Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 6
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


The crazy thing is that it is so easy to prevent drinking and driving!

Plan ahead while sober. If you cannot do that then I cannot help you.

Locally here, there is a couple that runs a program. They will pick you, your passengers and your car up and take you anywhere within a certain distance for $40.00.

They have been booked for the holidays for a couple months now. These sorts of programs DO EXIST and people must seek them out when they know they will be drinking.

If they do not know 2 hours before they are drunk that they would be drinking then there are far more issues at hand than drinking and driving.




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


The crazy thing is that it is so easy to prevent drinking and driving!

Plan ahead while sober. If you cannot do that then I cannot help you.

Locally here, there is a couple that runs a program. They will pick you, your passengers and your car up and take you anywhere within a certain distance for $40.00.

They have been booked for the holidays for a couple months now. These sorts of programs DO EXIST and people must seek them out when they know they will be drinking.

If they do not know 2 hours before they are drunk that they would be drinking then there are far more issues at hand than drinking and driving.


See, that is actually the type of thing that should get people to stop d&d, but it still happens. Now, it's actually a program that I've never heard of where I'm from, and is such a good idea that I'm taking note and will look into as a new business venture.

Bad thing is, most people will ignore it. They will state that the cost is too high, regardless of the price, or that it's not necessary because "Oh, I'm not gonna get that drunk tonight, just one or two drinks." I think you might be giving a lot of people more credit than they deserve when it comes to doing the right thing.

Even still, I like the idea, I'm glad you brought that up.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


I most certainly hold others to the standard I hold for myself. And vice versa.

I am disappointed often, but sometimes I am pleasantly surprised.

I’m trying to find a website or article about the program....



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by kennylee
 


Murder is murder

Doesn't matter if it is by vehicle or by gun.

The MURDER laws need to be addressed, not the DUI laws.


So, what you are saying is... If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees another person pointing a pistol at your face, they should be prohibited from taking any action until after that person has pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, preventing them from pulling the trigger would be "pre-crime", wouldn't it?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Given my back of the envelope calculations, even if we say the marginal reduction in fatalities from DUI laws is TEN THOUSAND - that is still TWO MILLION DOLLARS in cost for every live saved.

Is that worth it?

No.


Guess that depends on whose life we're talking about. But, seriously. It absolutely is "worth it".

This was the most ridiculous argument for your case, yet. You think it is wrong for a live person to forfeit up to $50,000 for being convicted of DWI, but a human life isn't worth $2 million?

Maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities pal.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


A person pointing a gun at your face is inducing a threat, which is assault.

That has a victim.

I can stand before a judge and say "I was personally victimized"

Assault is a crime.

In fact I have pointed a loaded gun at my friends on occasion by swinging the barrel in their direction while at the shooting range. That is not a crime.

By the way, the cost per life is not 2 million, it is 30.5 million according to the NHTSA data.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Ok, this isn’t the program I was looking for but it is similar.

Operation Red Nose



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And, an intoxicated person pointing an uncontrolled vehicle at another person, while both are traveling towards one another is a threat. If that's how you want to justify it.

ETA:

By the way, the cost per life is not 2 million, it is 30.5 million according to the NHTSA data.


I quoted you, for that little factoid. Here it is again.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Given my back of the envelope calculations, even if we say the marginal reduction in fatalities from DUI laws is TEN THOUSAND - that is still TWO MILLION DOLLARS in cost for every live saved.
edit on 17-12-2010 by WTFover because: To address edit by OP



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
...so, uh, mnemeth1 - your deal is that as long as no one gets hurt / killed and theres no property damage, people should be allowed to drive intoxicated...

...presuming that i understood you correctly - then, it follows that you would also like to eliminate penalties for speeding / reckless driving, not wearing seatbelts, driving on the shoulder to get around slow moving traffic, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving on sidewalks, talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving, letting minors ride in the back of open pickup trucks...

...why do we need a drivers license at all?... just let everyone drive however they want, no matter how old or young or drugged out or drunk - as long as no one gets hurt / killed and theres no property damage...

...did i get that right?...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And, an intoxicated person pointing an uncontrolled vehicle at another person, while both are traveling towards one another is a threat. If that's how you want to justify it.


If a person is not threatened by the behavior, it is not assault.

People swerve and weave all over the road, people don't use turn signals, people speed, etc.. etc.. - by your definition that all amounts to assault.

Clearly that is ridiculous.

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



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...so, uh, mnemeth1 - your deal is that as long as no one gets hurt / killed and theres no property damage, people should be allowed to drive intoxicated...

...presuming that i understood you correctly - then, it follows that you would also like to eliminate penalties for speeding / reckless driving, not wearing seatbelts, driving on the shoulder to get around slow moving traffic, driving on the wrong side of the road, driving on sidewalks, talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving, letting minors ride in the back of open pickup trucks...

