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: 25
64
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
...having had to pick up the body parts, scrape up the minced bone and flesh, hose down the streets and roadways...

...having had to work in ERs and assist with patching up people...or offer comfort to the many who have watched their loved ones die...


STUPIDEST IDEA EVER




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
As long as no one else is on the road, he is not endangering anyone.


I hate this thought process (I know you used it as an example not fully cited here so this is not directed at you personally) because it seems to be an argument to allow people to drive under the influence because they cant hurt anyone, except themselves.....

I work overnights, along with many other officers in my city, and we are on the road in the middle of the night, so are EMS, Fire, and many other people who work overnight, from delivery to over the road truck drivers, to etc etc etc.

All it takes is one wrong turn, one drift over the center line, one drift over the fog line, or someone talking a late night walk on the sidewalk.

The argument made is he is endangering no one but himself, however it only takes a fraction of a second for disaster to occur. The fact is he is endangering everyone else on the road.

The following youtube link was made by a member of the Springfield MO Police department, and while some of the stats are older, its just as relevant today as it was a few years ago.


edit on 18-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
If bars are legal then so should drunk driving. Now if that drunk hurts someone or damages personal property then by all means prosecute them. But basically our government is saying "Ya go ahead, have a good time at the bar we'll only arrest a few of you that drive home later as to not cause a mass riot." Anyone that drives to a bar most likely will drink and drive home later. So one day I guess they'll have to round up all the "law breakers" leaving the bar and load em up onto FEMA buses so it's fair for everyone!
edit on 18-12-2010 by chuckMFd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckMFd
If bars are legal then so should drunk driving. Now if that drunk hurts someone or damages personal property then by all means prosecute them. But basically our government is saying "Ya go ahead, have a good time at the bar we'll only arrest a few of you that drive home later as to not cause a mass riot." Anyone that drives to a bar most likely will drink and drive home later. So one day I guess they'll have to round up all the "law breakers" leaving the bar and load em up onto FEMA buses so it's fair for everyone!
edit on 18-12-2010 by chuckMFd because: (no reason given)


Uhm.. yeah.. worst argument I have seen. Most states require any business with a liquor license to be held responsible for selling alcohol to anyone who appears to be intoxictated. Bars / Resteraunts especially can be fined and in some states charged as an accesory if they continued to sell to someone who is visibly intoxicated, who then drives and kills / injures someone.

Going back to previous arguments, we want the Government out of our lives. That means it comes back to personal responsibility. I dont even agree with the business being held accountible, as I think it goes to far.

Blaming someone else because you decided to get drunk, then drive, then get caught is BS. Its like arguing the store who sold a gun and ammunition should be held accountible for murder,

Personal responsibility.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment
reply to post by xEphon
 


BS times 1000. It is called vehicular manslaughter. It is called vehicular manslaughter. It is called vehicular manslaughter. Don't pull something out of the back door without having something, anything, even just a thought, backing it up.


BS times 1000 back at you. It may be vehicular manslaughter but since drunk driving is legal you can't use the person's sobriety as a cause of accident.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckMFd
If bars are legal then so should drunk driving. Now if that drunk hurts someone or damages personal property then by all means prosecute them. But basically our government is saying "Ya go ahead, have a good time at the bar we'll only arrest a few of you that drive home later as to not cause a mass riot." Anyone that drives to a bar most likely will drink and drive home later. So one day I guess they'll have to round up all the "law breakers" leaving the bar and load em up onto FEMA buses so it's fair for everyone!
edit on 18-12-2010 by chuckMFd because: (no reason given)


By your logic the government is forcing people to drive to the bar, drink (and get drunk or at least drink above .08), then drive home intoxicated.

I have never been forced to drive home from the bar before, nor do I see any advertisements telling me to do so.

I think you need to realize that it is up to us independently to make sure we do not drive intoxicated, or have a system setup (a personal system) to keep us from driving intoxicated in the first place. Have a friend hold your keys, have a designated driver that you can trust, use public transportation etc...

These days I'm always in the city, and when I'm in the city I either walk or take the subway. As long as you don't run out in front of cars, cause a large commotion etc. then you will be fine walking.

Also, I believe it's illegal for a cop to sit in a bar parking lot (correct me if I'm wrong, although it may vary state to state), and I honestly think shipping people off to FEMA camps for drinking and leaving the bar is a bit... ridiculous?

I think we could handle the drinking and driving issue a lot better by implementing a system that prevents people from driving their car while intoxicated from alcohol. It's easy enough to get around the systems put into cars which you must blow into before the car starts, but creating a system which every bar must abide by would be much more practical.

Maybe you hand your keys in when you get to the bar, and if you plan on driving home you better not drink above the legal driving limit otherwise your keys stay at the bar and your car stays in the parking lot. Obviously this has some holes in it, but I'm speaking generally here, this sort of system would be much better than the current one. But why wont the system change?

$$$
edit on 12/18/2010 by highlyoriginal because: changed $$$ size



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


BS times 1 million back at you and no take backs.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


uhmmm...... no

You know i can understand you being responsible and sobering for like an hour or so and then drive home.

but just downing booze and driving. hell no.

it's not about the drunk driver. it's about the kid he kills when he slams into them at a red light while drunk.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I haven't read all 25 pages so ... I think the point the OP is making is that you can't Leglsate Stupidity out of people. You can only punish their actions.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Well when you know people who've lost friends because of drunk drivers you might think different



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Has anyone pointed out that "drunk driving" is a misnomer?..

