It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by baked
reply to post by mnemeth1

There are a lot of things in this country that are illegal that shouldn't be, but proposing that driving while intoxicated should be legal? For lack of a better word, is Rockwell retarded?

In 2008, 37,261 people were killed due to drunk driving. (Source) Plenty of legislation gets passed on just one victim of a crime gaining the attention of the law makers, but I really don't see how DWI can be grouped in with that. Not to mention the burden to the tax payers.

You are incorrect. You have stated the total number of taraffic fatalities for 2008. You seem to be suggesting that ALL fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. However, even the source you've quoted from clearly states that to be the total number of fatalities.

I will agree that the actual percentage of alcohol related fatalities is high, but still, non-alcohol related fatalities were nearly double that, and you really can't assume that all alcohol related fatalities were caused by the driver with the elevated blood/alcohol level.

And, here's the footnote for what they consider alcohol impaired:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

a blood/accohol level of .01 can be achieved from drinking a couple of sugar free soda's containing Sugar Alcohol.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by LongSeptember
reply to post by xtcsx

If operating a vehicle, in most states, you are now considered to have already given legal consent to allow a blood or breath test.
This opens the door to "If you are driving, you are considered to have given legal consent to vehicle search."
Which opens the door to "If you live in town, we have a right to search your house."

I agree with you there. That is absurd, and it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. It's sad that our bill of rights it completely worthless.
edit on 18-12-2010 by baked because: typo

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Easy to say until you lose a loved one to a drunk driver. To say it's OK to get behind the wheel impaired, would be the same as saying it's OK for some pilots to get drunk while flying because some can manage without a problem. The roads are used by everyone, and there's always lives at risk when someone is driving drunk, so saying it shouldn't be illegal is grossly irresponsible and ignorant.

As for the penalties, my best friend just got through a D.U.I. that robbed him for the past two years. Before then, he was always drinking and driving, because he didn't care. Now he never drinks and drive because of the consequences. While I believed the penalties were harsh and at times ridiculous, they are unfortunately necessary to discourage people from drinking and driving.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by mark-in-dallas

Your right. I had read the statistic wrong. Don't act like i'm trying to further some biased agenda. I merely read the data wrong.

Edit to add- The above sounded kind of douchy. Sorry about that.
edit on 18-12-2010 by baked because: disclaimer

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by mark-in-dallas
And then still more.....

I asked a cop about the possibility of a bicyclist with a revoked license,being pasted by a car and killed......
I asked if it would be "alcohol related",as I suspected it may be,knowing what a twisted quagmire of a mess the legal system is.....

The Cop said it would be considered alcohol related,even if the cyclist wasn't found to be drinking at all.

Just points out how the statistics are manipulated to influence the sheep to marginalize others JUST LIKE THEMSELVES!!!.

The Numbers Lie!.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:52 AM
I keep to myself allot on this site. Post a few things here and there. And try to stay respectful. This thread though makes me angry on levels I didn't know I could hit anymore. How damn stupid is it to think because a drunken driver does not cause a accident that it is ok to drive drunk!!! That is the most ridiculous load of CRAP I have ever heard in my life. My cousin's 2yr old daughter, sister, and friend were all killed by a drunken moron! And if he would have never been on the roads my family members would still be alive!!!! Honestly, drunk driving should have worse consequences than it already does. Dude, you have the right to your opinion. As do we all. I'm not one who can say this from not seeing it 1st hand. My brother had 4 DUI's before he was 20. And honestly, he should still be behind bars. So I have seen the worse of this and it is wrong. Keep the drunks off the damn roads. Plain and simple. Good Gods..............

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lew Rockwell slams the criminal State for criminalizing non-crimes.

What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s “Breathalyzer,” there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

There is no other crime more damaging to the middle class than that of drunk driving.

The costs incurred for a single DUI are enormous, no matter if you hurt someone by your actions or not. This 2006 article places the total cost of a DUI around 10,000 to 50,000 dollars. That is an enormous amount of money for someone making 50,000 dollars a year to cover. It may take half a decade or more for the average person to recoup the losses incurred.

This article places the number of annual DUIs in the US around 1,396,888. If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.

Is the public made more safe? Obviously the law does next to nothing to deter drunk driving. Just like drug laws and gun laws, DUI laws are another form of “pre-crime.” They are laws that attempt to prevent actual crime (hurting someone) from occurring.

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

The State does far more damage to the public through the outlawing of literally harmless actions than it prevents in potential damages and lives lost. We must consider that the money taken from a DUI offender may have been used to purchase medication, healthcare, or any other number of life saving or extending goods or services.

