Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by Xcathdra


Yeah, hence my complete statement...

As long as no one else is on the road, he is not endangering anyone.But, that is never the case

Originally posted by LongSeptember
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.

Sounds like you might have an issue with drinking and driving. "Every roadside you've had to take"??? I've never had to take one, ever, in 45 years of driving. How many DUIs have you gotten so far? Just curious if you'd like to share.
No biggee if you don't.

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.

I see. So they are designed to make you fall onto your head, bump into doors, and fall on the floor, bash your head into the wall, pee on the cop, etc. So a normal sober person should be expected to show the same behavior since this design of the tests promotes it.

Easy enough.... First offense lose your license.... for ever.....
Second offense jail 10 years.
Third offense, life in prison, no parole.
Could be worse.....
There are countries out there with a death sentence for driving drunk.....

Originally posted by schuyler
I see. So they are designed to make you fall onto your head, bump into doors, and fall on the floor, bash your head into the wall, pee on the cop, etc. So a normal sober person should be expected to show the same behavior since this design of the tests promotes it.

I really had to fight the urge to address that ridiculous statement. But, I'm glad you did. I don't think I could have been as tactful as you were.

Yeah, the sloped roadsides and shoulders have nothing to do with shedding water, creating a longer lasting surface and avoiding a dangerous sheer drop-off.

Tailgating too close to a driver on the highway is a worse crime.It takes 3 car lengths for every 10 miles an hour your are driving to stop your car.I see drivers going 70 miles an hour driving one car length behind others drivers every day.That is an intentional act and complete disregard for somebodys life.I would prefer to drive with all drunk drivers rather than those aggressive creeps anytime.

reply to post by mnemeth1


While I agree with your post, you have to understand that people have been "brainwashed" into thinking Driving while intoxicated is the most evil thing you can do, equally as bad as murder, even if you drive perfectly fine while drunk. The propaganda against DUIs are insane, even though if you think about it logically the government has no right to arrest you for a DUI. Too bad propaganda is done through emotion, and twisting of facts..That's why people will respond so emotionally whenever anyone says our DUI laws are unjust.

reply to post by Ghost374

From personal experience, you have to say the limit has to be raised, rather than eliminated all together. That's the only way to get the brainwashed masses to listen to you. Some of them still won't listen to you anyways.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by xEphon

 

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

Argh you win!

The OP's argument and that of his supporters are not only flawed, but stupid. Your treating drunk driving like its premeditated murder. You obviously can't punish a would-be murderer until they actually kill someone. The OP thinks the same for drunk driving, don't punish until someone gets hurt.

Killing while drunk driving and premeditated murder are not the same. The former is by far much more preventable. Punish a drunk driver after he/she causes a death or damage to property? What good does that do?

Deaths from drunk driving are lives lost through carelessness, lives trifled away like spare change, deaths that could have been easily avoided.

Even if these DUI laws have saved only one life, just a single life. It was worth it, it did its job.

reply to post by DrChuck

I'm sorry but your logic is flawed and the OP is correct.

Originally posted by Ghost374
reply to post by DrChuck

 

I'm sorry but your logic is flawed and the OP is correct.

Well, I tried.

Guys & gals, the fallacy of OP's logic which is used not only in this thread but numerous times in previous posts/threads, is that it's not about mere simple logic. The world I live in is not such a cold place, it's full of vibrancy, depth, and passion.

OP's logic lacks the perfection of heart. It points you down a mindless path of insanity, and denies the possibility of a human soul all the way through. This is easily seen in the thread when mnemth1 set's a price in $$$ above an individuals life.



What is it that's missing which would otherwise make the reasoning sound? The highest form of logic we can begin to grasp at. That's intuition. OP lacks intuition. You're just not going to see all the points reaching together at once without heart. What a sad, sad word he must live in.

What most people do not know is this:
In IL the arresting city or community now receives the fine and money set forth by them from the "DUI" given to the individual. This makes an easy money making scheme setup, in the NW suburbs of Chicago creates a huge fund annually.

reply to post by Ghost374


Yeah, if they are going to have a limit, then that limit should be at a point where most people are totally destroyed, like a 1.5 or higher.

They should have the limit set to a point where there can be no doubt just by talking and looking at the guy that he is totally smashed.

I could deal with that.

This .8 though is totally ridiculous. People should only be charged with assault if they are recklessly endangering a specific person.

Make sure yall listen to ATS Live on rewind (if you missed it t'night)....this thread and the topic was discussed at length by staff!

reply to post by xEphon


oh my god. this may be the one time ever anybody has conceded defeat on ats. HEY EVERYONE I FOUND THE MAGIC WORDS!!!

Originally posted by Ghost374
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

While I agree with your post, you have to understand that people have been "brainwashed" into thinking Driving while intoxicated is the most evil thing you can do, equally as bad as murder, even if you drive perfectly fine while drunk. The propaganda against DUIs are insane, even though if you think about it logically the government has no right to arrest you for a DUI. Too bad propaganda is done through emotion, and twisting of facts..That's why people will respond so emotionally whenever anyone says our DUI laws are unjust.

Logically, the government has every right to stop you from possibly violating the rights of another human being by ending their life because you think you're a great driver after 5 shots of vodka (which is impossible, proven by scientists). Maybe if DUI deaths didn't make up the majority of auto-related deaths every year, I would agree with you, but instead, it looks like you just like to condone murder, because god forbid we take away your freedom to put someone's life in danger.

I think if you are drunk ,you should be provided with a free ride paid for by our tax money.I mean your limo should arrive quickly.It should take you wherever you want to go in the united states.It should be fully stocked with irish whiskey and guinness,cold heineken too,and plenty of chilled kettle one vodka.It should have plenty of music options,and women available upon request.How about putting some tax money to use where a man can enjoy it,for gods sake!

reply to post by mnemeth1


I get what your saying.

But there are just some things you can't let people decide for themselves.

Deciding how much alcohol is "OK" for you to consume and then drive, is one of them.

~Keeper

reply to post by mnemeth1


Awww mate! No! It's just wrong.

I don't have a problem with people putting whatever they like into their bodies, but a car is a weapon and anybody who's under the influence of any perception-altering drug shouldn't put themselves in charge of a car.

I've done it and it's really really not a good plan. I have loads of friends who've done it both successfully and unsuccessfully - one ended with a crash outside a police station, another friend rolled his car and my ex-girlfriend broke her back. Thankfully she's ok now but it was an horrific and unnecessary accident.

Alcohol is for socialising and enjoying yourself. Sooooo many people die & are seriously injured as a result of drunk driving... how can any of you lot defend it? It's not a question of choice or even government control, it's a social responsibility issue. I have one rule - DO NO HARM! Drinking and driving vastly increases your risk of doing harm to a fellow human so it's inexcusable in my mind.

I kind of see your point regarding the punishments but the costs to those who commit the crime is a completely separate issue ($15k?!!?!? shocking stuff). It shouldn't result in a financial penalty, a temporary driving ban & assault/manslaughter charge if there's an injury to someone seems appropriate in my mind.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but legalising drink driving strikes me as madness. I have concerns about the ever increasing powers western states (particularly the US & UK) have over their populations, but drink driving is definitely something that should be policed.

Much love ATS.

/eightfold.