DUI = Driving Under the Influence.. "drunk" is alcohol intoxication to the point one is unable to care for his/her safety or the safety of others... which is not the same as being under the "influence" of an alcoholic beverage.

The problem with DUI laws is that the govt (in Ca for example) decides adults with a BAC (blood alcohol content) of at least .08% are "under the influence".. which doesn't necessarily mean they're "impaired". Some corn fed thick neck beer addict dude can have 2 or 3 diet beers after stuffing himself at happy hour, bud lite etc, and traverse the roadways safer than a sleep deprived sober person, or diminished capacity elderly driver .. yet thick neck will get arrested at a DUI check point while the more dangerous sleepy-head / old fogy go DFR (down the f'n road).

Then there's the 100lb waif chick who has 3 bud lites with an open "caloric valve" (empty stomach) who at .08 IS impaired..

Everyone is different & alcohol affects people in different ways.. but the govt considers every adult, impaired or not, "under the influence" at .08% BAC and has leveraged that into a cash cow & justification to erode ALL of our rights.

On Fri/Sat nights where I worked, I'd say 7 out of 10 traffic stops after midnight the driver "HBD" (Had been drinking).. probably most would blow .08, many were unlicensed.. but arresting every single potential .08 / unlicensed driver wasn't practical, both considered weak misd pinch, a "low blow"... truly impaired 0.1+ too sloshed to stand up straight were good hooks.

This is one reason DUI checkpoints exist that local cities won't ever admit to, heavy field activity and sheer volume of HBD ghettos drivers necessitated letting the small fish go.. which to municipal bean counters equals lost revenue (impounds, fines), and dept brass, even POAs, see as lost opportunity to generate "stats" used to justify budget increases.

If a DUI checkpoint yields, say, $30k.. cops fat OT checks are covered and the city general fund gets a nice bump..



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Someone who has twice the legal BAC can be a very conscientious and safe driver.


No, they can not. They think they can, but what they think is irrelevant. The physiological effects of alcohol or drugs are uncontrollable. The intoxicated driver may be thinking "I am going to drive more carefully and pay closer attention to my surroundings" (Actually, thereby acknowledging he/she should not be behind the wheel in the first place). However, the fact is that he/she has no control over the diminished depth perception, the diminished reaction time, the lack of ability to focus on more than one task at a time, etc. All skills required to safely operate a vehicle upon a public road.


They could also have a very high tolerance.


From experience, I believe this to be a completely false premise. One person may well have a lower tolerance for alcohol/drugs, but the physiological effects are on a fixed scale, not allowing the human body to develop a significantly "higher" tolerance. In other words, though one person may become impaired after one drink, another after two drinks; everyone will become impaired after 3 drinks in an hour.


Drinking and driving is not illegal.


Yes, it is.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 





Originally posted by BillfromCovina Someone who has twice the legal BAC can be a very conscientious and safe driver.


well i guess if they're a hardcore alcoholic its possible, lol. i can't believe this thread has gone this long.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Drink drivers should be beaten with rubber hoses, then locked up with a sign saying "NONCE" around their necks.

This arrogant attitude that "I become a better driver after a couple of drinks" and all other such nonsense also has to be punished.

Drink drivers wreck lives.

I would happily slap them silly - in fact, I'd happily kneecap a drink driver.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Has anyone mentioned the fact that roads are public property?
I don't like how people think the road belongs to them.
The safety of the majority is more important than the convenience of a few drunks.

If you were in charge I am sure there would be no stop signs or speed limits.

I am for one glad to have some laws to protect me from individuals with your point of view.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
How about we have a alcohol driving test. if you can drive fine with a .10 then that be your legal limit not this .08 # where 2 beers gets you a DUI. I don't know I am against drunk driving, but 2 beers and because they smell the beer gets you a DUI is utter bullspit. This is what happened to me and I was being safe. I had 2 beers then stopped. blew a .085 my blood test was a .081



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I can only imagine the hell I would cause driving drunk..

I had too much to drink at a party once.. and had wanted to drive home. Fortunately, I wasn't allowed to. Because sitting in the car that night all I could think about is how fun it would be to push the car to it's limits, because "there was no one on the free way."

I probably would have had a great time driving.. But would have probably killed someone. Glad I didn't drive.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Three ways to fail a drunk test.l Yeah, these guys are sober enough to drive all right:




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


At least the first officer was nice enough to let the guy walk an ACTUAL LINE. Every roadside I've ever had to take involved lines that were very much imaginary.
Another roadside was on an uneven surface.

Roadside tests are DESIGNED to be too difficult even for a sober person to pass perfectly. Every piggy I ever confronted about this just said "No they aren't...." and looks away, something like "O noes, he figuredz it outss!!!11"
They aren't the only ones who can see the "tells" when someone tries to BS.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


lol thats all I have to say. yea thats way to drunk to be driving but there is a difference between a guy like me who wasn't in any way shape or form impaired and these people. The officer even recommended a wrecklace driving, but the judge didn't let me have it and this was my 1 and only time getting a dui.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join