When calculating how effective DUI laws actually are, one must consider ONLY THE MARGINAL DECREASE in drunk driving that occurs by having the law in place – this number is relatively small. Most people who drive drunk think they are OK to drive, thus the law itself does nothing to deter them from driving at the time they make the decision to get behind the wheel.

The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.

Take responsibility for their ac tions?
I am all for it, but make sure that the punishment isn't just siome crappy fine or some jailtime.
If a drunk driver does take somebodies life a fine and som jailtime doesnt make things right.
If it were up to me drunkdrivers would be beaten to a pulp for their actions.
But it is not up to me, be happy about that.. I believe drinking and driving is one of the most irresponsible and selfish things you can do as a person. In my book you don't even qualify as a person anymore after that.
edit on 18-12-2010 by Subjective1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Jason Paul
Gee,who do you pick on when it was just an accident,a person who really had no reason to be behind the wheel,drinking or not?.

Who do you pick on then?.

Americans just love bigotry,they don't even realize it 90% of the time when they are being that way.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:59 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes. Lets tell people that it's A-Ok to endanger someone elses life..

That's a great idea.

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.

I couldn't decide if i should laugh at your ignorance or simply feel sorry for you - so i did both.

So your definition of a "Crime being committed" is contingent on "someone getting hurt", huh?

So If i were to break into your house and use your restroom while holding you prisoner at gun point...I shouldn't go to jail?

You didnt get hurt. You COULD HAVE gotten hurt, but you didn't get hurt.

So no harm no crime, huh?

Some of you people absolutely amaze me.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by ALOTOFBS

There is already plenty of information about drinking and driving. Everyone knows it is dangerous because judgement is impaired. Only foolish and incredibly selfish people would continue to drink and drive. And for them, we need laws against it.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Reaper2137
so you got a dui and now you really learned your lesson? I don't think so your a good little sheep, who tows the party line.. that is until you get of probation lol.. I really don't see a problem with drinking and driving.. no one important is hurt. furthermore.. when you prove to me that a human is more important than any other animal that gets ran over.. I might change my mind.. until then I think red asphalt was a great movie hella funny

So whos the sheep. The guy who mindlessly laughs at death, or the guy who grows into adulthood?
You're the sheep. You don't think for yourself. You laugh like a child with your friends because you're afraid to speak up about what's wrong. You feel it's your teenage duty to rebel against anything or dare be caught "toeing the party line".

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM

Originally posted by baked
Your right. I had read the statistic wrong. Don't act like i'm trying to further some biased agenda. I merely read the data wrong.

Thanks for responding. I'll be the first to agree that true drunken drivers need to suffer serious consecuences, but so many statistics are distorted and skewed to make the problem appear greater than it is. And, the laws that we have in place are not so much about lessening the problem than about generating revenue.

How is it that somone who has never been in an accident can lose their license for driving while having a blood/alcohol level of .08, but people that may not drink and drive but have caused multiple accidents are still on the road?

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:09 AM
Why does everybody think the alternative is to legalize it?
God just cut out the bs of the system with regards to this issue, automatically take away people's licenses for 3-5 years, fine them a thousand bucks, and let them get on with their damn lives. Crack down on the repeat offenders and such but leave the first timers some slack. I see people that drive around drunk a lot, and I personally think that they get away with it for a while before they ever get into an accident or get caught.

Some people have gotten away with it their whole lives. They don't really prevent anything, at all. People still take their regular medications and drive and if the side effects hit they deal with it because they cannot be late for work, or whatever selfish reasons people have because they are being worked like mules by corporate america. Heck lots of people smoke weed in their cars. Personally I think it's not up to government to shape people up, but to shape the technology so that it works more safely with what we know the reality is in society.

The reality is, people will always drive around intoxicated. Sometimes people will have heart attacks and seizures while they are driving. At what point do we begin to rob people of their means of transportation. If they want to prevent this, they should be sinking money into having technology developed that will allow automation of driving so that you can get in and drive as drunk as you want (because a computer will assume control if you aren't maintaining control and are driving erratically). This to me is ideal. You can't tell me that you can't replace a 20 billion dollar per year industry, with even 2 billion dollars for researching this fix and developing it; then spend the remaining 18 billion on subsidizing it into all new cars. This is just a single year worth of wasted tax dollars that goes into this considering your calculation of 20 billion per year from america is just what the guilty end up paying (and $15,000 is really cheap, definitely low balling it there).

