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: 30
64
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost374
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.



edit on 18-12-2010 by Ghost374 because: (no reason given)


The funny thing is the States can set whatever criteria they want in terms of DWI and the limit they use. The reason .08 is used is because of the FEderal Government. Any state which wants a higher limit will have their federal highway funding dollars yanked.

Dont get me started on the FEderal over reaching in what should be by definition an internal matter of the state. Not to mention withholding tax money a state should be getting back as required by law, but I digress.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by scoobdude
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...


Initially yes, but the higher the pecentage of alcohol, it turns into a depressant. Take Diphenhydramine (bendryll). They come in dosages of 25mg pills, and are an antihistamine, which induces drowsiness. The max amount a person can safely take is 300mg. Anything over 75-100mg thoughs gives the opposite effect, turning into a stimulant.

Its a matter of personal responsibility and knowing limits.


Originally posted by scoobdude
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...


Many states are finally adopting laws for driving while drowsy. While you are correct a lack of slep is not illegal, however operating a motor vehicle is a privelidge and not a right and is therefore regulated. Which means they can say a lack of sleep and operating a motor vehicle, which requires full attention, is posing a danger to other people on the road.

Its a Public Safety Offense - An action occuring in public that presents a danger to the public at large by no choice of their own.


Originally posted by scoobdude
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...


Its called Ketoacidosis - The bottoming out of a persons sugar level in the body. The effects of this presents exactly like an intoxicated individual - Slurred speach, inability to concentrate, unable to stand up without needing to lean on something, a fruity smell comming from their mouth (smells like a fruity mized drink), unable to control the vehicle, lack of consistent speed, improper turning, inability to multi task (Field sobriety tests). (wide right, short left, etc etc.

Ive come across this a few times, and we call medical and let them do their thing. A report is usually done depending on the nature of the incident (accident single car, more than one car, fatality etc etc). Generally if its property damage only with no injuries, we talk to the affected party about course of action. It could raise to a criminal offense of the person knows he has this condition and refuses to deal with it. Othertimes its turned into a civil action and LEO steps out.


Originally posted by scoobdude
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.


A lot of the larger college towns have arrangements with the Police, City and cab comapines that provide people rides home. Its generally done as a courtesy so its not funded by public dollars. They also have the deisgnated driver program, that allows the DD to be samped on his hands that he is a DD, and he recevies free soda and appetisers for being responsbile to hang out with drunks. I think these are good programs that strike the right balance with ones ability to party, while not putting others in danger.


Originally posted by scoobdude
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.


Completely agree - Personal REpsonsibility


Originally posted by scoobdude
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.


Completely agree - Education mixed with reinforcement of personal responsibility. Growing up I got the lectures from the parents about drinking and driving. They did not want me drinking period, but knew at some point it was going to be ignored. The agreement they had was if I got drunk, I could call them to pick me up with no harm / foul that night. The next day however came the lecture and the reinforcement of acting responsbily. While they discouraged it, they were realistic about it, and did their best for a balance.

I think more people should take part in their kids lives - We wouldnt have to work so many fatality accidents.


Originally posted by scoobdude
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)


The 10k-50k dollar tag he is talking about is from fighting a DWI charge, and not from fines imposed by the court. Fines and Jail time are possible at felony level conviictions for DWI/DU.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by scoobdude

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"


You mean people who think rationally.
Your post is pablum.
People should be allowed to drive drunk because tire blow outs cause accidents too ?
I don't think people on the Pro side of this argument have the faintest clue how dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol really is, and how much it puts other peoples lives at risk. That's why it's rightfully illegal.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Lots of things are dangerous.

Banning things that are dangerous is immoral.

Punishing crimes that have a victim is the only just way to run a society.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you plan to kill someone, then you have intent. You intended to commit a crime.

If you drive because you think you are sober enough to drive, you are not intentionally committing a crime.

Can you see the difference?

If you want to pretend that DUIs don't justify jobs within the police departments and courts, they you are not being honest.

You don't agree that a better solution would be to make breathalyzers standard equipment?

You don't think everyone who drinks hasn't gotten behind the wheel and driven under the influence, including all of the police officers who drink?

Why are all the statistics on drinking and driving so poorly developed? Why is the basis for the information hidden?

Do you care at all?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I wrote this post:
Laws Do Not Work

To specifically address the points in this thread brought up by the people who favor victimless crime.

Drunk driving laws barely reduce drunk driving, and they certainly don't solve the problem of drunk driving. The solution to the problem of drunk driving is beyond the capabilities of legislatures.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Schaden
 


Lots of things are dangerous.

Banning things that are dangerous is immoral.

