Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by poet1b


So, if we can't end all motor vehicle deaths, let's just not try to prevent any of them?

reply to post by poet1b

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.

No it is not, learn to interpret the statistics correctly. Third of all traffic deaths being associated with DUI is very high number, and it is clear that alcohol makes driving order of magnitude more dangerous.

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

I agree, every substance that impaires drivers skill should be banned while driving, and indeed it is, driving under influence is not only about alcohol:

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

Your solution is to build railway cars? Anyway, aside from the technical absurdity of the proposal, rest assured that various traffic laws, including against drunk driving will be applied even for your public railway car system.

Dear OP,

I am really enjoying your thread. But sadly not as much as some of your other notable past ones:

Expectant mothers should smoke heavily

Infants should be allowed to handle loaded guns

Spice up you next outdoor cookout with dynamite

Running with scissors can be fun

It is a shame that us sane, rational, pragmatic types allow common-sense to prevent us from embracing those great ideas. I kid.

reply to post by Maslo


No, I am not reading the stats wrong, you just prefer to look at things in a way that allows you to continue to believe in your delusions.

Elevated rail lines would be cheaper to build than roads on the ground. Computers could control the flow of traffic, as each car could move independently, and we could travel at very high speeds when going between cities.

A plan was developed in the sixties for such a system, which would be far more effective than our current transportation system, which is in fact designed to be inefficient.

You would simply have to program in your destination, in your own personalized car, and kick back doing what ever while you are transported to your destination.

Think of the massive amount of money that would be saved from not having to pay for insurance, traffic cops and courts, buying a new vehicle every 5 years, paying interest on the loan, ect. No more commuting, sleep while you travel to and from work.

reply to post by poet1b


Rebuild the entire infrastructure of the United States at at time when we have nearly a 14 trillion dollar deficit and are on the precipice of collapse VS laws that prevent the selfish and intelligence challenged from getting behind the wheel while impaired...

Hrm...

The impossible VS the logical.

Meh, what's logic matter when what's at stake is what a few people WANT as opposed to what's best for society in general.

~Heff

reply to post by WTFover


DUI laws aren't aimed at preventing traffic fatalities, they just make a convenient scapegoat so that people can pretend something is being done. It is just another way to eliminate the rights of everyone.

At the very least, they would only need to install breathalyzers as standard equipment in cars, and only people devious enough to disable such devices would be driving under the influence. That would be an extremely reduced number of DUIs on the road.

Maybe you can fool yourself into believing something is being done, but I don't embrace that type of self delusion.

reply to post by Hefficide



Rebuilding our nations transportation infrastructure would rebuild our nations economy, just like WW II kick started our economy back in the forties.

Ours isn't an economic down turn due to lack of productivity. We could easily do this.

Better than continuing to bleed our economy away buying up the last drops of economically feasible crude oil.

reply to post by poet1b

Elevated rail lines would be cheaper to build than roads on the ground.

Really? I would like to see some numbers for this.

I dont think elevated rail tubes with rail cars (in fact mini trains) are necessary for the points you make. Just bury one simple electronic guiding/data track into the road (or suspend it above the ground), and program the car computer to follow it. The same effect, no need for elevation, tubes, train cars, or more expensive real rails requiring more maintenance. Simple half-tube above the road (maybe with said guiding track?) would still be a good idea to protect the road from bad weather.

I grant you this point, after more thought, modification and use of 21st century tech it seems like a very good idea

reply to post by poet1b


Regardless of that, until we dont have such system in place and fully functioning, DUI laws are a must.

Nice post OP.


Bad thread for the rest of you.

ATS is really going down hill when sooooo many people on this thread miss the point entirely.

mnemeth1, good post..... the rest of you shold be ashamed of yourself. To be ruled by irrational emotions and failing ideology is most offensive. Those of you of whom I speak, I condemn you and all you stand for.

OBEY

reply to post by Maslo


You would still have people and massive tonnage of metal and glass moving at high speeds mixed together.

You would still get the high fatality rates for the 10-15 year old crowd. Do you find that acceptable.

Separate vehicle traffic from pedestrian and bicycle traffic, maybe people would get out and walk more.

Not a train system, a personalized rail vehicle.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once again, DUI laws are not stopping the carnage, they only eliminate people's rights and punish those who have done nothing wrong. In fact, there is no proof that DUI laws even reduce the number of MVT deaths. There is some evidence that these laws increase these death rates.

Mandatory breathalyzers would do far better. Oh, but that would take a lot of profit from the DUI industry.

Aaahh, we seek a return to the common law eh?
Where your local community decides and prosecutes actual crimes against person or property - not pre-crimes or thought crimes or fantasy crimes - or "what if" non crimes.
Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end...
If we criminalise enough people for enough non-crimes can we keep everyone "safe"? What does "safe" even mean anymore? It has become a pillar of control and we love it...
It is okay if people die, not preferable but okay - as long as the common law structure is in place it maintains the best balance between freedom and justice that we have known.

