Legalize Drunk Driving

Originally posted by Maslo
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?

Appropriate qualifications?

Elaborate.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Appropriate qualifications?

Education, psychotests, clearance, license.. Strategic nuclear commanders are not just ordinary folks off the street. Just like driving an automobile requires qualification (represented by license), the same is true for NW.

Why is that important to the topic?

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Quite right. It is exceedingly naive to assume that the US can just disarm overnight.

And by the way...In the past 50 years the number of DUI related deaths in the United States is very roughly 100,000 people. Yet, we didn't lose nearly as much in that same period of time, to nuclear weapons.

If driving drunk is illegal, why are they not laws against driving while sleepy. Its just as dangerous but there are no laws preventing that, like there are laws preventing dwi. Only laws that punish after an act has been committed. (ie. reckless driving)

I'm not agreeing with it one way or another. Just throwing that out there.

Originally posted by white_raven
If driving drunk is illegal, why are they not laws against driving while sleepy.

I believe these are being considered in some jurisdiction, of course that does make sense.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Killing someone is murder.

Laws against murder are good.

Driving drunk while not hurting or damaging anyone else's property is not murder - in fact its not anything at all.

edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

WRONG I am sorry killing someone is not murdering them. If you attacked me and I killed you it would be self defense. Murder is something completly different.

I too have had a friend killed by a drunk driver. Drunk Driving laws are there for the fact that it use to not be a law you could drive and people were being killed. This law is a blood law. People had to be killed before we implemented it as a way to help reduce and stop people from doing this. I am all for raping people for driving drunk.

You say you want to be treated as an adult then act like one if someone drinks to much get a #ing cab ride home or have a DD that did not drink at all period. That is the responsible thing to do and as an adult should be your course of action if you intend to drink.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but people are going to drive drunk no matter what well let them know taht if they do there are consequences for taking those actions. And the reason they fines and everything is so high is to help deter people IF the punishment is severe enough it will help deter certain people from commiting those actions.

Driving is dangerous enough sober why do you advocate putting a posion in your body that only hampers your ability to make proper decisions and also slows down motor funcitons reducing reaction time?

This idea is stupid...

Do you know why drink driving should be illegal?

Do you want me to clear it up...

Well about 9 years ago when I was 21 I was stopped by the police because I was "drink" driving, now... if it wasn't illegal then the police would have just let me go and I could have caused an accident later on but...

It was illegal so the police arrested me took my car to a safe place end of story.

And that's why it should be illegal so as to stop accidents before they happen.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

It is the height of non sequitur to start seriously analyze nuclear deterrent or lack thereof, in this thread about drunken driving. Then again, the OP stipulation is so outlandish, let it be the circus that it is.

reply to post by buddhasystem

It is the height of non sequitur to start seriously analyze nuclear deterrent or lack thereof, in this thread about drunken driving. Then again, the OP stipulation is so outlandish, let it be the circus that it is.

It is your non sequitur not mine. You not only introduced this non sequitur, you felt compelled to then defend the need for nuclear weapons, and even more insanely suggested that drunk driving is more of a threat to humanity than is nuclear weapons. All of which I ignored until this last example of banality by you.

It was insane to develop weapons of mass destruction. It is insane to defend the existence of weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with such insanity, why should any ranting about the threat of drunk driving be taken seriously?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How many people were killed by drunk driving vs. nuclear weapons? How many more people would be killed in the war against Japan if there was no Hiroshima? How many more people would be killed in conventional wars between superpowers if we didnt have nuclear deterrents preventing them?

As much as it is counterintuitive to idealists like you, in reality nuclear weapons might actually SAVE lives and maintain peace in the long run.

What are the benefits of drunk driving?

...

This is a troll thread and yall fed the troll
I'm a former paramedic and i seen my share of the aftermath of some tard driving drunk, the irony is he (the drunk) usually walks away, the victim, almost never dors

reply to post by Maslo

As much as it is counterintuitive to idealists like you, in reality nuclear weapons might actually SAVE lives and maintain peace in the long run.

