Legalize Drunk Driving

Amazing how easy it is to totally ignore the elephant in the room and go on with the stupid little argument.

This isn't about whether or not drunk driving is safe, whether or not it should be totally allowed, or anything of that sort. It's about whether or not it should be treated in such a severe manner, even though it's a form of pre-crime.

The biggest example of why it's ridiculous to be spending tens of thousands of dollars and spending loads of time in jail is texting and driving.

Here are the current penalties for texting while driving (Keep in mind, texting while driving inhibits a person more in reaction time than being drunk. That's MORE):

Arkansas - up to $100
California - $20 for first offense, $50 for subsequent offenses
Colorado - $50 for first offense, $100 for subsequent offenses
Connecticut - $100 for first offense, $150 for second offense, $200 for subsequent offenses
District of Columbia - $100
Illinois - up to $1000. Third offense results in suspended license
Iowa - $30. Increased to $500 if texting results in an accident
Kentucky - $25 for first offense. $50 for subsequent offenses
Louisiana - Up to $100 for first offense and up to $250 for subsequent offenses
Maryland - Up to $500
Michigan - $100 for first offense. $200 for subsequent offenses
Minnesota - Up to $300
Nebraska - $200 for first offense $300 for second offense, $500 for subsequent offenses
New Hampshire - Up to $100
New Jersey - $100
New York - $150
North Carolina - $100
Oregon - $720
Rhode Island - $85 for first offense. $100 for second offense. $125 for subsequent offenses
South Carolina - $25
Tennessee - Up to $50
Texas - Fines set independently by city and can be up to $500
Utah - Up to $750
Virginia - $25
Wisconsin - From $25 to $400
Wyoming - $75

Source

Not a whole lot of jail time up there. Not a whole lot of any penalty even approaching the levels of DUI up there. Yet driving drunk is statistically safer than driving while texting (same source).

The main message is this: Should everything that could be considered "inappropriate" driving that could help lead to an accident be treated the same way DUIs are, or should DUIs be treated the same way everything else is? Why is there even a difference between DUIs and texting while driving?

reply to post by EsSeeEye

It's about whether or not it should be treated in such a severe manner, even though it's a form of pre-crime.

I agree. The question should not be if drunk driving needs to be illegal or not, for me it is clear it should be illegal. Whether the penalties are too harsh ot not, that is the important question, even more so because they seem do differ wildly among different incidents or countries.

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree. The question should not be if drunk driving needs to be illegal or not, for me it is clear it should be illegal. Whether the penalties are too harsh ot not, that is the important question, even more so because they seem do differ wildly among different incidents or countries.

I have a few friends who spent a night in the locker in a number of very different jurisdictions, or suffered an immediate threat of having their license revoked, which would result in equally immediate and imminent hardship. From interviewing these persons, I have a clear view of the outcome -- prompt and effective cure. They just don't act stoopid anymore.

funny....

whats next... legalize flying while drunk?

reply to post by CAELENIUM


nevermind

Originally posted by starless and bible black
reply to post by CAELENIUM

 

I am quite curious as to what you may have spoken regarding this subject.

I understand that the OP is a utopian anarchist, and would allow pets to burn, due to financial irregularities in fire protection coverage, despite their being handed a payment on the spot, while on scene to save the animals. Thank you

Being a Utopian means one believes a perfect world can be regulated into existence through the use of violence..

Being an anarchist means one does not believe violence can be used to solve large scale social problems.

And the burning pets comment had me cracking up, so thanks for that.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Yes. Lets tell people that it's A-Ok to endanger someone elses life..

That's a great idea.

It is not OK to endanger someone else's life.

If they hurt someone, steep penalties should be applied.

However, if they don't hurt anyone, they haven't actually committed a crime.