Punishing crimes that have a victim is the only just way to run a society.



So I guees we are going to throw Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself right out the window then? If you want to drink and then drive, thats fine, but do it in your backyard, which you own. Dont come out into Public where your actions intentionally place others in danger. Not banning behavior that intentionally places others in jeopardy is also immoral, since under your same moral argument clause we are not allowed to take anothers life, cheat, steal, assault or for that manner destroy the body, which is considered a temple by some, by consuming an item with adverse effects.

The argument can go either way, but viewing from a basic moral viewpoint while ignoring all else is just as dangerous as banning an item in disoute.

The argument to me is like people who have sec before marriage and the girl gets pregnant. The term abortion comes up and the response is oh no, I cant do that, its againt my religion.

So is premarital sex but I digress - Its not morals, but cafeteria morals, where people pick and choose which they will follow to best allow them to justify their actions and behavior, while at the very same time ignoring those teachings which conflict with it.

Which means the argument from the begining is based on a lie, which in turn, is also immoral.

@ the Tire blowout comment the term people are looking for is called intent. The tire does not have the intent to explose. People who decide to drink to excess, then decide to drive home are showing intent that they understand their actions and made a personal decision to operate a vehicle when they know they should not.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If the government really wants to stop drunk driving they will force the car manufacturers to start producing cars with breathalyzers already installed. In reality the government doesn't care about the public's safety.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Given that my grandparents died when a drunk driver hit them, I believe trying to legalize driving under the influence is RETARDED!!



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
mnemeth1, good post..... the rest of you shold be ashamed of yourself.


Scuse me? "We" should be ashamed?

Perhaps we are guilty of the failure to contemplate esoteric fantasies requiring a suspension of reality but, in my opinion, the posters who oppose this cockamamie hypothetical fairy tale are in the right.

As a reminder, we are a nation of laws. Some may be nebulous and infringe on certain personal freedoms but if they are for the greater good and safety of innocent citizens, I'm all in.

This whole argument smacks of that old "Guns don't kill people" excuse.

Worse yet it might even be an offshoot of some high-brow concept such as Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism

In short: "Do unto others...........
edit on 19-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: added content



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If you plan to kill someone, then you have intent. You intended to commit a crime.


No argument here


Originally posted by poet1b
If you drive because you think you are sober enough to drive, you are not intentionally committing a crime.


Again correct - However if you drink and drive and get into an accident and kill someone, that was not intended. Which is why the charge is a different level with different criteria than a person who goes out to plan a murder (premeditated). Intentionally killing aperson with a gun, intenitionally drinking and driving, but not intending to get into an accident to kill someone.


Originally posted by poet1b
Can you see the difference?


Of course I see the difference. I see the difference everytime I go into work, and because of that experience and exposure is why I make the arguments I do.


Originally posted by poet1b
If you want to pretend that DUIs don't justify jobs within the police departments and courts, they you are not being honest.


I honestly have no idea what you are meaning by this sentence. Can you clarify for me (and being serious, I am not sure what you are suggesting).


Originally posted by poet1b
You don't agree that a better solution would be to make breathalyzers standard equipment?


I have an issue when you stated the Government should be required to pay for them. The Government has no business interfering at that level in society. When people are caught, charged and convicted, then yes, since the prior pattern is established, I can see a punishment being an ignition interlock device.

However, since they are not DNA enabled, anyone who is below the set limit can bypass it for the driver, and I know people who have done this. So now what? Do we create an interlock device that is based solely on DNA? Thumbprint or Iris scan?

What if we place devices in all motor vehicles that contain DNA sequence in them that wont allow a person in the drivers seat to start the car if his DNA is in the database?

While travel is constitutionally guranteed both within as well as crossing State Lines, the method is not. Yanking your ability to operate a Motor vehicle is not a constitutional violation since you can fly, take the bus, ride your bike, ride a horse, take a train, a bus or even shoe leather express.


Originally posted by poet1b
You don't think everyone who drinks hasn't gotten behind the wheel and driven under the influence, including all of the police officers who drink?


I am starting to think you misunderstood my post. I am in Law Enforcement, and have been for about 10+ years now. I have seen my fair share and then some of what we are talking about here. Have I ever been drunk and driven? Sure, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or was born at the age of 50.

Do I drink and drive now? Nope, and have not been that stupid since college.


Originally posted by poet1b
Why are all the statistics on drinking and driving so poorly developed? Why is the basis for the information hidden?


What hidden information are you referring to? It seems pretty straight forward, from the studies done on the effects of alcohol on the human body covering a multitude of variables. Right down to scientific study on the effects of alcohol on the brain and under what amount and conditions that begins to adversley affect the individual intoxicated.

