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: 27
64
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
What is the percentage of peoples lives destroyed by DUIs, especially under .15 BAC, the original limit, and the number of people killed by drivers under this limit? Those stats aren't available. Most DUI stats are completely cherry picked, and it is the numbers not posted that tell the real story.

Twice the number of injuries from automobile accidents were situations where people were under the influence of drugs and not alcohol in one study, but apparently since that study, this has not been looked at more closely. I wonder why?

I wouldn't doubt it if a decent study were done, they would find more fatalities involved prescription drugs and over the counter drugs than involved alcohol.

People are so eager to destroy other peoples lives, because they disagree with their life styles, don't care about the facts, that much is obvious, or finding real solutions.

We sacrifice not only lives but our rights as well by continuing with this current policy of punishment only, rather than developing policies that reduce the chances that someone will wind up driving under the influence. People would rather scapegoat drinkers, rather than doing more to eliminate the other groups that cause large numbers of fatalities.

Oh, but the real stat is that driving motor vehicles is the largest killer of people. How many of you are willing to give up driving to save lives?

webappa.cdc.gov...

In 2007 percentages of all deaths from motor vehicle traffic.

47.3% ages 5-9

56.6% ages 10-14

66.4% ages 15-24

45.7% ages 25-34

36.2% ages 35-44

The only number I could find of percentage of alcohol related MV traffic deaths for people under 20 is less than 20%. Chances are less than 10% for those under 15, yet MV traffic is by far the biggest killer for that group.

I'll bet everyone of you hypocrites (that means everyone ) has driven under the influence of some kind of drug that has impaired your abilities. By your own standards, we are all guilty.




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
There should be a smartcar developed.If you put the car on auto ride,you can kick back and relax with some tunes and a cold one and let the car drive you home by auto pilot.The car senses when to speed up and slow down,with a robot steering the car..You just get in and type in the destination and hit the depart button.The robot doubles as a personal masseuse and housecleaner.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zcflint05
 


No, alcohol related deaths make up less than a third of all fatalities, and sile direct cause is probably less than 10%. If you are drag racing after pounding a few beers, the drag racing part is the biggest part of the cause.

Alcohol is the scapegoat.

Motor vehicle traffic is the number one killer of young people.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by immortalcamel
 



*We have tried to made it safe for the rest of us who are not complete morons to drive down the roadways without fear of drunk drivers.*


No we haven't. Just the opposite, the PTB have done everything possible to increase the amount of time we drive, because that is good for their profits.

But hey, it's all good, right?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I agree with the OP that if no crime has been committed then no punishment should be handed out.

If person OR property is damaged (or killed) then a penalty should be set. I KNOW I can drive with 3 beers in my system. I also know the anymore than that then I start to lose the ability of my cognitive functions. If I have more than 3 beers, I will wait an hour per drink before driving. Thus preventing myself from being a danger. Now if I were to get pulled over, I may fail a breathalyzer, but I WILL pass the motor-function tests (walking the line, nose touches, ect...)

Everyone handles things differently. Why are we going to enforce a broad law that not everyone falls under? Because we, all people, are morons and allow others to tell us how to live.

I say legalize all drugs, allow people to drive under the influence, and stop forcing us to adhere to what you want. The idiots will die off, the incompetent will be punished, and the folks that do no harm will be able to live happy. Sure people will be hurt by drunk drivers and druggies, but then again are they not already? See the logic? If not, then you may want to take a class in argumentative reasoning. It helped me to see the fallacies in a lot of other people's logic and reasoning skills.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by brindle
 


i was waiting for someone to say this. i can't freakin' wait for that day.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcflint05
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.



It's the same story with every drunk/alcoholic.

Oh not me, I can drive fine after x amount of drinks.

No. They. Can't.

Reaction times are dramatically lowered after having just 1-2 drinks.

They already give driver's licenses to far too many people without the skills to operate a vehicle safely on the streets. Legalizing drunk driving is one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum in a while.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
This thread exemplifies just how brainwashed even "open minded" average ATSer has become. I Agee with the op completely. What about the libertarian concept "no victim no crime?"

