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.
Originally posted by Irish Matador
I am shocked at some of the comments left on this thread.
Reaper you are a troll and all you show is your lack of respect for your fellow people and the lack of love in your life. SAD.
People who drink and drive are selfish and stupid. If they want to kill or injure themselves through their diminished reaction times and speed then that its their choice. Its the innocent people who are murdered because of it that infuriates me.
People who DUI should pay the consequences for doing so. They know the rules. I feel no pity for them.
Maybe we should take time to remember at this time of year all the families that have lost a loved one through drink drivers and the seat that will be empty at the christmas table.
Originally posted by 22Eleven
reply to post by Reaper2137
POST REMOVED BY STAFF
Originally posted by SaturnFX
effin retarded
Originally posted by mark-in-dallas
I am not against drunk driving laws, because inebriation does decrease motor skills and judgment. But, I am against an arbitrary blood/alcohol level of .08 or .10, or any other level as a measurement of what is considered drunk.
For me I believe that consuming 2 bottles of beer within an hour would raise my blood/alcohol level above .08. But, at 2 beers I don't even feel the slightest of effects from the alcohol.
My mother would have been quite drunk after 1 glass of wine, but her blood/alcohol level would be well below the legal limit.
People have different tolerance levels, and setting an arbitrary limit as to what's acceptable is not the right way to go about policing drunk driving.
My resolution would be to put suspected drunk drivers in a driving simulator that challenged their motor skills and judgment. And unlike a number of the field sobriety tests in place, the simulator course should be one that a vast majority of non inebrieted people could pass.
a couple of congressmen studied traffic accident records 15 years back or so, and what they found was that drunk drivers did cause accidents, but the rate didn't really escalate by much until the drivers blood/alcohol levels rose above .15, and even then it wasn't a large increase. Once they reached .20 though, the rate of accidents caused by drunk drivers increased significantly. They proposed raising the blood/alcohol limit, and the fines and penalties drunk driving convictions carried, but got nowhere with it.
Originally posted by filosophia
I totally agree, and the point at issue here is if you are drunk and driving your car perfectly fine, the only "crime" you committed was ingesting a liquid, so in other words for all the posters who are talking about their friend who was killed, they are okay with the government controlling what liquids you drink? Oh, and by the way, I too had a friend that was killed, so maimed in fact that they were not allowed to open the coffin. Sound familiar? Yeah it was military death, from the Iraq war, caused by the drunken president Bush masquerading as a war president, but oh, let's lock up people for having a few drinks.
Originally posted by filosophia
And for the poster that said, "so you're okay with selling meth to school children" what a tangent, but I have a question for you: does the law prevent people from selling drugs to school children? So in other words because of the government no drugs are sold to school children? No, in fact the government can not prevent all crimes. Sure, maybe innocent people will be saved if they have laws against discharging firearms, or not drunk driving, or not lifting weights (hey maybe you're so strong you accidentally kill someone with your elbow, think it's hard to believe? Ever hear of being labeled a "lethal weapon?" you can get a murder charge against you if you get in a fight, protecting the innocent, in other words the government thinks it can do anything but really it can do nothing). And that's just the point, you can't stop everything from happening.
Originally posted by filosophia
Instead we should focus on education, maybe if they taught people how to drive drunk there wouldn't be so many problems.
Originally posted by filosophia
Maybe if they taught school children how to take things in moderation, and not just simply telling them all drugs will kill you (heroin: kill you, coc aine: it'll kill you, marijuana: you bet it'll kill you), it doesn't take long for a young adult to realize "hey, I smoked this, it didn't kill me, I wonder what else they said were lies." In short, people love government because of the sense of security it gives them, and that's fine, but inherently this security is just an illusion.