Being no one i sperfect, its logical to assume that our laws wont be either. This is the reason we elect people to make laws, vote to pass them, allow them to be challeneged / defined in court, allowing science to continue to sudy to hopefully clarify or debunk etc.



Originally posted by poet1b
Do you care at all?



Of course I care. I went to college to go into a profession that is paid about as well as a kid working for McDonalds on the overnight shift, which is to say barely above the poverty line in my state. I didnt go into this job to make money, nor did I go into to treat others like # while on some power trip.

I went into this job because I do care. I have the ability to impact lives on a daily basis, and I strive for those encounters to be positive as much as possible. I have stopped people who turned out to be intoxicated. As I said before, situations are different. In this case the kid had no criminal record (He was 18) and was with a friend at a college party. They ended up getting seperated, and he got booted out of the fraternity house becuase no one knew who he was. He made a bad decision to drive home, and in the process I stopped him for speeding.

Instead of charging him and ruining his life, I felt the situation would be better served with an alternative form of enforcement. I placed the kid in handcuffs and escorted him back to his house, where I released him into the custody of his parents.

A few weeks later I ran into one of his cousins who said the kid got into more trouble than the courts could have dished out. He lost his phone, car, computer and his social life for the summer. This kid was Mr. Popularity, and no punishmnet by the court would impact the kid (in my opinion anyways) in a severe enough manner to drive the point home.

Sometimes the lesson learned is more important, and has more impact, than the punishment itself could ever be.

So yes, I care and go for the firm but fair approach in my job, taking into account other factors. The Job of Law Enforcement is to protect society while at the same time doing what we can to help improve it. This does not always mean mean we are out to screw everyone over.

I dont condone drinking and driving, and I dont think it should be legalized at all. I think people are human, and as such make mistakes. We try to assist those people we come into contact with from making a larger mistake, even those drunk drivers.

Outlawing alcohol did not work
complete decriminalization of it wont work either.

Which means we need a middle ground. You can drink and you can drive, both by your own accord. Dont get pissed when you get stopped and arrested for drunk driving though.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So far, in this thread, you have suggested:

1) requiring breathalyzers in everyone's vehicles
2) requiring all nightclubs to be concentrated in one area
3) requiring the construction of motels in those areas
4) automatically suspending the licenses of people due to their being prescribed certain medications
5) require the construction of "personal rail car" systems

So, your solutions are to restrict the rights of the majority, force them to pay for alternate transportation systems and to pay the additional costs of breathalyzers in their cars, because of the irresponsibility of a few? What a marvelous idea. But, do you remember making this statement?

they only eliminate people's rights and punish those who have done nothing wrong


You've acknowledged a large (though unspecified) number of fatal accidents are the result of DUI "drugs". You do realize your suggestion of breathalyzers in all vehicles will not reduce those accidents?


If you have ever been to a carnival, and rode the rides, chance are you were on a ride operated by someone under the influence of possibly several substances.


Texas has a law against that.


Recently, Texas has edged out California once again as the state with the most alcohol-related motor-vehicle fatalities and the highest number of fatalities with drivers over the .08% legal limit. However, these drunk driving statistics have shown improvement, but clearly not enough. In 1982, the highest number of alcohol related deaths were reported, when 2,801 of our fellow Texans died. The lowest numbers were reported in 2005, with 1,544. The percentage of traffic fatalities that were alcohol related was highest in 1982 also, with 66%. That percentage dropped to its lowest level in 2005 also, showing 45% of traffic fatalities as alcohol related.

In 2005 and 2006, out of all traffic fatalities, 39% involved a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher, down from 61% in 1982.
texasjusticeforall.wordpress.com...

Since the whole premise of this thread is based on the increased enforcement of DWI/DUI laws, I hope you will acknowledge that fact. And, by looking at the statistics, it is plain to see that, while enforcement has increased, alcohol related fatalities have decreased. But, as long as you choose to delude yourself with the fallacy that DWI/DUI laws have had no effect, debating with you is quite pointless.

And, by the way, you still haven't answered my last question...


Originally posted by WTFover
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?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Having used each of my posts to support DWI/DUI laws (because they do deter intoxicated drivers and, as a result, save lives) I will acknowledge my disagreement with a recently introduced enforcement tactic.

In Texas, it has been referred to as No Refusal Weekend. It involves obtaining an evidentiary search warrant for a person's blood, when that person has refused to voluntarily provide a sample of breath or blood. To date, I understand it has been upheld (Beeman v. State, 86 S.W.3rd 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). However, I suspect one of these cases will be heard by the SCOTUS and, hopefully, overturned.

