows it won't happen.. at least not in this decade but after the U.S collapses and there is no one to fund the police officers.. I'd watch my self not only for drunk drivers but for people like the O.P who would kill you for you food..

You have missed the point entirely and you betray either a severe immaturity or deep emotional issues with the things you say. I don't give a damn if the OP, nor anyone else, cares about my brother in law. I did not enter this thread to have a pity party. I entered it to explain why the premise of the OP is morally wrong.

But here is a bit of advice... One day somebody you are close to will die. It happens to us all. On that day think back to your behavior, in this thread, and try to think of your loved one as "just an animal". And then try not to hate yourself as you do it.

Fortunately society is NOT going to collapse. Anarchy is NOT going to reign. And, if it happened in spite of probability, I can assure you that have made some incorrect assumptions and you might want to hide your food because people like me will be out there. And we'll be hungry.

~Heff

ahh hah a

lol.. that's the best you got? some day some one close to me will die? its already happened.. lol.. god man.. that is weak.. yes we are just animals.. I was a soldier a long time.. in the war you get to see the real human nature we are animals at our core.. get real and grow up.. lol.. and I don't hate my self.. don't assume I can love myself.. and as for the pity party you could have fooled me.. your post reeks of pity me pity me .. my brother yeah.. sorry ...

I am appalled not by the OP or his views, but by the knee jerk reaction by alot of people in the face of a very confrontational topic such as DUI laws. The OP has presented his stance with good evidence and thought provoking material to back his ideas, and for that we should at the very least applaud his efforts to bring to the table a conversation that is both deserving of a decent debate and one that is not often talked about; perhaps due to it's apparently polarizing nature.

I agree with what the OP is suggesting, and feel that the focus of law enforcement should be on impairment rather than the 0.08 limit. I myself have been through the system and seen first hand its flaws. Now, for the record, I don't condone drunk driving and I was certainly deserving of the penalties levied upon me once found guilty, as I was in no condition to operate a motor vehicle. I would also like to offer my condolences to those who have posted previously in the thread their loss of a friend or loved one due to a drunk driver. I thank God every day that I did not harm myself or anyone else, and I can't even begin to imagine the hell that befalls both the family of the victim as well as the guilty party.

However, in my opinion, the fines and stigmas that come with being a convicted drunk driver are not as much of a deterent as people would like to hope for or think. This is made evident by the number of repeat offenders and the educated people who know the risks but still continue to drive over the 0.08 limit reguardless of weather they're impaired or not. I've met many people in AA(court ordered) that have had 2 to 3 DUIs, and have met just as many people who have drove drunk 30+ years and have never gotten pulled over for drinking and driving.

That being said, I've heard a few stories-not many, but some-about people getting stopped for unrelated matters such as a broken tail light, expired liscence plates, ect. ect. and blowing one or two points over the limit after having 2 drinks at dinner and being subjected to the same treatment as someone who blew 4 times over the limit.

Bottom line, there needs to be well thought out reform reguarding DUIs and the punishments incurred on convicted persons. If you're driving reckless REGUARDLESS of your BAC, you should be stopped and fined, punished ect. If you kill someone or cause damage to property, you should be charged HARSHLY and to the fullest extent of the law. I think the threat of being charged very harshly for Murder is far more of a deterrent than a restricted liscense and thousands of dollars in fines. That goes for people who blow 0.00 but drive wrecklessly as well. If you run over someone while you're completely sober and are talking on your cell phone and fumbling with the radio, you should be charged just the same as if you had 7 drinks in you. Murder is murder plain and simple.

Let me just remind everyone that if you were to beat someone to death while intoxicated, you would still be charged with murder. The same hard justice should be placed upon anyone who murders another individual weather with gun, hand or motor vehicle. BAC means nothing to me, either way there's still a body in the morgue and you should be held responsible if it was your doing!

I could go on, but I think I've said enough. The OP has presented a great throught provoking discusion that I think is one we need to encourage and argue both for and against; if only to conjure a different perspective however radical and seemingly in opposition to the status quo that we base our ideas on. S&F.

In my opinion the crime is not the alcohol in the system, it's the action to turn on the car when a person has full knowledge of having alcohol in their system. Everyone knows when they drink or when they take a substance of any kind that alters the mind, hopefully. Be responsible! Do Not Drink Then Drive. Take a cab or walk. Ask a friend! Hell ask a total stranger. Anyone who drives drunk is being selfish by thinking that they are in control.

