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: 18
64
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
If we are allowed to legalize drunk driving then i propose we have the right to exact revenge on the offender who killed while intoxicated. One law should follow the other but that idea would only work in a world run by the law of honour.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

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.


In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

I am not a troll because this is what I think.. if you don't like it that's fine.. but its what I really feel.. I'm sorry that you guys don't like it..fine.. but to each their own.. but unlike the people in this thread I respect there thoughts on the matter.. and I have slightly swayed on my thinking on drunk drivers.. not really in the way you would think.. but you guys show that unless I tow the party line and suck up like the rest who have come into this thread for a pity party about who they have lost..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 22Eleven
reply to post by Reaper2137
 


POST REMOVED BY STAFF


once again you assume I care what you think? I'm not getting into my life with you.. just as you keep trying to shove your your b.s one me.. and your smelling of a poser.. from miles away? lol.. don't confuse my smell with your own! and I don't have to admit nothing.. because I already did.. if your going to sit there and not even take notice to what I type I said we as humans are all worthless so yes that would include you and me.. its called Comprehension lol..
edit on 18-12-2010 by Reaper2137 because: (no reason given)

edit on Sat Dec 18 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: POST REMOVED BY STAFF



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
effin retarded



I have no dog in this fight. But, I AM laughing at YOU - nice propganda video. Please cite ALL references that EVERY SINGLE wreck shown in that video is the result of alcohol. Thanks, in advance.

Not saying it isn't a problem (not saying it is), but this type of baseless presentation doesn't help matters.

edit on 12/18/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   


It is not OK to endanger someone else's life.

If they hurt someone, steep penalties should be applied.

However, if they don't hurt anyone, they haven't actually committed a crime.


Really? well by the time you prosecute the drunk driver it will be too late most people in drunk driving accidents die the really messed up part most of the people that get hit don't live yet the drunk driver in the incident is fine.
You are retarded to think that its not a crime. You better stay out of my state with those views because if I pull you over I would love to lose my job for accidentally shooting someone like you in the face!



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
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.

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. Instead we should focus on education, maybe if they taught people how to drive drunk there wouldn't be so many problems. 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.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   

SECOND MOD NOTE: ATTENTION!!!





Whether you agree with the topic or not, please be respectful of other members.
Please discuss the topic and not other members.


That means no belittling, off topic posts, casting aspersions on another's character, talking down to other members, harassing or ridiculing others.

Further such remarks can and will result in warnings and/or post removals.
Repeated breaches may also result in a temporary posting ban.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Posting Jokes, Ridiculing, Making Fun of Others in Threads...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

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.


arbitrary BAC laws also neglect the fact that there is a different in tolerance between a 100 pound person and a 300 pound person, especially if they already have a tolerance for alcohol. I've had friends who could drink insane amounts of alcohol and blow a .3 or higher, I don't think that's smart, but it's ridiculous to assume everyone drinks like a 100 pound girl.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


The point of the thread isn't saying driving while under the influence is okay; it's the punishments being dealt out to people who haven't actually caused any harm that are wrong. Instead of being arrested and being charged a ridiculously high fine, why can't the police just escort the person home. I know that sounds stupid, but I'm trying to say that there are better ways to prevent it than by ruining someone financially.
The fact that there is a limit to how much you can drink before considered too intoxicated to drive is crazy. Who decides this stuff? .01 under? You're safe. .001 over? You're screwed.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It should be against a moral law to drink and drive. If the offender never encounters another human being, I suppose it's his brains alone we have to worry about being splattered all over the road, But the second another innocent person enters the picture, that dumbass who thought getting tanked and driving around is committing attempted murder. That is a crime. Drinking at home and asking a sober driver to take you back to the liquor store to get more booze is being responsible. Since being drunk has already inhibited your ability to think, nothing less than attempted manslaughter charges should be filed in leu of drunk driving charges. So yes, OP, I agree with you that we should do away with DUI charges. Move right to attempted murder and see if that doesn't get some people to take a bit more control of their actions.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

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.


So much wrong in such a small space...

1) The government isn't controlling what liquids we drink. You are free to get so drunk that you die. Nobody will stop you. Really. Go to the liquor store, buy about 20 gallons of vodka, and party. Not a single person will prohibit you from doing this. Hell, if you're lucky the government might even figure out that you've poisoned yourself and send an ambulance.

You are free to drink whatever you want. You just can't drive drunk.

2) The whole "my friend died in war - drunk President - alcohol facist" thing. Cool story. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the topic. But cool story. My cousin died in a shoot out with the police. Or should I save that for the "Infants can't do heroin and the founding fathers would be so pissed about this travesty upon our freedoms" thread?


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.


So... Your argument is that since every single law cannot be utterly and infallibly enforced at all times, in all places, then we simply shouldn't bother with laws at all?

Have you actually stopped to thing this through or was it just fun to type?


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.


Thank you. For the first time EVER I am speechless. Teach people HOW to drive drunk? Really?


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.


I guess since this security is an illusion then the people kvetching here should all hush because obviously it should be a no brainer to drive drunk or high and NEVER get caught. Right? I mean laws don't work. Impaired people aren't really impaired, they're just untrained drunks? So party hard and enjoy, you've beat the entire system.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
yeah O.P is basic, just wants to switch what the law means and how it is enforced. It makes sense to me, but that's me I think that they use D.U.I as a catch all. That away they can make the max amount of money. Don't get me started on the check points that don't net many drunks lol..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
This will be my last post in this nonsensical thread. It is quite obvious the OP is one of those types of people who enjoys getting off on arguing for arguments sake. There is little foundation of logic in his argument (inspired by Lew Rockwell-Master of Mental Midgets) and his short barbed responses remind me of that worthless clear liquid that oozes out of the squeezable mustard. Still waiting for the good stuff to come out but it never arrives.

As a celebration of my last post, I am going to break my sobriety of 5 years and polish off that bottle of Jack Daniels I keep around for guests. Then I'm gonna swing by the OP's house and pick him up for a wild ride to the local MADD meeting. BTW, I don't obey speed limits and never wear seat belts.

OP, what time can you be ready?



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join