Legalize Drunk Driving

The DUI laws got a lot more restrictive after the 1988 bus crash on I-71 near Carrollton Ky, 20 miles from my house.
www3.gendisasters.com...
27 people were killed and most were teenagers, by a guy named Larry Mahoney. I was in jail in Carrolton a few years after this happened with Larry Mahoney's son. His son told me that his dad was so drunk that he has no memory of driving that night. He also said that Larry stated that if only he wouldn't have drank the fifth of whiskey that night and would have been stopped by a cop and arrested, it would have saved so many lives.

Larry Mahoney served almost ten years and is now back on the street. Our DUI Laws are there to try and prevent the senseless slaughter of innocent people like what happened this May night in 1988.

OP, I think you are crazy for your stance on this subject. Yes, it's a victimless crime until something like the bus tragedy happens. Without this law it would be like playing Russian Roulette. You would change your mind on this if your friends or family were killed by a drunk driver I'm sure. Unbelievable how some idiots think!!!!!

reply to post by kennylee


Murder is murder

Doesn't matter if it is by vehicle or by gun.

The MURDER laws need to be addressed, not the DUI laws.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Did those economics journals survey every American to see if they have driven after drinking? There is no possible way to know what you claim to know.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Did those economics journals survey every American to see if they have driven after drinking? There is no possible way to know what you claim to know.

While statistics may be open to some interpretation, there is no doubt about the costs incurred.

Given my back of the envelope calculations, even if we say the marginal reduction in fatalities from DUI laws is TEN THOUSAND - that is still TWO MILLION DOLLARS in cost for every live saved.

Is that worth it?

No.

reply to post by mnemeth1


How do you know whether the laws work? For all you know, millions of people have chosen not to drink and drive, because it is illegal and they have no desire to go to jail.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


the correct left wing respose would be ban it.....full stop
not all DUIs get wasted some are only a few mg over
charles darwin said it all some people will die, but no were not animals because we dont make mistakes i could wake up feeling great tomorrow and some rtard pulls out on me i kill them and are found to be over the limit just goes down as another stat DUI not rtard driver

reply to post by Miraj


Then make autos that don't go more than 30 mph .

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.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Full disclosure: My close friend and her unborn baby died from a drunk as she was simply trying to get home. dude, if you stood in front of me talking this trash...people would be pulling me off...and they better be strong, because anything short of full strength to tear me off of you would simply not work.

And yet, this happened while drunk driving laws were in place. Shouldn't the fact that there are laws against what happened to your friend mean it shouldn't have happened?

Everyone in here seems to have a story about drunk driving and how awful it is (I agree), but none of you realize you're fulfilling the OP's point exactly. The laws don't deter drunk driving, and these things are going to happen anyway.

Realistically, since drunk driving is outlawed, we should also outlaw (with penalties within the range of a DUI)anything which causes a significant danger on the road. $15,000 for a speeding ticket, maybe? Same for turning into an outside lane? Not wearing a seatbelt?

Why not? Putting insane penalties onto those actions should reduce them as well, right? There's no negative!

Alright people.

The only persons being banned should be the ones not discussing articles mentioned. No one here seems to have read this article, or gave it any thought. More wild, flaming accusations about someone who contributes to ATS while you people do nothing.

If you have such a problem with the post, offer a constructive riposte, and draw some conclusions to why you think the article is so bad, that it deserves to be "banned" along with mnemeth.

Honestly, this is pretty bad. I've never seen so much raging ignorance.

---

This blog was posted on Nov, 2000. Interestingly enough, I just read an article on the same subject, in the recent issue of Reason magazine. I'm going to post some excerpts of the article, that point out why this a compelling argument. Nobody is talking in absolutes here, these are opinions.

Abolish Drunk Driving Laws If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on impairment, not alcohol.

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists.

The roadblocks are also constitutionally problematic. In the 1990 decision Michigan v. Sitz ,the Supreme Court acknowledged that stops at sobriety checkpoints constitute "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment but ruled that the public safety threat posed by drunk driving made them "reasonable." In the years since, the checkpoints have become little more than revenue generators for local governments.

When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks after the fact, they inevitably find lots of citations for seat belt offenses, broken headlights, driving with an expired license, and other minor infractions. But the checkpoints rarely catch seriously impaired drivers. In 2009, according to a recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical checkpoint would consist of 20 or more cops, yield a dozen or more vehicle confiscations, but around three drunk driving arrests.