While I don't agree with advocating drunk driving, I can see at this point that the system is doing the wrong thing for a reason, I am trying to think what the system would have to gain out of all of this..... But I guess even if it is to make the bottom line person more poor and to filter money into the elites it would be good enough. Lawyers are mostly elites are they not? Them and their politician friends, and corporate cronies, and lobbyist buddies.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by mark-in-dallas

The .08 limit is ridiculous. People that are having a couple of drinks socially should not be arrested for a DUI. With a low limit like that, it happens, and I am assuming it happens quite a bit. You're right. The laws in place now are just cash cows. It's just like the rest of the legislation we see every day. I have never seen so much greed, than with the last 10 years of our government.

Your last question, I don't have an answer for. I have to say, you have a very good point there. I'll think about it and get back to you....hopefully.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

The more I've thought about your original arguments, I have come to realize something. I was mistaken, earlier, in calling attention to your low valuation of a human life. I called you out on saying it was not worth $2 million dollars to save a life.

However, what you have actually said is that a human life is not worth $15,000.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Once again you show me that you are taking this anti-government sentiment too far. First it was with drugs saying that a person has no right to tell his or her own child that he or she cannot snort coc aine. Now it is this, no one person has the right to keep people from driving a 2-ton machine whilst having impaired judgement and motor skills due to alcohol. I know you see no problem here, but that doesn't there isn't a problem. You hate the government so much that you say to hell with anything that actually helps the greater good, let's just wait until after someone kills someone while on meth or drives into someone and paralyzes them from the neck down because they couldn't take a taxi or call for a ride home, yet they come out unscathed.

The penalties are in place to make people NOT want to drink a drive, which is a good thing. Would you condone an individual to drink and brandish a firearm? God, I hope not. Oh, but that is infringing on their 2nd Amendment right... right? No, it's not. There is a fine line between rightfully protesting the wrongdoings of the government and just being ridiculous. Somewhere along the line you crossed it.

I rue the day that you drive home after a party and your wish has been granted where the only penalty for drunk driving comes AFTER damage has been done, damage that may not be repaired.

I lost a friend to drunk driving. She was 16. They had to saw through the wreckage to get to her, and when they got to her they could barely recognize her. The drunk driver, what happened to him? He had a scratch on his arm and cheek. I don't know how his sentence was dealt out, but I know it was probably life in prison. So two lives are gone from this world and countless others are forever broken, and why? Because someone had to drive home drunk.

He probably thought he was okay to drive, but obviously he was not. Some things are best to prevent from happening, drunk driving is one of them. It isn't like a terrorist on a plane. Those people can be stopped a million times easier than a drunk driver can, because that drunk driver is alone in his vehicle...too bad he isn't alone on the road.

R.I.P. Zoey (1992-2008)

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by SyphonX

This is absolutely the best argument I have seen on this thread. This explains the idea in better detail. You have to take your emotions out of this topic and look for the stats that support the OPs claim.

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by kalisdad
no, because there are laws about assault with a deadly weapon that apply in this situation

regardless of the trigger being pulled, the threat of a firearm being discharged at you is still assault

Thank you. Though you will refuse to acknowledge it, you have just provided justification for DWI/DUI laws.

A charge of DWI is for being a threat to other innocent drivers and/or pedestrians., which is similar to a charge of "Assault by Threat".

If, in the unfortunate event an intoxicated driver is not stopped from being a threat, he actually causes harm to another person, the charge becomes "Intoxication Assault" or "Intoxication Manslaughter". (At least in Texas those are the offense titles)

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:37 AM
I have personally made the difference between being too drunk to drive, or not, quite effectively.However not everyone has themselves under control when drunk.Thats not entirely their fault either. I mean alcohol, in a cultural way, should trade it's place with WEEED. Then,when high,most people would be too scared to sit behind the wheel,opposed to be too confident...They would be too comfy and lazy to even consider of running anyone over with a car and then waiting for the cops and all that hassle, opposed to drive aggressively without any care in the world about others on the road,and when disaster hit's,dangerous escapes from the scene. Everybody.... Awaken Your Minds and Change the World!!!! We don't need laws for Us, by Them We need consciousness and sense of wrong and right for Us,by Us.

edit on 18-12-2010 by iGodly because: signature missing

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:38 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Mathoryn
A buddy of mine had a 7 year old daughter that was literally splattered between a car and his house by some drunken idiot and all he walked away with was a huge headache.

ill make sure to pass this on to him

The DUI laws sound like they did a lot of good.

DUI laws are in place to deter people from driving while drinking. It's sad when people lose their lives because someone didn't abide with the law.

DUI penalties should be enforced on anyone who is caught behind the wheel while intoxicated. We can abolish DUI laws when it is mandatory for all vehicles to have in place a BAC monitoring system for the operator. All operators!

edit on 18/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in