Drunk driving laws are draconian, do nothing to eliminate drunk driving and are completely class warfare. For the rich $50k is a drop in the bucket. For the working stiff, it can be a death sentence cause many jobs have been lost due to the mark on a record.

I could spew on for hours but I have an idea called "The Drinking and Driving Show." I guaranty it wold go viral. Plus I have the ability to write, shoot and produce it. It could be a platform for political sanity.

Anybody interested in doing something to shove a boot up the asses of mothers against drunk driving and giving a black eye to TPTB, U2U me



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Awesome idea. I would assist, but have NO idea what the hell a U2U means? Nor do I think I would be able to actually be video-taped drunk-driving. BUT if its satire, and not actually drunk driving, then I could. I am attempting to get into a state job enforcing liquor regulations. (point of sale, not traffic b/s... I'll leave that to brainless drones)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zarp3333


Drunk driving laws are draconian, do nothing to eliminate drunk driving


You're wrong.

Deaths caused by drunk driving have been on a downward trend for the last few decades, coinciding with the increase in enforcement and awareness.

Knowing you could face a hefty fine, incarceration, and possible loss of license, is a deterrent.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
Sure people will be hurt by drunk drivers and druggies, but then again are they not already? See the logic?



No.

No I really don't see the *logic* in that.

People aren't just hurt...they are killed.
And not just nicely sweetly killed with dainty little Cherubs dancing around either.
So often they are slaughtered.


Have you actually seen...I mean actually been there and seen what can happen to a human body when its subjected to the extreme forces of a head-on or a t-bone?

Its not at all uncommon for the body to essentially explode. Yes.
Arms can and are torn from their sockets, feet severed from being slammed against the under side of dashboards or seats in front of them, heads to be decapitated from high sitting seat belts.
The rib cage can dislodge itself completely, pierce through the chest muscle and scatter the victims insides all over the outside.
Eyeballs pop out, brain matter becomes a mushy mess that leaks out through the ears...if the skull hasn't already been dashed apart in which case its now a thick pinky porridge globbed up in various places around the car and wider vicinity.

Add to that drink-driving *accidents* (sure as heck isn't an 'accident' if you get liquored up and drive) aren't all that fussy or in any way moralistic about who they take out.
So heaven forbid you ever get to experience the horrific sight of seeing a childs-seat in the car-wreck. Or have to ascertain just HOW many kids were in that car by doing a body AND limb count from all the bits strewn between the impact point and where the wreckage eventually stopped.

.


If not, then you may want to take a class in argumentative reasoning. It helped me to see the fallacies in a lot of other people's logic and reasoning skills.


Heres an idea.
How about you bookmark this thread - then come back to us when you've had a child of yours blitzed by some idiot who got loaded, ran a redlight and torn clean through the rear of your car where your child was seated.
How about you return here and let us know how those classes in argumentative reasoning aided in your pain.

Come back and let us know if those awesome reasoning skills helped you walk into your childs room the first time after you buried them in a closed casket...see if those reasoning skills comforted you when all you want to do is hold them, hear them, smell them against your skin just one more time...


...yeah...you come tell us how those reasoning skills are working out for ya then...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Have you ever thought people are just getting better at driving drunk!?

Unless someone is pulled over, or crashes, how can you be certain they are not drunk? I've seen many people drive better drunk than some of the people, I now refuse to ride with, that are sober.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


First, let me say I am sorry for all you have seen. Second, let me say get over it!

I am a combat vet, I saw bodies of women, children, men, animals all ripped to s**t by explosives. I know what the sight is like.

I lost a friend who was drunk, NOT DRIVING, walking and got RAN OVER by a sober driver. The driver didn't even notice she was there because he was fumbling with a two-way radio. A required piece of gear for his job.

I've seen cars ran through homes because the roads were wet and unmaintained. I've even seen military pilots flying helicopters while drinking from a flask.

