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: 35
64
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Another thing to consider is that from a moral or legal standpoint the existence of law is not dependent on our ability enforce it in practice. It is wrong to endanger people by driving drunk, irregardless of our ability to keep drunk people from driving and thus enforce this law. Our inability to catch most of drunk drivers is not a reason to legalize drunk driving.

So even if we suppose that drunk driving laws do not prevent drunk driving related deaths in practice (for the sake of argument), it would not be a reason to legalize drunk driving.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Another thing to consider is that from a moral or legal standpoint the existence of law is not dependent on our ability enforce it in practice. It is wrong to endanger people by driving drunk, irregardless of our ability to keep drunk people from driving and thus enforce this law. Our inability to catch most of drunk drivers is not a reason to legalize drunk driving.

So even if we suppose that drunk driving laws do not prevent drunk driving related deaths in practice (for the sake of argument), it would not be a reason to legalize drunk driving.


At a cost of 20 billion dollars a year, society can not afford to enforce yet another victimless law.

Crimes must have victims to be just.

DUI laws combined with the "war on drugs" are pissing 10% of the value of the entire M1 money supply down the gutter every year for the prevention of 400 deaths.

This is like invading two countries every year.

The combined annual cost of the war in Afghanistan AND the war in Iraq is 140 billion a year. We spend around that much enforcing DUI and drug laws.

This is insane.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
who starred this?! what in the world. sad.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




At a cost of 20 billion dollars a year, society can not afford to enforce yet another victimless law.


If this law was abolished, those 400 per year would be victims.



DUI laws combined with the "war on drugs" are pissing 10% of the value of the entire M1 money supply down the gutter every year for the prevention of 400 deaths.


We are talking about DUI. If you want to add war on drugs, also add more victims and economic damage prevented to the equation (in case of hard drugs, of course, soft drugs should be legal).

Another very big difference - the money raised from DUI fees is NOT going down the drain, spent on pointless things, in contrast with money spend on foreign invasions that is simply lost for the paying society. It is used to fund the police. Thus if this fees were not present, you have two options:
1. increase taxes for all others to maintain the same level of quality in the police dept
2. decrease the quality of police service for all
So for the society as a whole, there is no net economical damage being done by DUI fees. Money lost by catched DUI drivers is in fact payed to the law-abiding citizens, in the form of subsidizing their additional tax, which they would have to pay for the same level of service if there was no DUI.

You can think of a DUI fee like private protection or insurance company raising driver protection cost for individuals with risky driving habits.
edit on 21/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
You do honestly make some good points. Of course, it took a while to get those laws into place, and they should remain.

We are all about prevention now. Look at the airports. Sometimes it's about "better safe than sorry".



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


So where does it end?

Maybe we should be locked in our homes because it's dangerous out there. "Better safe than sorry!"

And you are actually condoning what is happening at the airports? That's ok with you? Do you actually feel safer with a random guy's hand down your pants?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Puresilence
 


I find your response to me rude.

Given the choice of having myself or someone I love hit and killed by a drunk driver, I would perfer to have a law in place preventing or discouraging it. You've read the posts on this thread. If one of those people had not been killed, then the law is worth it.

Given a choice of having my plane flown into a building and killing thousands of people and burning to death, or undergoing an unpleasant exam, I would choose the latter. If another 911 could be averted, then the procedures are worth it.

They might not be the best plans, but for now, they are the only sources of semi-protection we have.

I happen to value human life, and these laws were put into place to demonstrate such value.

Now please have your little hissy fit on someone else.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by DrChuck
 


So you agree with the OP that laws cannot prevent and can only punish?





Ok, I'm totally lost now, I have no idea what your trying to say or what context your replying to.

My original question was ; how is charging someone with homicide after a death a prevention of death?. And you replied with the quote above. I don't get how my question would lead to your response, or that my question would in any way lead you to think that I agree with the OP.

I never said that laws cannot prevent, where did you even come up with this? I need you to clarify your points.
edit on 21-12-2010 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Puresilence
 


I find your response to me rude.

Given the choice of having myself or someone I love hit and killed by a drunk driver, I would perfer to have a law in place preventing or discouraging it. You've read the posts on this thread. If one of those people had not been killed, then the law is worth it.

Given a choice of having my plane flown into a building and killing thousands of people and burning to death, or undergoing an unpleasant exam, I would choose the latter. If another 911 could be averted, then the procedures are worth it.

They might not be the best plans, but for now, they are the only sources of semi-protection we have.

I happen to value human life, and these laws were put into place to demonstrate such value.

Now please have your little hissy fit on someone else.


The point you seem to be missing in all of this is that drunk driving laws don't actually reduce drunk driving.

Therefore, your loved ones could be hit regardless.