Who's the idealist? Your pretense that peace has been maintained because of nuclear weapons ignores the reality that since the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima, the United States has fought the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, The First Gulf War, and following the Afghanistan War, the Second Gulf War, not to mention the numerous military incursions the U.S. has been involved in since 1945, and that is just the U.S.

Today, there are more than 30 wars being fought across the world. So much for peace.

In 2004 it was reported that the Los Alamos National Labatory was unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium, enough to make 150 nuclear bombs...but hey when those clowns lost that plutonium they were probably sober, right?

The current DUI legislative acts are about aggregation of power, not protecting people. The amassing of nuclear weapons is about aggregation of power not protecting people. The belief that nuclear weapons protect people is idealism run amok. The belief that nuclear weapons maintain peace is insanity.

Prudence is the better part of valor, and it is most imprudent to drive drunk, but without a victim, there is no crime. Inventing a crime and criminalizing behavior in order to prevent future crimes is insane...or simply an aggregation of power...which is insane, as power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If laws are not about protecting the rights of individuals, then they are merely the whimsical legislative acts of legislatures, or the voting public. Rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are rights acknowledged as law since time immemorial, and it has been understood that keeping and bearing arms is a necessity if one expects to protect themselves from tyrannical governments, including and especially their own. Under this understanding, it is arguable that people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, since there eight nations that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Of course, and idealist such as yourself would probably argue that the 2nd Amendment does not acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms for individuals. An idealist such as yourself would probably be aghast at the notion of a populace armed with nuclear weapons. You might even think such a notion as...well, insane.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your pretense that peace has been maintained because of nuclear weapons ignores the reality that since the United States dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima, the United States has fought the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, The First Gulf War, and following the Afghanistan War, the Second Gulf War, not to mention the numerous military incursions the U.S. has been involved in since 1945, and that is just the U.S.

I was talking about wars between superpowers - WW2 style. Some local wars using conventional weapons will probably always be here, lets be realistic.

In 2004 it was reported that the Los Alamos National Labatory was unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium, enough to make 150 nuclear bombs...but hey when those clowns lost that plutonium they were probably sober, right?

Probably yes. Now imagine how much more might they lost if they were allowed to work drunk. Saying that we should allow responsible tasks to be done while drunk because accidents sometimes happen even to sober people is a logical fallacy. The probability is obviously different, especially in the case of driving, since alcohol specifically impairs abilities needed for it.

The current DUI legislative acts are about aggregation of power, not protecting people.

Tell that to those 400 per year saved. They were obviously protected.

And I agree, legislature is maybe too harsh (for first time ofenses). But thats not a reason to jump to another extreme and abolish it outright. Just relax it a little.

The belief that nuclear weapons maintain peace is insanity.

Even if it was not true, what do you want to do about that? Unless all nuclear powers agree to get rid of the weapons at the same time, not having them would lead to imbalance and maybe even war.

I just dont understand your logic - you say having NW is insane and dangerous, yet you advocate that EVERYONE should have the right to posess them, even average Joe (crazy), or you jum to another extreme - completely get rid of them (unreal). Why do you always advocate extremist solutions? The truth is in the middle, and most optimal solutions also tend to be there - if we cant realistically get rid of them, at least ensure that they are controlled by few publicly controlled qualified people with psycho checks, education, clearance. Not some obscure corporate CEO answering to noone.

Prudence is the better part of valor, and it is most imprudent to drive drunk, but without a victim, there is no crime.

400 ppl/year are saved by criminalizing DUI. There are your victims which would be dead if we used your idealistic anarcho-extremist ideology instead of realistic preventive more utilitarian ideology to construct the laws.
Are you prepared to sacrifice the lives of real people so that some abstract principles of yours which are not even universally accepted in the society would not be violated? Thats the very definition of fanatism (fundamentalism). Fundamentalists are dangerous.

