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: 40
64
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Schaden
 


I haven't made up squat.



This wasn't made up ?

"Levels below .15, the original BAC limit, slightly in creases the chances of an accident, and very very slightly a death when no other traffic violations are associated."

Source please.

Unless you're an alocoholic, a .14 BAC is a strong buzz. An officer doing a field sobriety test would know you are messed up. And that way more than "slightly increases the chance of an accident, and very very slightly a death". Maybe if you're driving in an extremely rural area but not a city.I don't want the driver of any cars around me on the street to have more than 1 drink's worth of liquor in them.

FYI you are impaired after a single drink, let alone the multiple it would take the vast majority of people to get up to a .14 BAC. That's science, not an opinion.

Nobody is saying you can't drink. Just don't drive.

I swear some people have no common sense. Radical ideology is dangerous.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden


Unless you're an alocoholic, a .14 BAC is a strong buzz.



Not true at all. Other factors like genetics, age, gender, ect... come into play with tolerances. I know of many people who are not alcoholics who can still function when their BAC is over .20. The you must be an alcoholics to not be wasted with an X BAC factor is pure BS.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
"Who can still function" ?

That's not the question. I'm not asking if someone with a .14 BAC can physically drive a car.
The question is risk. After just 3 beers you are significantly impaired, whether you "feel" drunk or not. Alcohol puts your brain to sleep. The lobe that tells you to watch out for danger. It lower inhibitions. Psychologists have compared sober drivers to intoxicated and the drinkers always "think" they driver better than they really are. But they drive sloppy and make bad decisions. More people are killed in accidents from alcohol intoxication than coc aine, crack and heroin combined. It's a deadly drug.

And you're not just putting your own life at risk. In itself, operating a motor vehicle can be a dangerous activity. It doesn't mix with alcohol. It's perfectly reasonable for society to forbid drinking and driving because it puts other people lives at risk. You cannot downplay the danger. To pretend otherwise is pure ignorance. Political madness indeed.
edit on 26-12-2010 by Schaden because: spel



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm not saying anyone should drive a car impaired. I'm just saying the BAC numbers the cops and judge use to impose sentences is unfair and based on poor science. The breathalyzer can give false highs under the right circumstances. It should be based on how the driver was driving, if someone was driving recklessly and has a BAC .07 I think his/her punishment should be much more strict than someone who has a BAC of .20 but was driving reasonable and pulled over for a tag light being out or some other minor traffic violation.

I promise I can perform better than the national average(like there is a standard) at with a BAC of .15 on a driving test. That doesn't mean I should be driving.

As I said in my previous post, a first time DUI should not hold the stiff punishments as they do now given the driver did not cause an accident, property damage, and driving reasonable(not reckless/careless). They way it is now after one DUI you are a criminal for life.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Where is anyone's sources to prove that these levels actually lead to higher accident rates.

Notice all the stats are fudged.

You provide nothing to back up your claims, but I am supposed to prove a negative.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree, it's a money grab by the out of control police state. That said: anyone who drives drunk (or under the influence) and kills someone else should be put down like a dog.

Hammurabi FTW.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


I have a tremendous solution for you - don't drive if you are drinking. And you will not have problems with breathalyzer. EVER. Simple heh?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Except for some slap on the hand fines, drunk driving is basically legal now. If the legal system and the government and the automobile manufacturers wanted to stop drunk driving tomorrow, they could do it. Jail time, heavy fines, and loss of license for first offenders. Alcohol monitoring kill switches on cars. Easy to do.

But the dirty little secret is that at one time or another, everybody does it, including the very police, lawyers, judges and politicians who say they are against it.

The only thing that will eventually do away with it is cars that drive themselves, and researchers are spending millions to create the technology to make that happen cheaply enough so people can afford to use it. Because we as a society are willing to kill several thousand people every year to keep the cost of our cars down.

Them's the facts.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
That said: anyone who drives drunk (or under the influence) and kills someone else should be put down like a dog.


These are the kinds of statements that come back to haunt you when you or a loved one drives drunk and kills somebody in an accident. I hope that doesn't happen to you, but the way irony is dished out so heavily in this existence, it wouldn't surprise me if it did. Maybe in the next year or so.

It's kind of like when a politician or religious figure publicly says that gays are an abomination. Guess who's son or daughter will turn out to be gay? Yep, that's right.


edit on 27-12-2010 by Blue Shift because: I just don't know when to shut up.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Okay, I am going to try and put this idea out there one more time.

If a person, causes harm while doing something risky, they should be punished. They could be punished even more severely if the jury of their peers believes what they have done is sufficient to prosecute it so.

To convict someone of a crime, where there is NO VICTIM, is to be a POLICE STATE. Whereby the government decides on what behavior is to be prosecuted.

That is all.

What is the difference between punishing someone that has caused harm by risky behavior and punishing someone that has only done risky behavior?

Oh, that would be a tyrannical society and a free society.

There you go.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yea right - now we need to hospitalize and analyze every dude that was drinking to find out if he can drive safely on each occassion. And after testings give him the "he can drive (insert BAC number)" papers?

For Christ's sake - grow up. Common sense also helps. I already suggested a solution - just don't drive if you drink. And your problems with breathalazer is gone forever.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


In other words - if I didn't kill or injure anybody yet I am allowed to run around reckless? Very nice...

And about dudes who can drive safely after a bunch of drinks - maybe there are some somewhere. But to allow everyone drive drunk because of several exceptions is not a smart move imo. It's not like drunk drivers are shot on site you know.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


I am not talking specifically about only Drinking and Driving, I am talking about EVERY damn law there is.

But, who the frack cares right, better institute legislation on EVERYTHING that one does.

Nice....................Oh well.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


Then they should completely eliminate the BAC level. If you have ayn levels of alcohol in your system, then you would be driving under the influence, because with a .08 limit, everyone has to make that impaired decision, am I sober enough to drive? Am I below .08.

Guess what, the odds that they will make the right decision is behind them.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


What I am talking about fits to other laws too. If a man is behaving dangerously or there's a higher probability of commiting a crime and community can identify the risk - stop that man before he actually commits a crime. There are many lives (including potential killers' lives) saved by forcing these laws. And I don't see a better solution as there is.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Fair enough. I agree.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pitons
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


In other words - if I didn't kill or injure anybody yet I am allowed to run around reckless? Very nice...



If you are driving recklessly then you should be charged with reckless driving . That is what the OP says.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


EX1, you always bring down my ideas to relevant discussion.

I go to the extreme because I see the problems and have lived them. Spent years in jail for never harming anyone.

BUT HEY, it is good for the collective RIGHT!

Frelling idiots!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


and if you are reckless driving and caught, are you not charged with it? or if your caught driving while drunk and reckless driving are you then not charged with both?.
edit on 27-12-2010 by redgy because: added words



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


and if you are reckless driving, are you not charged with it? or if your caught driving while drunk and reckless driving are you then not charged with both?.


In an ideal world (such as the OP's) the person would only be charged with reckless driving.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join