My personal opinion is, this is far over-reaching and breeds laziness in LEO. If the officer is incapable of articulating his probable cause for the arrest and presenting a compelling case to a jury, he has no case and shouldn't have made the arrest.

When I was in law enforcement, blood evidence was only taken involuntarily, when anyone suffered a life threatening injury or death, as a result of the suspected intoxicated driver's actions. Then, if the injured party survived, the blood evidence was not admissible in the DWI/DUI case and was destroyed.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Given that my grandparents died when a drunk driver hit them, I believe trying to legalize driving under the influence is RETARDED!!



Your grandparents were not killed by a drunk driver.

They were murdered by a drunk driver, and the driver of that vehicle should be charged with murder.

Murder is a crime that has a victim.

Drunk driving itself has no victim.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by westcoast
 


The governments data says the actual cost is 30.5 million per live saved, not 2 million.

And no, your kid is not worth 30 million dollars.



I will take the liberty of quoting you one more time, for I think this statement by you sums you up.

IMO, nothing more needs to be said. That this thread is still going so that you can get off on the conflict and angst you are creating in so many people here is disgusting.

Everyone trying to make a point here against the OP needs to just let this die. It is what he wants. I'm sure he could really care less about DUI's and just wants to continue chuckling in the dark at us.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Reaper2137
a human life is worth nothing.. no more than the dog who gets hit on the street...


I agree...its like, we keep talking about soldiers dying over in the middle east...its like, dude, who cares..these were nobody..useless dimwits trying to get a free ride off society. the uniform is actually a big sign saying "useless dog"...we send them over to get put down, and suddenly they demand everyone supposed to care, as if that wasn't why we sent him there to begin with.

Soldiers are the very definition of worthless humans...else we wouldn't send them over...they would have gotten an education and a real job instead of trying to suck military benefits off of real tax payers. less people = good..and a bloodier war = great.

You won me over dude. Hoorah



Add/edit: I expect this post to be removed...but keep in mind, I only reworded what was written...be fair in moderation...1 nifty warn flag pleask. ktks
edit on 17-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: flame


You are the palin for president guy, right? I can see why she appeals to you.
edit on 19-12-2010 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


If you were looking for an honest discussion on the subject, you wouldn't be misrepresenting what I am saying.

I answered your question, you just don't want to consider the reality.

If we really want to do something to reduce alcohol related fatalities, then breathalyzers in cars would be a solution. You just don't want to see the necessary steps taken to fix these problems. Zoning nightclubs with coffin hotels would help a great deal, and could be more than economically feasible.

Maybe suspending peoples licenses when they are talking prescription drugs that impair their ability to drive might be a step too far, but something needs to be done in this area. Stats in links provided support this idea.

We are already forced to pay for a transportation system that is not only responsible for large numbers of deaths, the leading cause of death for people in the prime of their life, but also a system that is extremely inefficient, and only serves to enrich a minuscule percentage of our our population. The reasons for developing a new, more efficient, more reasonable infrastructure are far greater than an attempt to allow irresponsible people to continue to be irresponsible. That is not at all my reason for desiring a new transportation infrastructure.

Considering the extra taxes paid for the purchase of alcohol, using that money to find a realistic solution is not the wrong idea.

There is no proof that increased punishment for those who drive under the influence is a solution, you are pretending that this is a solution when it is not.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Schaden
 


Lots of things are dangerous.

Banning things that are dangerous is immoral.

Punishing crimes that have a victim is the only just way to run a society.



Banning things that are dangerous is perfectly moral. Nobody should have a right to endanger other people, even if nothing bad happens. Simply increasing the probability of danger and harm can be considered as a form of attack or threatening.
You are blinded by your ideology.
edit on 20/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Banning things that are dangerous is perfectly moral. Nobody should have a right to endanger other people, even if nothing bad happens. You are blinded by your ideology.



Blinded by his ideology?

You are the one who doesn't want to ban cars, pal.

You know that they kill tens of thousands each year, but the belief system which has been indoctrinated into you since childhood prevents you from being able to see the logic behind saving lives. You think it is more important for you to be able to drive your car than for forty-plus thousands people to not die.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   
That's a huge leap to go from banning drunks from driving, to suggest we ban cars altogether.

It's utterly absurd.

So by the logic of some people in this thread, airline pilots should be able to hit up the bar before a flight ?

Now if they crash and kill people, charge them (in absentia) with murder. But if they can maintain some functionality and get the plane in the air and back on the ground in one piece, who are we to say they can't have their pre-flight Jack Daniels ?



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join