Remember that the lobby groups, ngo's, foundations and the like do not act in your interest and that their goals have no end point - their strangling pressures can never, and will never end.

reply to post by poet1b


I like your assessment.

Another thing that bothers me about DUI's is that I know tons of people who have driven drunk and not gotten caught. In fact, it seems almost normal for us as a culture.

I don't know any actual statistics on this, but it would be interesting to see how many people have driven drunk in the US and not gotten caught.

DUI laws are strange laws. They are like drug laws. If you get away with the crime, you have impunity but if you get caught, you get punished for the rest of your life (in some States).

I guess if people honestly agreed with the law, they would turn themselves in if they were ever guilty of the crime.

Obama smoked weed and did coke..... how can he honestly get away with those crime while at the same time continuing the war on drugs. Its because laws like that are disingenuous.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Driving under the influence has been assaulted with propaganda for a long time now. It is a good scapegoat and a good way to impose criminalization/fines on the masses. I agree with comments by you and other posters regarding appropriate criminal charges for drivers that harm person or property regardless if they are under the influence or sober. The DUI laws do need to be modified because DUI is not the underlying factor in vehicular crimes.

People that oppose DUI, such as victim's rights groups, do not even attempt to look into the underlying factors regarding vehicular accidents - they just get MADD. Respect and Responsibility are these underlying factors.

1) Respect: Many, many people do not have the proper respect for the power that a motor vehicle provides. A car going only a moderate amount of speed can cause serious damage to persons or property. Also, many drivers do not have respect for other drivers on the road.

2) Responsibility: Again, many people do not have the proper sense of responsibility when operating a motor vehicle. Taking your attention away from the road for any reason is reckless and possibly endangers others.

One could argue that driving under the influence is acting in an irresponsible, disrespectful manner. I would not agree. I have regularly drove buzzed(read: mildly intoxicated, not drunk) since I turned 21 and have never been in an auto accident and have not even been stopped by the police, "intoxicated" or sober. I respect the power of my vehicle and other drivers on the roads. I have responsibility for my driving by driving as safe as possible with no distractions.

As I stated earlier, drunk driving is a great scapegoat. No one seems to care about the real truth regarding this matter. That truth is this: Stupid people will make stupid drivers, disrespectful people will make disrespectful drivers, and irresponsible people will make irresponsible drivers. Sober or not.

DUI statutes should be removed as they penalize responsible drivers that happen to be caught drinking and driving. However, they will not be. The government will not give up the cash cow that is victimless crime. Nor will the government take on the responsibility of educating their people on how to drive responsibly.

reply to post by My_Reality


Good points.

Also, let he without sin throw the first stone.

Anyone guilty of driving while drowsy, distracted, or beyond the speed limit has no room to talk. In fact, being distracted or going too fast are the top two causes of car crashes. As much as there is hype about drunk drivers, they would have one believe thats the only type of accident there is.

Changing radio stations, texting and driving, and any other distraction is the main cause of car accidents. Speeding is second. As irresponsible as drunk driving is, how many times have you put your life and the lives of others on the line this week? My guess is, if you drive, more often then you want to admit.

Respect the vehicle. Be responsible. Just because you are not drunk, doesn't mean you and those around you are safe.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by poet1b

 

DUI laws are strange laws. They are like drug laws. If you get away with the crime, you have impunity but if you get caught, you get punished for the rest of your life (in some States).

Obama smoked weed and did coke..... how can he honestly get away with those crime while at the same time continuing the war on drugs. Its because laws like that are disingenuous.

I find this fascinatingly humorous as well.

I could literally tweet on my cell phone to millions of people that "I am driving drunk right now." - but if the police fail to pull me over, there is no possible way they could successfully prosecute me, even if I openly admitted to doing it at the time.

I could simply say I was joking and there is no way they could refute this.

They could not refute it because the crime necessarily has no victim that can articulate damages in a court of law.

There is no witness that can prove beyond doubt that I was in fact drunk at the time of the tweet. Such a witness would necessarily have to have a breathalyser on them and they would have to compel me to use it.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

mnemeth1, good post..... the rest of you shold be ashamed of yourself.

I've counted a handful of poster(including myself) that also agree with the OP

however, most of the posters that are against it, are basing 90% of their arguement on emotions and not on the logic that DUI are are just a money making scheme set up by the state

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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 terms used is DUI/DWI, and will vary from state to state. There are many other items a person can ingest that is not alcohol that places them under the statute of DWI/DUI. Splitting hairs on definitions has nothing to do with the statute itself, or the manner its enforced. Coming up with a term that is designed for each individual possibility for DWI/DUI would be limitless.

When we do our reports, we articulate the the manner in which the person violated the statute, whether its from alcohol, drugs, CO2 cartirdiges, huffing paint.

The other thing to keepo in mind, and I can see where your argument is valid, is some states do have charges for being an impaired driver. Its where your less than .08, but your driving still endangers other people. This statute again varys from state to state (some dont even have it) and is to account for those who cant hold their licquer so to speak.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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).

