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: 28
64
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Sorry i could not read all 28 pages, but here is some added fuel to the fire:

1) Alcohol in small doses acts as a stimulant (by releasing large amounts of sugar into the bloodstream etc) so to say it slows down your defenses is 2 sided argument now. So if one only has a few, they would be more alert than the person putting on makeup or talking on their cell phone.
Some reading material: www.ephidrina.org...

2) Drowsy drivers (nyquil, lack of sleep etc) have been proven to have similar slow response times as people who have had enough to drink to pass the stimulate quality of alcohol and are now experiencing the depressant side of the substance. So this further supports the no victim no crime rule as lack of sleep is not illegal (although in some states it is illegal to catch a few zzzz on the side of the road cause you might get hit....)
More reading material: www.doityourself.com...

3) Last but not least, I have read about cases of people being arrested for DUI for having a case of Diabetic ketoacidosis. In some cases it makes the breath smell similar to alcohol and the slowed responses are very similar to ones who have had enough to drink to again be on the depressant side of alcohol.
More reading for you guys: www.nlm.nih.gov...


Now for solutions, how about you can go and buy vouchers from the city or state to get a cab ride home. Or maybe a reduced rate or special program to take your car home as well. Maybe off an incentive to bar owners and people who drink to encourage the program.

If you ask me, we as Amerkans have a bad habit of getting mad after the fact instead of encouraging people to do the right thing. Think about this in raising a child. Would you rather guide them into doing things the right way or not pay attention (let other people raise your kids etc) and then scold them for doing wrong. If people had a non-selfish incentive for doing the right thing... then maybe this country would be a better place and not need laws against D&D to feel that it has done the right thing.

Another thing to consider (as yes i have my friend was hit by a driver under the influence) is if we would teach our kids to a drink responsibly (look at stats in Europe and when they start drinking over there) and to drive more responsibly I believe we would get better results than just arresting people for DUI.

For the topic of how much a human life is worth... what if the man arrested who know has to pay 10-50k dollars for AA meetings, fines, counseling etc has a family and lost his job because of having to spend the weekend in jail. Lets suppose this man had a family. How many lives have you just ruined for your victimless crime?

Thanks for reading
edit on 19-12-2010 by scoobdude because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Ghost374
 


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.



Or set it to the level where no man smaller than 300 pounds can still be expected stay conscious.

'If you want to drive drunk, you must be AT LEAST this drunk'; a minimum upper limit.

Strangely, a minimum upper limit would probably reduce more drunk driving accidents than a low limit.

It would force people who would ordinarily decide they are below the limit to get so smashed their eyes turn yellow and they pass out, unable to drive - thus saving lives.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

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.


Driving period has its risks. What if a wheel bearing goes out and locks up your tire, or you suddenly lose all vacuum and your brakes are manual, or throttle gets stuck. There is always a perceived danger.. You just choose to not see all of them and criminalize others that do not think "LIKE YOU"



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 


Star to you! I wish I could give a super-star for the info you laid out there. I got into an argument with my g/f about this. She is very "close-minded" when it comes to seeing things from different points of view.

Anyway, In the matter of the gun Vs. the drink.
If no one owned a gun, and they were banned 100% there would be no shooting crimes of any kind. Think of all the gang-violence that would be squelched. I, for one, am very PRO gun rights. I love guns, but that does not mean I don't value the life of those lost to gang violence.

Just because I support the right of someone to be an idiot and drive smashed does not mean I condone the death he causes from his actions. To be a real voucher for FREEDOM and not just a pawn, sometimes you must look beyond the individual placing each piece of the puzzle to the picture on the box. That is how it is meant to look. Not with the gaps still left to be filled in.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   


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.


Yeah, it would be much better to have fines depending on an income of a person, it works like this in some countries.


reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 





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.


Yes, you do. Endangering other peoples lives should be a crime, even if nothing bad happens.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Yes, you do. Endangering other peoples lives should be a crime, even if nothing bad happens.


So we should ban driving too?

That endangers alot of people - just look at the stats. It is a goddamn bloodbath on the highways.

I had a grandson get hit by a car! I'm arguing from emotion. Agree with me.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 




You just choose to not see all of them and criminalize others that do not think "LIKE YOU"


False analogy. You cannot preventivelly criminalize completely unpredictable things, or things that do not raise the danger very significantly. Drunk driving is not one of them.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





So we should ban driving too? That endangers alot of people - just look at the stats. It is a goddamn bloodbath on the highways. I had a grandson get hit by a car! I'm arguing from emotion. Agree with me.


Drunk driving is 6-12 times more dangerous than normal driving. Normal driving is extremely useful for the society, drunk driving is not at all. Thats why normal driving is not banned.

But in a hypothetical case if for example a safe teleporter was available, rendering driving useless for society, it may be banned in cities as a dangerous activity.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Just one more thought before I drift off and forget all of this in the morning.

A person should not be punished because of the actions of another. If a person that is mentally ill has a breakdown and purposely drives their car into oncoming traffic should we ban all people with a mental illness or history of depression from driving? Everything is a case-by-case basis.

