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: 33
64
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Both alcohol and crack can impair you so much, that you do not know what you are doing.



Mnemeth1 said that drunk drivers who injure or kill people should be punished.

He would also want cracked-drivers to be punished if they commit homicide or hurt someone.


What is wrong with this?




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


Ah ok only 2 duis BUT like you said the first one was bogus. Lmfao. *slaps head*.....



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   


The 2nd one was entirely my fault and I'm glad I was stopped before something bad happened.
However the DUI laws do nothing to stop anyone from driving when they feel OK to drive.


In retrospective, you admit you are glad you was preventivelly stopped by the police while driving under the influence, yet you want to deny this to others. Explain your logic to me.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





Mnemeth1 said that drunk drivers who injure or kill people should be punished. He would also want cracked-drivers to be punished if they commit homicide or hurt someone. What is wrong with this?


Absolutely nothing, and it is already done, people are punished for crimes they commit under the influence.

The question in this thread is if drunk driving on public roads is a crime. Endangering other people or property definitely is, even if nothing bad happens. By the same logic I could just shoot drunk on the street randomly, and nobody could stop me or punish me till I happen to not hit anyone.
edit on 21/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I only want the laws changed. I didn't stop drinking and driving because of the law, I did it on my own because I couldn't stand hurting someone else. I was driving recklessly and should have been stopped, so I'm thankful for the officer who stopped me. The DUI laws aren't what caused him to pull me over, it was my reckless driving.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


I understand. But I still think drunk people should be stopped sooner, not only after they start to drive so recklessly that it is easily spotted by the police. Alcohol greatly slows down reaction time to changes on the road and speed judging even in smaller doses, so you can often manage good driving for most of the route, thus not being spotted by the police, but fail due to influence if you get into particularly difficult situation.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The only way to tell if someone is under the influence or not is a breathalyzer so you can't really stop someone sooner unless the cops sit at the bar waiting for people to go home, which I believe is illegal.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
A few years ago I was going through a literal nightmare over personal relationship issues, I found myself drunk at 1pm when my boss called me with an emergency. I had to go to work so in the car I went, I made it less than 2 miles before blacking out and cutting across 6 lanes of traffic. Next thing I know I was in an ambulance with a shattered scapula.

Nobody was hurt and by some grace of God I did not hit any other vehicles. I deserved much worse than a shattered bone, had I hurt or even worse killed someone else, I would deserve to die.

I'm not proud of this story and relive it in my head almost daily. The facts are simple: driving drunk puts others lives in jeopardy, end of story. What pisses me off more than this thread is the fact that Washington State Patrol recently got their budget cut for extra DUI patrols...

I deserve to be shot for what I did. Anyone driving under the influence deserves to be a shot as well. And while I respect your opinion from a professional stand point, I personally believe you should be shot for even beginning to consider polluting a perfectly good forum with CRAP like this.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldDisorder

I deserve to be shot for what I did.


No you don't.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Mathoryn
 


Man I would go to prison on purpose just so I can F#ck him up.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

edit on 21-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Both alcohol and crack can impair you so much, that you do not know what you are doing.



Mnemeth1 said that drunk drivers who injure or kill people should be punished.

He would also want cracked-drivers to be punished if they commit homicide or hurt someone.


What is wrong with this?


What is wrong; is what you are not saying... It sincerely is like a massive race to the base of all lunacy and it
pisses me off that so many of you are clueless. It is one thing to be angry about the revenue stream created by law enforcement, but it is another to question the validity of the danger of DWI. I know so MANY people who did not drive drunk because the fear of being arrested.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
I know so MANY people who did not drive drunk because the fear of being arrested.



Thing is though, If the increased risk of potentially mangling some family and one's own body isn't going to deter a person, fines and risk-of arrest won't either.

So you are sure that it wasn't the increased risk of mangling that deterred your acquaintances?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




Thing is though, If the increased risk of potentially mangling some family and one's own body isn't going to deter a person, fines and risk-of arrest won't either.


Prove it.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Is that your passive-aggressive way of saying I'm wrong?

And that being brutally mangled or mangling a family is not a greater deterrent than affecting someone's bank account/driving license?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




And that being brutally mangled or mangling a family is not a greater deterrent than affecting someone's bank account/driving license?


In absolute terms yes, but since its more under your control, you think (very often falsely) that you will manage to not do it. Getting checked by police for DUI is not under your control and happens more often, so you cannot be so sure it wont happen to you. Therefore it acts as an additional, and often greater and deciding factor deterrent, IN ADDITION to what you describe. Thats basic human psychology - deciding if something is worth doing depends on sum of the harms involved and their probabilities and our ability to mitigate those risks (what we think our ability to do so is at the time of the decision). That compared to potential benefits gained.

Another thing is that even if those laws were not acting as a deterrent (people were deciding to DUI as if they were not in place), they give police an opportunity to stop DUI after the decision, but before the tragedy, thus they definately lower the amount of drunk drivers and potential car crashes AT LEAST by the amount of directly catched DUI drivers.
edit on 21/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No, its his way of saying back up your arguement. Kind of like" put up or shut up". Not too difficult to comprehend now is it?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You are so correct.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



edit on 21-12-2010 by MarineSniper12Kills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Janky Red
I know so MANY people who did not drive drunk because the fear of being arrested.



Thing is though, If the increased risk of potentially mangling some family and one's own body isn't going to deter a person, fines and risk-of arrest won't either.

So you are sure that it wasn't the increased risk of mangling that deterred your acquaintances?



Look, I have been drunk plenty of times myself - at least twenty times in my life... I know that I do not risk drinking and driving because I don't want to get arrested.

Anyways it is a cumulative thing; and for many people financial concerns are paramount, for other people it is the combination of all the concerns that tip the scales.

I ask you, without a law in place, what separates an alcohol induced accident from an accident?
Are all accidents just accidents? Since the driver did nothing wrong besides lose control how are you going to
prosecute something that is not illegal? That is NOT how COMMON LAW WORKS - are you going to stricken the constitution and create a new system of law to address this?

If the alcohol and driving is not a crime

and it was not intentional

or malicious

this case would only be a civil case, damages -

Tell us - how this would work without changing the very nature of the US legal system?

Can you imagine insurance rates too?

The deductible would bankrupt you regardless of the accident


edit on 21-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join