Originally posted by 22Eleven
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

you know.. after serving in the U.S military I don't have to live at home.. and you haven''t proven that life is sacred.. your thoughts don't count as fact.. and the fact that you do get mad just shows that what I said is true.. and the murderous mindset pays off.. and as I was a military police officer and a decorated one at that.. the probability of me going to jail is slim to none.. maybe if you did move out of your moms world you would notice that..
1. the human race as a whole are a bunch of animals.. I guarantee if you were with out food and a family to eat you would kill another human for food.. its a proven fact.. like I said when you grow up and move out into the world.. and stop hiding behind mommy's skirt. you will know this..

2. as a consequence of number one.. death is around us have you ever been to a third world country? I've been to several see one again.. lol.. and so yes as I have stated life is meaningless..

what will you do with your life? have you discovered some thing? have you made some thing? what have you brought to the table of man kind? you have brought nothing to the table.. so in essence you are nothing.. as am I and soo many of the rest of the world..

once again all you show is that your arrogant and little.. is having such a meaningless life that bad for you? that you have to threaten some one on the computer. with your big bad self. lol.. oh I hope you die in a fire.. oh I want to run you over..

rinse repeat lather

rinse repeat lather..

lol.. grow up..

reply to post by mnemeth1

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.

Wow.
What is then the fair cost of a human persons life according to you OP? Do you want the free market and supply/demand ratio determine it? Well, it has happened - overwhelming majority of people here think its higher than that (otherwise they wont support the status quo). Who are you to disagree with teh free market?

I will just add that you dont know for sure how many people were prevented from driving drunk just because because its illegal, so saying it does next to nothing to prevence is unsubstantiated. Therefore the actual cost to every life saved is probably a lot less.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Okay how about this, why don't people just know their limit and stop drinking once they had enough, or why not get drunk in your own home, then you an damage your own stuff, and no one but your house and possibly you gets hurt! You can also arrange to stay with a friend if you drink too much, I mean this is common sense why can't people do this???

My own Father was an alcoholic, and had way too much one New Year's Eve, he was so wasted he was falling down and he could barely walk, he was actually trying to get me and my stepmother into our car, but my Uncle said no, you can sleep here, if he would have let my Father drive he probably would have killed us.

So no I don't think legalizing drunk driving would be a good thing!!

reply to post by Reaper2137


Being in the Military Police requires a score of 95 on the ASVAB. It also requires screening under the Personnel Reliability Program which states:

1. The Department of Defense shall support the national security of the United States by maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent while protecting the public health, safety, and environment. For that reason, nuclear-weapons require special consideration because of their policy implications and military importance, their destructive power, and the political consequences of an accident or an unauthorized act. The safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to the security of the United States.

2. Nuclear weapons shall not be subject to loss, theft, sabotage, unauthorized use, unauthorized destruction, unauthorized disablement, jettison, or accidental damage.

3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to PRP standards.

I'm thinking your grammatical prowess and stated beliefs do not lend to believability that you have actually met these criteria.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

Being in the Military Police requires a score of 95 on the ASVAB. It also requires screening under the Personnel Reliability Program which states:

1. The Department of Defense shall support the national security of the United States by maintaining an effective nuclear deterrent while protecting the public health, safety, and environment. For that reason, nuclear-weapons require special consideration because of their policy implications and military importance, their destructive power, and the political consequences of an accident or an unauthorized act. The safety, security, control, and effectiveness of nuclear weapons are of paramount importance to the security of the United States.

2. Nuclear weapons shall not be subject to loss, theft, sabotage, unauthorized use, unauthorized destruction, unauthorized disablement, jettison, or accidental damage.

3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to PRP standards.

I'm thinking your grammatical prowess and stated beliefs do not lend to believability that you have actually met these criteria.

~Heff

yes well you try getting your L.M.T.V flipped by a road side bomb waking up in a hospital a few weeks later. and having to relearn every thing including typing? so yes when you do this? you can than tell me all about what it does or doesn't take to be 31Bravo thank you very much lol..and as stated even when I came to A.T.S I didn't always have these beliefs..

Click here for more information.