Ok, lets say:

- Your wife/mom/sister/brother or whatever is on the street going around their business as usual
- Some idiot is stopped by the police a few blocks away, they say "oh he's just drunk, you can go sr"
- Idiot drives a couple more blocks and loses control, then kills your relative.
- What good is a 'steep penalty' at this point? how much cash will make you feel better after your lose?
- Will you complain to the cops that stopped him because they let him go, or will you just say, oh well its the law he was in his right to drive drunk, bad luck, anyway, what's for dinner? i don't understand your thought process here, maybe you didn't think this through?

Do you disagree with this? we can't predict what will happen, but we can prevent, that's why they are not allowed to continue driving once find out, is that a bad thing?

Also, about the high price to pay, what would happen if they are just taken away for a night or two, with no other repercussions, will they think it twice next time or just continue to do it again and again? yeah maybe the price is too high, but so is the risk of killing themselves or someone else, it would be interesting to know statistics about how many of the people who were detained because of drunk driving continue to do so after paying and being released. As always lately in ATS, this thread has been made impossible to read because of hundreds of useless posts insulting the thread creator instead of the thread's OP, so i didn't read all of it and maybe missed some important bits..

reply to post by mnemeth1


You are right about a lot of things being wrong. The fact is that you did alter my perceptions of many institutionalized lies, gravity being among the most salient.

'pets be damned' is not one of them.

I was unaware of the term 'Utopian' necessitating violence. It may surprise you to know that those who violently repress us are in for a quantum treat, much worse than violence.

'Utopian' looks like a special word, which, so says spellcheck, must be capitalized. I'll have to look it up. Thanks for that.

You know and I know that they are looking for something other than what they say, with all the gadgets for 'detection'. But I know few people, some of them drinkers, and of the few I know...I have seen them try to drive when smashed, and it's pretty frightening that alcohol has the ability to delude them quite handily in to thinking they can execute simple maneuvers which they cannot. Not everyone is an astronaut who can assimilate alcohol, and perform well, if not better, than when straight.

I think people who drink and drive are a potential danger to everyone, and the reason is that they do it all the time and they don’t stop to think they could kill innocent people, or harming them in a permanent way. When you see a child running with scissors you obviously (if you have a bit of common sense) take them away or tell the child not to run with them. You don’t wait until the kid hits the floor and cuts his face with the scissors to do something, do you?
I do agree about the money coming from DUI, they should punish them not with money but with community service hours, and lots of them, because they just pay and they do it again. Maybe working for the community will open up their mind and they could see what a threat they represent to the people of their communities. I know in some cases, they fine and order community service hours. I understand the system is corrupt, but in no way Drinking Driving should be legalized, you have the right to drink all you want but you DO NOT have the right to go behind the wheel and endanger the lives of people. What next Legalizing Driving and Texting? Wait until someone hits some poor kid crossing the street because they were too busy with their Blackberry?

reply to post by starless and bible black


Being drunk and walking home is no more of a crime than being drunk and driving home.

A crime can only occur if a person or property is damaged by an individual's actions.

People are assuming that drunk driving is a form of assault, it is not. No one is threatened with violence.

People are assuming that drunk driving laws actually save lives, they do not. The marginal decrease in drunk driving is incredibly low per cost incurred. Those costs COST lives. When government wastes money, people die. Real people are now made more poor than they were if these laws were not enacted.

The epic waste of money society engages in by enforcing DUI laws means society as a whole is less prosperous and worse off. A worse off society means more people die early deaths.

If someone drives drunk and hurts someone, they should be severely punished. However, if no one is hurt, then no crime has been committed.

The State is not, and can never be, a legitimate victim in a criminal case.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Those costs COST lives. When government wastes money, people die. Real people are now made more poor than they were if these laws were not enacted. The epic waste of money society engages in by enforcing DUI laws means society as a whole is less prosperous and worse off. A worse off society means more people die early deaths.

Not true, I have already debunked this.

The money raised from DUI fees 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 taken from 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.