One person MAY be able to drive just fine when intoxicated, but the next may not. This goes with all aspects, not just drunk driving. Maybe, based on some of the comments on here, alcohol it too dangerous to consumed by certain people, therefore it should be banned from consumption by everyone. Then anyone found to have consumed alcohol should go to jail.

That is basically what this boils down to. Should we allow people to make these choices themselves, or do we subjugate ourselves to laws meant to punish others that have no bearing on our own personal actions?

With that said, good night everyone. I hope that if you were drinking and driving tonight that you made it home safe!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Normal driving is extremely useful for the society, drunk driving is not at all. Thats why normal driving is not banned.


It is still pretty dangerous.

Over forty thousand people were killed in 2003 because of automobiles. Those people would be much more useful to society if they were alive, yes?

And that number of people is is way more people than die in drunk driving-related accidents.

How many people have to die every year before we finally ban those carbon-spewing murder machines?

My grandson was hit by a car! If that driver had been on public transport, it never would have happened. You know this to be true.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


If you prove that the net effect of normal driving, if you consider all people directly and indirectly saved by the enormous benefits it brings to the society, is still bad, we can ban it. But that is simply not the case.

On the other hand, plenty of laws are imposed on driving to make it safer, so it is not banned, but quite limited indeed it is.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


It sounds like you are putting a price on human life.

How much is one of your children worth?

And what about the environment. Forcing people who don't work for the government to use public transportation would reduce carbon emissions and reduce the horrible deprivations caused by global warming.

Not to mention all that oil money going to Muslim terror states. That money would all be saved and could be used to help fund abortions and free sterilizations. This would further reduce our devastating virus-like impact on the earths ecosystems.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




It sounds like you are putting a price on human life. How much is one of your children worth?


I am not, not at all. I am comparing the TOTAL net number of deaths, suffering and saved lives in situation when normal driving is legal, with situation when it would be illegal. Putting a price on human life (comparing its value to resources) never comes into equation.

Actually, those who agree with the OP are putting a price on human life.



And what about the environment. Forcing people who don't work for the government to use public transportation would reduce carbon emissions and reduce the horrible deprivations caused by global warming.


And also horribly damage the economy, thus reduce innovation and R&D of new clean energy sources, and quality of life. In the long term effect, it will again cause more death and suffering AND environment damage than people driving.
edit on 19/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Dude, I've been in an accident caused by a drunk driver.
I consider myself fairly smart, at least enough to preservr my life. But WE WERE DRUNK. The driver was smart at least not as dumb as the average person. But again WE WERE DRUNK.
Luckily I was the only one hurt, and not that seriously, and no other car was involved.
The enforcement that is in place is supposed to be deterrant, to stop drunk idiots like me and my friends. The people who drink drive should pay for their dangerous actions even if noone is hurt because it stops another drunk idiot making the same mistake. And if only a couple of innocent lives are saved, then job done.
I hate the cops as much as the next guy, but this is one they got right.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by nowhere2hide
I hate the cops as much as the next guy, but this is one they got right.


Just to let you know.... Cops don't write the laws....



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zarp3333
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.


Class warfare? One simple word... Don't... If you drink, don't drive. If you have to drive, don't drink. Then, it won't cost you a dime!

Jobs lost? Those who have lost jobs, due to DWI arrests, knew the rules before playing the game. And, that is what they did. They chose to gamble their jobs and their families' livelihoods, by drinking and driving.

Personal responsibility....It's a lost art.

As to your argument that DWI laws do nothing to "eliminate drunk driving"... Neither do homicide laws, theft laws or assault laws. So, those must be "draconian", as well.


edit on 19-12-2010 by WTFover because: Atrocious grammar

edit on 19-12-2010 by WTFover because: Added last comment



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


I know dude,
Just an expression, didn't want to sound as anal as the people on this site that feel the need to condiscend, that's when you talk down to people and pretend to be smarter than them, just to let you know....



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The number one cause of accidents is tailgating,not drunk driving.Tailgating should have a much harsher penalty.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Considering that twice the number of people killed due to Motor Vehicle traffic are not associated with DUIs, the whole scapegoat rape the people who drink alcohol mentality is completely hypocritical.

Somehow to people who refuse to look at the situation realistically, a kid getting killed in a car accident where no DUI was involved somehow isn't as tragic as when there is a DUI involvement.

And the government refuses to gather the statistics on how many people are killed in Motor Vehicle Traffic where the driver was under the influence of supposed medication, legal drugs that do impair driving ability, as bad, if not worse, than alcohol.

How many deaths each year from Oxycontin abusers and the rest of the pill poppers?

The real answer is to build transportation systems where tired, distracted, intoxicated people are not driving two tons of metal through our streets. We could put in a rail system where people ride in their own personal rail car, on elevated rails, and pretty much eliminate traffic fatalities, and restore personal liberties taken by the out of control traffic laws, but the oil companies, insurance companies, courts and law enforcement, and numerous other businesses who profit greatly from the MVT killing machines, wouldn't be raking in huge profits.

All you people spewing your fake outrage disgust me. You don't want a solution, you want a scapegoat.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


And Motor Vehicle Traffic will still be the biggest killer of children and young people.

Who do you think you are fooling?





new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join