The .08 standard is used from years of studies in a generalized manner, or what level the builk of people need to be at where alcohol begins to affect a person. The .08 actually came from our European counterparts. They are also, Europe, looking at lowering it down to .06 or even .04, citing studies that show at those levels in a human, the alcohol does begin to take affect.

Alcohol is water soluable, and wants to diffuse to those areas in the body, with the brain being the chief benefactor of that. Alcohol is one of the only components thats able to penitrate the brain barrier. The other thought based on your argument, which somewhat validates your position, is those people who do drink and are better able to deal with it for whatever reason, wont get pulled over by the Police because of DWI signs. Instead if contact is made its going to be some other traffic related offense (speeding, no turn signal, etc).

In essence those people are getting away with it.

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

Women actually can become intoxicated fast than a male can, going back to the water soluable info. Womens body contain more water than mens bodies because of the unique design of the chest (think boobys).

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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.

Its done this way because the Government cannot pass a law that could conceivably account for every single item on the market, legal or illegal, in addition to items not conceived of yet. This is why the courts legislate from the bench in certain areas.

Again the article is misleading when it talks about the 10k-50k price tag. Its based on retaining a private lawyer and paying out the ass to get the charges changed to something else. Absent that, the fines will vary and most will not come even close to the 10k-50k price tag unless its your 7th felony conviction of it. Usually the max fine (at least in my state) runs from $500 - $1,500 dollars.

The only people who are paying the fines are the ones who got caught. So its not quite the cash cow you are making it out to be. Also, if people cannot pay the fine, they are assigned to community service or weekend jail. So please stop making out that the Government is running a racket on this topic.

It goes back to personal responsibility - DWI/DUI is a public safety crime.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
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.

Law Enforcement does not collect impound fees, as it goes to whatever towing agency is requested (unless the department has their own impound lot, but to my knowledge I have never seen or heard of one like that). Officers have discretion in terms of arresting / warning issued / calling a cab for the person etc etc. Its going to be dependant on the overall situation and the factors within it.

The comment about department stats are required by the Federal Government for the UCR the FB puts out every year. It also helps determine targeted grant funding to cities with higher than normal stats that could benefiet from extra help (grant patrols, public safety message campaigns on TV/Radio). When a Municipal officer writes a ticket, and the person is found guilty and a fine elveled, it does not go back to the Police Department. Its goes into the General fun of the City / County. Many states have laws that prohibit a Public Safety Agency from going on a ticket spree in order to boost funding. A city caught doing this gets in a lot of trouble from the state and the council members can be removed and charged at the State / Federal level for doing that stuff.

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

The only time a city gets any money is from a convicition that has a fine attached to it. Judges dont always order monetary restitution, especially if the person cannot afford it (varies from state to state).

A DWI checkpoint, again varies from state to state, is usually funded by State / Federal Grant money from safe roads initiatives, over the limit under arrest initiatives, click it or ticket etc etc. Those funds are used to allow the extra time and staff involved to do an event like that.

The one issue you failed to mention is the REserves. These are people who have gone through a Police Academy, who then volunteer their time to the agency to place more officers on the streets (weeknds etc). These guys generally do not get paid, and volunteer up to 20 hours a week / 40 hours a month (give or take). So when you see 50 officers at a major DWI checkpoint, chances are not all of them are getting paid.

The one thing about DWI/DUI when compared to all other crimes, is the fact this is one area can make a difference in the long run. Its one of the few crimes where if we catch it early enough, we did make a difference that day by removing a person from the streets who placed others in danger by their actions.

With all of this being said, please keep in mind the Police have absolutely nothing to do with guilt/not guilty. We do our jobs, send in the report which is then handled on the Judicial side. If you dont like the fines or manner, then get invovled and change the law. Participate in your government and be heard.

Originally posted by WTFover
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

Which is why I stated the quote was incomplete and not directed at you. It addressed a mindset a lot of people have who think traffic shuts down the moment they go to bed, and that drunk driving at 2 AM poses no danger to anyone.

As I said, it was not directed at you.

Originally posted by DrChuck
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.

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

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

Excellent point and here is why. If an intoxicated person is stopped and charged / convicted, and its his first offense the punishment is going to be low (Fine / Community Service / Weekend Jail etc). If this same person is drunk and gets into a car accident and someone dies, then he wont be charged with DWI. He will be charged with manslaughter / vehicluar manslaughter / 2nd murder by mitigating circumstances, etc - varies by state).

So yeah, the article is ignoring that part where if you drink drive and kill someone, you will be charged and treated as a murder.

The article also ignores the fact that if you plan out a murder on someone and hit the neccisary levels (contract killing etc) you can be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder, even though it was not carried out.

If you buy a gun and your on your way to kill someone, and you get stopped for speeding, and in the course of the ivnestigation the weapon is found (and your in a state where you cannot have a loaded firearm in the front seat) then the guy is being charged with unlawful possession / transportation of a fire arm, and not murder.

The guy is splitting hairs to paint a picture while hoping everyone else ignores the facts he is leaving out.

Nice job.