The benefits of DUI are: 400 people per year saved + better police + lower taxes for all other, more law-abiding citizens, making them better off.

Negatives? DUI drivers worse off.

Law abiding citizens better off = DUI drivers worse off (cancels each other out)

+400 ppl/year saved.

Net effect: Good.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I do know that you are correct in your conclusions. Why should a person who does no harm be punished etc....

I have come to the same conclusion repeatedly while considering your thread. It's the premise that I have trouble with. I don't get drunk. 'Drunk' means: smashed, incapacitated, unable to drive a car in a safe and non-reckless manner. Most people cannot even drive when straight, OK? This is why I'll never own a motorcycle, despite that I love them. Add texting and technology to 'drunk driving' and you have drunk moron butt dialing beer goggled zombies hoping to make it through the maze.... If they mess up even a little, someone innocent is harmed badly.

And the driver gets in trouble, big trouble. I could dig it. Because I don't smash up cars, and I don't get drunk.

So let's consider that the it's the legal blood/alcohol limit that gets in your craw. Using technology, it should be a simple matter of finding the personal limitation every driver exhibits, through testing. This would be a more practical argument than opening the floodgates on 'drunk driving'. Everyone is different. Everyone probably has a different level of tolerance. If you want to drink and drive, then pay some outfit to regularly check your ability to handle the stuff. This could be done easily, for those of you who insist on having your precious alcohol while driving. There will certainly be psychological factors, impossible to screen for, I suppose, but nonetheless: one phuckup, and the driver loses his license.

Since a line of coke probably increases your ability to drive, while smashed, or 'drunk', why not do toots just before your testing session? Then, with your advantage status, you can be 'designated drunk driver'. Good idea. Great. I see no way anything could go wrong.

But back to your arguments, OP. I am certain your tables show that the way it is, isn't working, save to waste money, create a police state, and scarcely save a life in the process, else you wouldn't have displayed them. It ought to be simple, you know, go out, have a few drinks, drive home. With alcohol, however, there's a bit of grey area. I recall just before I lost control of a sports car, on a couple of mixed drinks, it felt so right. And, I was able to perfectly regain control like a pro racer before coming to rest. But it was surreal how the mere presence of the solvent in my bloodstream was, in fact, the catalyst for me taking that turn, at that speed, in the first place. No one got hurt. No one's car was scratched but mine, because I had the reflexes of a cat and the car responded well. It was an impossible number of maneuvers that had to be executed in a fraction of a second at high speed during which time slowed to a crawl. There was a bit of luck involved as well.... Probably I was just below or just above the blood alcohol limit. I was certainly an inexperienced drinker, and the car was being felt out by me for the first time, on liquor, as a high performance car. No one got injured, yay. I'm just sayin'.

Responsibility with alcohol? I could deal with it for the rest of my life, and I'm sure you could with yours. But what about every one else? Let the record speak for itself, eh? Not a bad idea. I don't think the state likes fairness, though. They like to apply the screws, totalitarian style, making us all victims, all but themselves who are exempt.

It's good to hold fast to the line, as you do, for individual freedom, because as you know, they've no plans to stop hauling in that fat net full of technological catches by which to systematically detain and enslave us.

Had to add a couple of points.

The utopia discussion-look up dystopian definition.

The pointing gun discussion. Heck in Madison Wisconsin a little while back 5 people were arrested for just allowing their legally open carry guns be seen. Even though it was legal, they were arrested because someone called 911.

mnemeth and I both did a thread on that, still waiting on the outcome of that.

Still wondering when we are going to punish someone for eating while driving the same as drunk driving.
Still wondering when we are going to punish someone for texting while driving the same as drunk driving.
Still wondering when we are going to punish habitually BAD DRIVERS the same as drunk driving.
etc etc etc.

Because us animals are more equal than others.

Just sprinkle in a little Pax, and then we can all lay down and die.

Then, no one will be hurt anymore.