These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat posed by drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment drinking can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who have even a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified by the shift in the government's message from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive"). Several studies have found that talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American Automobile Association study found several other in-car distractions that also caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat (for more on such studies, see the 2005 paper I wrote on alcohol policy for the Cato Institute).

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers.

Source:

Reason Article
---------------------------------------------

These are compelling arguments. This is not baseless "anarchist crap".

I almost fully agree with this. It's not "abolishing drunk-driving laws" and simply allowing people to pound down booze behind the wheel as they please. It is a logical argument, providing evidence why these "laws" are actually harmful, and that police should be focusing on the impairment and reckless driving charges alone.

If a person is driving recklessly, then by all means, cite him and arrest him for driving under the influence. Otherwise, time is being wasted.

reply to post by mnemeth1


If you are arguing that a life is not worth 2 million dollars than that is what you believe. I believe differently.

You are arguing about someones life!

I choose to not drink and drive because I figure a life is AT LEAST worth my time and consideration not to hurt anyone unnecessarily. It is AT LEAST worth my staying sober or planning a ride.

Most certainly it is worth the $40.00 cab ride home.

Some people do not think like myself, that is why it is illegal.

Drunk driving is a crime! Too many people have lost their lives due to drunken drivers. Legalize drunk driving? I'm sure you have a brain. Use it! This is so ridiculous I can't believe you would even suggest such a thing!

Originally posted by mnemeth1number of annual DUIs in the US around 1,396,888.

One more thing in this retarded thread.

OPs suggests this saves about 400 people a year.

I suggest it saves about 1,396,888 people+ a year (perhaps even double to triple that number)

prove me wrong.

They did have drive through liquor stores in New Orleans years ago. You could get drinks to go!

No time to stop and go inside, places to go, people to run over.... THUMP!

reply to post by EsSeeEye


That's right.

What needs to happen is that drunk drivers who murder, injure, or damage property while driving need to be treated as MURDERS AND VANDALS.

So if you get in an accident and hurt or damage other people's property while driving drunk, you should be punished in the same manner as if you took a gun or baseball bat to the person.

Think about the laws we have now for people who get into traffic accidents that are not drunk and kill someone - society treats these people leniently because we all know there was no real intent to hurt or kill someone.

What I'm saying is, all we need are laws that ADD INTENT when a person causes damage while drunk.

That is all we need.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Some states such as Florida have a little more room in their DD laws. Cleveland Browns WR Donte Stallworth killed a pedestrian while under the influence of alcohol. He got off pretty easy and not just because he is an NFL WR. In Florida they decided whether or not the accident was a direct result of the driver.

In this case, the pedestrian ran across a divided highway, jumped a median and ran out in front of Stallworths car. I'm not defending his drinking and driving but I think more states should allow some room in their sentencing.

Many states have a .08 tolerance. If you were driving with a .09 and another sober driver ran a red light and hit you, killing themselves. You would be on trial for vehicular manslaughter. Again, i'm not defending D&D but this kind of thing does happen.

Sometimes the laws can be a little too black and white.

Not too sure about Drunk driving laws being lifted.
Though I have heard some better arguments.


My feelings are more mixed regarding DUI checkpoints.Those are close to unconstitutional.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by EsSeeEye

 

That's right.

What needs to happen is that drunk drivers who murder, injure, or damage property while driving need to be treated as MURDERS AND VANDALS.

I could not agree with you more.

My only question would be... Is it illegal to murder or vandalise?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by HelionPrime
I'd reply in graphic detail about exactly how my friend was killed in a car driven by someone over the limit, but I might get modded.

F#cking dick head.

Killing someone is murder.

Laws against murder are good.

Driving drunk while not hurting or damaging anyone else's property is not murder - in fact its not anything at all.

edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

This is the epitome of trying way too hard. You're actually so anti-establishment that you're delibrately looking for things to scrutinize. Stating that driving drunk is ok unless you kill someone is about as retarted as saying that playing Russian Roulette is only stupid if you lose. Plz stop with the ridiculousness of this thread. The laws are in place as a deterrent because once you are intoxicated, the only control you do have is the decision to not get behind the wheel. The guy who's kid gets run over can cry foul. You can't.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.

Sorry but drunks are NOT responsibile adults. The are NOT capable of making responsible decisions for the most part.