The best estimates are that drunk driving laws save 400 lives a year. - BUT - at a cost of 20 billion annually, we can rest assured that far more people than 400 end up dying early deaths because of the money that was taken from them.

We already have laws against reckless endangerment, murder, assault, and property damage. Those laws are sufficient to deter drunk drivers.
edit on 21-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This issue is easily taken care of by enforceability. If you can drive drunk and manage not to get caught and manage not to appear drunk at all while driving, then basically the law is not enforced against you because nobody will notice.

The reality is that somebody does notice for all of those convictions you count, because people manage to break other laws in the process of driving drunk. It is a proven fact that alcohol impairs the senses and judgement.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


This tact is likely to backfire if it were to be pursued on any large level. By saying that currently laws are not effective enough the result would not be the repeal of current laws, but, rather, would lead to even more draconian legislation.

Imagine a world where the law says we have to take cabs to any establishment that serves alcohol.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong.


I really do hope this thread of yours is a jest or a hoax, because it's slightly more disturbing than your earlier proclamations that Einstein was a moron, that you repeated 10,000 times.

Assuming you are still serious here, assume for a second that you take a sharp axe in one hand, enter a subway train in rush hour, put a blindfold on your eyes, and start swinging around the axe, randomly. There is a probability that you won't hit anybody. Then again, there is a probability that you'll vent someone's head.

...and there needs to be a deterrent factor against such stupid action.

...and you also need to talk to some families that suffered loss due to drunken driving incidents.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Puresilence
Maybe we should be locked in our homes because it's dangerous out there. "Better safe than sorry!"


Let me ask you, do you think people shouldn't bother with safe sex? It's really more fun bareback!

So, what do you say?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Puresilence
Maybe we should be locked in our homes because it's dangerous out there. "Better safe than sorry!"


Let me ask you, do you think people shouldn't bother with safe sex? It's really more fun bareback!

So, what do you say?



Do you think government agents should stand in our bedrooms with a gun to our heads and force us to use condoms?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I have a DUI on my record. Not happy about it, but I do think first time offenses should be a like a traffic ticket instead of a crime given the person was not driving recklessly, did not cause a crash or property damage.

I got mine over two years ago, I'm still on probation, I still have to be the state $xx every month, I had to sell my car to cover some of my costs, and I cannot get my driver's liscence reinstated until I have a car with a breathalyzer in it. I've paid over $10,000 lost my job in the Navy, been unemployed since.

I was pulled over because my turn signal light had burned out, other than that my driving was fine. At 2am after a football game they are looking for any reason to pull someone over.

Drunk Driving should not be legal, but the penalties for a first time offense are a bit extreme.
edit on 21-12-2010 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


Why?

Why should you be charged with any crime at all if you didn't hurt anyone or damage their property?

Did you drive recklessly while drunk and endanger people?

Did you assault anyone with your vehicle?

Did you murder anyone with your vehicle?

The only time people should be charged with a crime is if they hurt someone while drinking.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The law against drunk driving is basically an acceptance of a failure to solve the problem. Instead of using technology and other methods that would be more effective, a law is created. This law creates a whole new industry that feeds on itself. The problem can never go away because of the various industries that depend on it. The laws and propaganda will only get worse. The people that depend on it now do not want it to go away. Law enforcement, the justice system, and government will not allow this problem to be eliminated.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree with you but I have a biased opinion. My blinker did not come on while making a turn, that was the probably cause the officer had to pull me over.

I do think there is a correlation between multiple DUI offenders and fatal traffic crashes so there is some logic in making driving under the influence a crime.

The mandatory breathalyzer in my non-existent car is what really makes me angry, without being able to drive I feel like I am 15 all over again. Habitual speeders are not required to put a governor in their cars.(I better stop before I give the man some ideas)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
The law against drunk driving is basically an acceptance of a failure to solve the problem. Instead of using technology and other methods that would be more effective, a law is created. This law creates a whole new industry that feeds on itself. The problem can never go away because of the various industries that depend on it. The laws and propaganda will only get worse. The people that depend on it now do not want it to go away. Law enforcement, the justice system, and government will not allow this problem to be eliminated.


I think part of the problem is that government owns the roads as well.

If a private corporation owned a highway, they might implement policies that force people to undergo a breathalyser at their toll booths.

If a private corporation does this, it is totally acceptable since the use of their road and the taking of the breathalyser is a VOLUNTARY act between the seller and the customer.

People might chose to use the private highway precisely because they know it will be safer to drive on.

Only the market can find positive solutions to the problem of drunk driving.

Government laws accomplish nothing.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Actually they may as well legalize it seeing as the province here in bc decided it'd be ok to train a deaf person as a truck driver. LMAO!!! I'm sorry but deaf people shouldn't do that as a profession you need to hear people's horns on the road. This lady drove into some concrete blocks and dragged them with her truck, would you trust that person to drive a truck? Stupid government.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join