I live in a land where everyone drives drunk. We literally wave our hands at the police while chugging down a beer. It is the most liberating feeling. This land is called the U.S. Virgin islands.

There are laws stating legal limits of blood level but no open container laws so everyone drinks drunk and we don't get into trouble unless we wreck into something.

Most deaths here occur on the one and only highway due to speeding and the fact that most of us down here down have no practice at driving fast. Average speed around the island never gets above 30 mph.

This may be a cure for the horrible accidents on so many highways and single lane two way high speed roads. 55+ mph. The law doesn't care how many people die from accidents, just how much they can make from them.

If you kill someone while driving it's an accident but if your drunk it's considered manslaughter and you will pay dearly.

reply to post by poet1b


People may not get the reference-



A clip of the description-

It was the Pax
The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors.
It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression.
Well, it works.
The people here stopped fighting.
And then they stopped everything else.
They stopped going to work.
They stopped breeding, talking, eating.
There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.
( banging, growling on recording ) I have to be quick.
About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax.
Their aggressor response increased beyond madness.
They have become-- Well, they've killed most of us.
And not just killed.
They've done things.
Reavers.
They made them.
I won't live to report this.
But people have to know we meant it for the best.
- To make people safer. -( growling ) God! No! ( screaming ) ( woman screaming ) Turn it off.
( screaming stops ) ( shivering ) ( vomits ) River.

Now, you know the rest of the story.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A crime can only occur if a person or property is damaged by an individual's actions.

Somebody in this thread suggested legalizing drunk flying (to keep you happy).

I say why stop there?

Let's legalize:
a) drunk surgery
b) drunk execution of one's jury duty
c) drunk while manning strategic nuclear command

After all, there is no evidence that having a drunk person in charge of nukes would result in any adverse effects. And my theory is that if the surgeon who does C-section on your wife is tipsy, that'll help him relax a little and he'll be fine. Maybe your wife will be fine, too.

There is an old and very wise saying, "Choose your battles." I think that this falls very firmly under the umbrella of that old adage. There are so many things going on in the world and America, I just don't think this is an issue upon which one should plant their flag. With everything from 9/11 to CPS to Police abuses to environmental damage and manipulation...this just doesn't seem like a priority to me.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Let's legalize:

a) drunk surgery
b) drunk execution of one's jury duty
c) drunk while manning strategic nuclear command

Strategic Nuclear Command, also known as Strategic Forces Command, is that part of India's Nuclear Command Authority that handles that country's strategic and tactical nuclear weapons.

This gets to the heart of the insanity I believe the O.P. is, and has been, attempting to address. It is the height of insanity to have any Strategic Nuclear Command. Whether it be India, The United States, Russia, China, North and South Korea, or any other nation, stockpiling nuclear weapons for the purposes of mass destruction is criminal. These nuclear weapons are being used, just as they have been used, to coerce and to cajole nations into towing a line. These weapons of mass destruction have been used in the way any thug would use brute force, or the threat of brute force.

Sober or drunk, the thought of humans manning any sort of Strategic Nuclear Command is horrifying, and having those clowns sober does little to assuage the horror. Sure they are mad men, but what the hell, they are sober.

While the suggestion was clearly meant to be sarcastic, it is sarcasm without a hint of irony to the fact that countless pages have been spent in defense of DUI's, but Strategic Nuclear Command is treated as a legal and normal part of government business.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So drunk driving should not be criminal, but posessing nuclear weapons, even sober and with appropiate qualifications, should be? Wouldnt that be far worse from of pre-crime than banning DUI?

Nuclear weapons, inspite of their bad image, are great maintainers of peace, and are probably the only reason why we havent got any major conflicts between nuclear superpowers for the last 60 years. Noone wants to go MAD. So your opinion that the net effect of existence of NW on the humanity is bad and therefore they should be universally banned is very questionable at least.

On the other hand, the net effect of DUI on the society is definately bad, there is no question about it.