...why do we need a drivers license at all?... just let everyone drive however they want, no matter how old or young or drugged out or drunk - as long as no one gets hurt / killed and theres no property damage...

...did i get that right?...


Correct.

Hopefully we can get those deadly seatbelt laws repealed soon.

They are killing lots of innocent pedestrians.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And, an intoxicated person pointing an uncontrolled vehicle at another person, while both are traveling towards one another is a threat. If that's how you want to justify it.


If a person is not threatened by the behavior, it is not assault.

People swerve and weave all over the road, people don't use turn signals, people speed, etc.. etc.. - by your definition that all amounts to assault.

Clearly that is ridiculous.

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


It all amounts to a threat. A threat can, in a split second, turn into assault.

For example:

Recently I went to cross the road at an intersection with lights in all directions and crosswalk signs. I approached, as a pedestrian....

Which, by the way, is why I feel so threatened by MOST drivers in their cars, let alone drunk ones

....the crosswalk sign for me to walk. Green my way. Looked both ways. A car approached the lights and stopped, it had it’s blinker on to turn right, in front of me. I started walking into the intersection, as it was my turn. The car sped up and almost knocked me flat over. Obviously they only looked left and not right before putting their foot to the pedal. Had the person behind the wheel not apologized right away I would have called the cops.

A threat turned into assault in a split second. You may not have felt threatened, or felt assaulted in that same situation. But you cannot tell me that I wasn’t threatened.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If a person is not threatened by the behavior, it is not assault.


So, your requirement is that a person must "feel" threatened?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If a person is not threatened by the behavior, it is not assault.


So, your requirement is that a person must "feel" threatened?


Yes.

That is how assault works.

I could hold a knife to your throat, but if you are my friend and I'm just screwing around with you for fun, that is not assault.

It doesn't become assault until I use that knife to induce a threat.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by HoldTheBeans
A poster made an excellent point earlier. Why is it legal to drink yet illegal to drive drunk? Since drinking admittedly impairs ones decision it doesn't make a lot of sense to punish one for making a bad decision while becoming legally impaired. Maybe congress can pony up a couple hundred trillion to build high speed rail to all the bars in the country and solve the problem.


Or maybe people can call a taxi, or plan on a designated driver beforehand?


Like I said it's legal to drink which impairs your decision making so how is one held accountable for making a bad decision while impaired when the law allows it??



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


4 words. I cannot repeat them enough.

Plan ahead while sober.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The person holding the knife does not get to decide when the threat begins. Doesn’t matter how friendly it starts.

The one in a position to be threatened does however have control over how threatened he or she feels.
edit on 17-12-2010 by worlds_away because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The knife holder does not decide when the threat begins.

The one in a position to be threatened does.


That's correct.

If I were to use a vehicle in a threatening manner toward your person, that is assault.

Swerving outside of the line, making wide turns, driving too fast or too slow, or other things drunk drivers do are NOT threatening toward your person.

If the drunk driver were to swerve INTO you or cause you to have to veer out of his way - THAT is assault. That is using a vehicle in a threatening manner.

AND FOR THAT CRIME WE HAVE A SPECIFIC VICTIM THAT CAN STAND BEFORE A JUDGE.

A crime MUST have a victim for it to be a legitimate "crime"

A drunk that swerves into you or causes you to veer out of his way should not be charged with drunk driving, he should literally be charged with assault.
edit on 17-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Okay. So, to re-phrase my previous scenario, in order to meet your ever-changing requirements. If a LEO (or anyone for that matter) sees a person pointing a pistol at the back of your head, they should be prohibited from taking action until after they have pulled the trigger and extinguished your life. After all, that would be "pre-crime" and you could not possibly "feel" threatened by an action you are unaware is occurring. Correct?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by nwdogg1982
 


The crazy thing is that it is so easy to prevent drinking and driving!

Plan ahead while sober. If you cannot do that then I cannot help you.

Locally here, there is a couple that runs a program. They will pick you, your passengers and your car up and take you anywhere within a certain distance for $40.00.

They have been booked for the holidays for a couple months now. These sorts of programs DO EXIST and people must seek them out when they know they will be drinking.

If they do not know 2 hours before they are drunk that they would be drinking then there are far more issues at hand than drinking and driving.


I agree that planning ahead is a responsibility of any drinker. Where I live there are sober cab programs aimed at getting impaired people home safely for free.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You are using “threaten” and “assault” interchangeably. I do not think that this is correct.

I feel threatened by you but you have not yet assaulted me. I will take action against your threats to prevent myself from being assaulted by you. If that means also taking steps from preventing you from assaulting other people, like calling the cops because I perceive you to be a threat to other people then that’s what I’ll do.

edit on 17-12-2010 by worlds_away because: spelling... typing fast and I’m tired





 
64
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join