Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hmm...wow. I gotta say this one is making me think. So, having had two beers or glasses of wine eating dinner out, and someone hits me, and I have to blow...hmm. Need to think on this. Interesting thread.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes. Maybe when police officers see someone swerving around the road in the middle of the night and nearly hitting people they should just give them a ticket for unsafe driving and send the on their way.

Because they haven't hurt anyone yet!

Have you examined the idea of people that were stopped from driving because they were under the influence?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I guess I am alright with that.....Legalize drunk driving.

As long as it's legal for me to stop anyone who is driving dangerously and put a bullet in their forehead.

It wouldn't be long before everyone who isn't mature enough to control their drinking wouldn't be a problem anymore.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I know, no one-liners. But if I actually wrote how I feel, about this post, I'd be banned



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




So lets say a suicide bomber tries to blow up a building and no one dies. Then its ok since no one was hurt thats not a crime.. Brilliant logic, no one got hurt no one will get hurt. That's how people die.


property damage is a crime.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


As much as I strongly disagree with his view on this matter, you have to admit that he brings up some very good points about the ineffectiveness of dui laws. If anything, his "nonsensical" and "criminal" post can be used to further an intellectual debate regarding how we, as society, should be dealing with those who choose to endanger others by driving while intoxicated. I kindly disagree with you, the OP should not be banned from ATS, as that would be a foolish attempt at demeaning free speech.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

But you don't go to jail for it and boom there goes the terrorist AGAIN and kills people. Had they been arrested and in jail people could have been saved.
edit on 17-12-2010 by Xiamara because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. Kraken

Originally posted by mnemeth1
...Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong...


So by this logic me selling meth to elementary students should be perfectly legal, right? I'm not damaging their property or hurting them, it's their choice of what to do with the drugs, so It's their action that brings the harm. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your statement.


Laws that protect kids specifically from the sale of narcotics are a grey area since there is debate over what age constitutes the ability to consent.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamara
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




So lets say a suicide bomber tries to blow up a building and no one dies. Then its ok since no one was hurt thats not a crime.. Brilliant logic, no one got hurt no one will get hurt. That's how people die.


that is stupid the guys is talking about if nothing is damaged or no one is killed..their talking about pre-crime and the fact that the law does not work and never has. but I think the law should be lifted and people allowed to drink and drive less people in the world is a good thing.. I think we should award a point system and award money to the drunk driver for hitting people with out damaging any thing important..



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwdogg1982
reply to post by RedBird
 


As much as I strongly disagree with his view on this matter, you have to admit that he brings up some very good points about the ineffectiveness of dui laws. If anything, his "nonsensical" and "criminal" post can be used to further an intellectual debate regarding how we, as society, should be dealing with those who choose to endanger others by driving while intoxicated. I kindly disagree with you, the OP should not be banned from ATS, as that would be a foolish attempt at demeaning free speech.


Laws can ONLY PUNISH - never prevent.

Preventative laws are always victimless in nature and are almost always ineffective at the goals they seek to accomplish.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
some people endanger life reguardless of toxicity (great album) in their inability to drive but they pass their test



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwdogg1982
You know, alot of times I look at certain laws and think "Why? Why is this even a law, it has no true purpose other than to con people out of their money." Drunk driving laws are not one of them. Yeah, I agree that they do cost alot of money, but that is money well spent in my opinion. Have you ever seen, or heaven forbid, ridden with, or even worse, been a drunk driver? It may very well be the absolute dumbest thing that anyone could possibly do, let alone one of the most dangerous. Sure, we should look at other ways to reduce the numbers of drunk driving, but looking at those numbers...do you really want all those people driving around you drunk? I sure as heck don't. One solution I have always thought was a good idea...maybe it isn't but I think it is...have mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles, and require a pass before the vehicle will start.


This makes the assumption that DUI laws actually prevent a large number of people from driving drunk.

They do not.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HelionPrime
 


The OP is no left-winger. The left does not want him. He is quoting Lew Rockwell, who is also not a left-winger.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How do you know DUI laws do not stop a large people from drinking and driving?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I cannot say that I agree with you that making D&D legal would be a good idea, as I do think that it acts as a small deterant for driving while drunk.

Laws surrounding alcohol are strange to me. Alcohol is legal. The state says, go ahead, feel free to drink. But make sure that you make sound decisions while under the influence of this legal drug that will vastly decrease your ability to make sound decisions.

I have some sympathy for people who make a mistake while drinking because, almost everyone who has consumed alcohol, has at one time probably drank too much. Sometimes people drink too much and make a stupid choice.

Almost all sober people will say, "Drinking and driving is dumb and I would never do it". But once people start drinking, they all of a sudden think its ok, or that they are fine to drive. This is the danger of alcohol, it hurts your ability to make a responsible decision that while sober would be a no-brainer.

I can agree to disagree with you on legalizing D&D but I see your points about attempting to prevent crime.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree, the laws do not prevent anyone from driving drunk. However, with the laws in place (I can't believe I'm about to stick up for law enforcement here, but this is one of their high points) it sets a precedent to allow those who are caught in the act of doing it to be taken off of the roads.

Now, to be realistic, the cops can never catch everyone who is driving drunk. Nor should they realistically...some people may be just above the legal limit and still causing no harm. Statistically, however, the chances of an incident occurring on the roads when someone is over the legal limits is much higher. Therefore, it is something that must be deterred.

My question to you would be then, how would you go about preventing people from driving drunk if imposing laws against it is the wrong idea? One of my ideas, though far from perfect, is to implement a breathalyzer system in ALL vehicles, similar to the ones that repeat offenders of DUI are required to have in their cars. What are your ideas?
edit on 17-12-2010 by nwdogg1982 because: Paragraph breaks
edit on 17-12-2010 by nwdogg1982 because: paragraph breaks



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How do you know DUI laws do not stop a large people from drinking and driving?


Because I can look at the marginal statistics posted in dozens of economics journals.

While DUI laws do reduce fatalities, the number reduced in proportion to the costs incurred by the general public is minuscule.

fathersmanifesto.net...
Outlawing women drivers would save 11 times as many lives than if MADD's campaign could be 100% successful.

DUI laws put more Americans in prison than Japan has in prison for all crimes combined.

The most liberal interpretation of NHTSA data is that DUI laws save 400 lives per year, a cost per life saved of $30.5 million, compared to cancer research which is less than $200 per life lost to cancer.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
effin retarded


Welcome to OPs fantasy world.

Meanwhile, laugh at these people:


I will take a freaking nazi nightmare over the "utopia" you so desire.

Full disclosure: My close friend and her unborn baby died from a drunk as she was simply trying to get home. dude, if you stood in front of me talking this trash...people would be pulling me off...and they better be strong, because anything short of full strength to tear me off of you would simply not work.

incidently, I forgive the driver..he is crushed and his life forever changed. he certainly is not demanding drunk driving not be a crime...someone like you...I think we both would team up to put you back into proper thinking.
edit on 17-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: grrrrrr



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thanks for spoiling my otherwise ordinary evening mnemeth1. I'm EXTREMELY upset by your 'political' attitude to this serious subject.
Now all I can think about is my friends mother washing away her daughters brain matter from a parking lot after the police had left. I'm really sorry, but this thread offends me so intensely that I have to flag it for deletion.





top topics
 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join