Don't try to woe me to your propagandist side based on personal tragedy. I've loved and lost to many causes. I've had buddies OD on drugs, hang themselves. Trust me, after a while, death is really just another part of life. The life of a child that is lost is not as important to the freedoms of millions lost.

I understand that I am VERY narcissistic in my views, but that's because I have REAL life experience. Don't try to judge people you don't know. I openly express my faults, but don't try to make me feel bad for you. It doesn't work when someone has very few emotions for people he doesn't know. Much less cares about, especially because of your open assault at my emotions.

By the way, that is a fallacy in logical reasoning as well. Appeal to emotions. All you're doing with emotions is distorting the facts to make you seem like you have a stronger base. A true orator does not need emotional reasoning (weak reasoning) in order to win a truthful debate.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
By the way, that is a fallacy in logical reasoning as well. Appeal to emotions. All you're doing with emotions is distorting the facts to make you seem like you have a stronger base. A true orator does not need emotional reasoning (weak reasoning) in order to win a truthful debate.


Happily take your point, and will raise my hand and openly state "I'm flawed in logical reasoning"

If logical reasoning means I can in some some way disregard or be in any way unaffected by those experiences...or in any way excuse some idiocy of drink driving...then cool dude. Paint me illogical.

Some may actually say thats, oh, human...but hey...
edit on 19-12-2010 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
The life of a child that is lost is not as important to the freedoms of millions lost.


Freedom to drive drunk eh ?

Where is that in the constitution ?


Move to Somalia. No income taxes. No gun laws. No drunk driving laws. It's a paradise.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
reply to post by Schaden
 


Have you ever thought people are just getting better at driving drunk!?


No, that thought never occurred to me.


If you want to argue that drunk driving laws have no effect, and are only punitive and about "stealing peoples' freedom", you might try and say drunk driving deaths are down due to an increase in medical and emergency/trauma technology. That would at least make sense.


Originally posted by SeitlerUnless someone is pulled over, or crashes, how can you be certain they are not drunk? I've seen many people drive better drunk than some of the people, I now refuse to ride with, that are sober.


For someone who keeps bringing up logical argumentation, you should take some of your own advice.
Your anecdote about some of your drunk friends driving better than other sober people is not a good case for legalizing drunk driving. It backs up my earlier point.

It's too easy to get a driver's license. There are many sober drivers that have no business behind the wheel of a car either.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by HelionPrime
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.


Murder is murder.

Drunk driving is not a crime.

Murdering someone with your vehicle is most certainly a crime.


.......and you are SOULLESS



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Freedom does not come from the constitution. It comes from being human. The constitution just protects some of our natural rights from being taken by the law.

The right in this argument is the action of being labeled a criminal without having had committed a crime. I understand that there is a "law" that states that people should not drive under the influence. BUT there is the God given (or right as a human) to ingest what I want and to do what I want. Understandably, if I hurt OR KILL someone in the process I should be held accountable for my failure to maintain safety to those around me; however, I should not be penalized because there is potential for damages to be had.

The same could be said about letting a person own a gun! If no one owned a firearm, then no one could be killed by gun fire.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I think they should ban cars, that would eliminate the problem.


How bout a phone use driving law where it would give you a fine of $5000, 6 months no license and 5 days mandatory jail?

When someone does something reckless that causes someone else injury, you punish them.

You do not punish everyone that does SOMETHING that MAY cause harm.

Otherwise-

I want all you marxist progressives given fines and jail sentences.



You have cause more harm to society than all the DD combined.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seitler
The same could be said about letting a person own a gun! If no one owned a firearm, then no one could be killed by gun fire.


But drunk driving is inherently dangerous to others. It's not some remote chance.

It's like you are saying someone should be able to stand out in the middle of the street and fire their gun at random. Just as long as they don't hit anybody, no crime was committed.

I think the govt should let people do whatever stupid and foolish things they want, as long as they don't hurt other people. Driving drunk is an unacceptable risk to other people. Just as often, the drunk hurts or kills other people, along with themselves, ergo drunk driving is illegal. Our society agrees with that.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join