An idealist such as yourself would probably be aghast at the notion of a populace armed with nuclear weapons. You might even think such a notion as...well, insane.

Who is more competent to responsibly hold nuclear weapons? Qualified and tested nuclear commanders or average Joe on the street? There might me exceptions to both sides, but statistically, its obvious. So yes, any reasonable analysis must conclude that making NW available to everyone without control or licensing would increase the net risk of misusing them, compared to making them available only to few carefully selected people.

Also, how would public posessing NW increase their protection against tyranicall governments? Its not that dictatorships can use NW to harass their people, Nuclear WMDs can only be effectivelly used in full-scale war against different states. I cannot even imagine how can a dictator use nuclear bombardment for example to supress dissent among the citizens. Conventional weapons are enough to keep the nation enslaved.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is your non sequitur not mine. You not only introduced this non sequitur, you felt compelled to then defend the need for nuclear weapons, and even more insanely suggested that drunk driving is more of a threat to humanity than is nuclear weapons.

Oh man, I thought you had a modicum of that stuff, hmm, what's it called, sense of humor.

The nuclear bullet point in my post was I thought obviously in COMPLETE JEST and you followed up with a proper treatise on the subject. Just wow.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
This is a troll thread and yall fed the troll
I'm a former paramedic and i seen my share of the aftermath of some tard driving drunk, the irony is he (the drunk) usually walks away, the victim, almost never dors

According to this logic, we should all drive drunk and more people would survive. How do we solve the problem? Does making a law solve it or is it an admittance of failure? You see emotionalism being used to try and persuade people but this is only a form of brainwashing. This is used to tighten up government control. It does nothing to solve the problem. The problem is that driving is very dangerous. Solve the problem instead of giving the government more control.

reply to post by roughycannon


Well, you speaking could cause harm, so I think you should quit speaking. Quit commenting on this thread because you could cause harm in the future.

There, used your own argument against you. How does it feel to be protected from something that could cause harm?

Arguing logical tenets with the illogical. Gets me everytime.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


How exactly can speaking directly cause physical harm to others, unless you are threatening them or inciting violence? (which is also illegal).

Originally posted by MightyWizard
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

S & F
The industry of jails , judges , lawyers are very happy.
Is the same has the speed limit, why there is a speed limit when the autos come out of factory been able of do the double of the speed ? Why they don't make autos that don't go more than 60 mph ?

We have freeways here with a speed limit of 70, but I get your point. I believe they tried that in the 80's. That's why it was kind of funny that 88mph was fast enough to time travel in Back To the Future. The speedometers in that time typically topped out around 85 even if the car could go faster, hence the phrase "bury the needle".

edit:

oh yeah, and "no". I want everything possible to be done to keep drunk a-holes off the road. I would even be ok with mandatory breathalysers for people that have ordered drinks at bars and restaurants. I'm typically against that sort of thing, but since it doesn't infringe on any freedom I'll make the exception. Drink all you want, you just ain't driving home if you have too much.

reply to post by Maslo


Anything can cause harm.

The whole tenet of the drunk driving scenario is the risk inherent in this action.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you can go on and on and on about different scenarios, or that a vehicle is dangerous, blah, blah, blah.

But no one is addressing the elephant in the room. Not one person on the side of the argument defending this has addressed the issue directly. Some have tried but most have skirted the issue.

No crime is committed if there is no victim. This was a tenet of criminal law for ages. Yet now we use contractual law to enforce criminal law. The state cannot be a victim, which is what the traffic courts have created.

You may not see the correlation between two non criminal acts such as speech and drunk driving, but I do. They are in a group or subset of conditions. Just as someone carrying a gun illegally (not unlawfully) is not committing a crime, but is committing an offense that can be prosecuted if one component in the myriad forms of regulations involving gun possession, which restricts a fundamental right, that being self defense of ones life.

Just as I believe that the fundamental right to travel freely, is hindered and corrupted by the myriad forms of regulation involved in the licensing schemes created by the traffic courts and legislation.

There are those that are not blind but still refuse to see.