Legalize Drunk Driving

Originally posted by WTFover
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.

I have driven after having a few drinks many times... and I can say with 100% certainty that my vehicle was NEVER out of control...

there is a huge differance between pointing a loaded gun at someone with intent and havng a few drinks and driving

if someone is behind the wheel of an uncontroled vehicle, then most likely that person will cause an accident which will be the reason they are charged with personal harm of property damage

if a person that has had a few drinks drives home safely and causes no harm to a person or property damage, obviously the vehicle was under their control the entire trip

reply to post by kalisdad


That's a horrible line of logic.

Yeah. It's under control when it's swerving in and out of lanes. As long as it doesn't cause damage it must be ok!

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?...

all of those traffic violations can be cause regardless of if the driver is intoxicated or not...

so maintaining those violations while removing the DD laws would amount to the same thing if a driver is pulled over for those infractions and found to be intoxicated

Originally posted by kalisdad


I have driven after having a few drinks many times... and I can say with 100% certainty that my vehicle was NEVER out of control...

there is a huge differance between pointing a loaded gun at someone with intent and havng a few drinks and driving

if someone is behind the wheel of an uncontroled vehicle, then most likely that person will cause an accident which will be the reason they are charged with personal harm of property damage

if a person that has had a few drinks drives home safely and causes no harm to a person or property damage, obviously the vehicle was under their control the entire trip

edit on 17-12-2010 by kalisdad because: spelling

Ya know, I feel sorry for you, bro. It's a bloody shame that you feel obligated to not have a few drinks and then drive because of these laws. Must really wreck your life. Reminds me of the thousands of children that die due to starvation every day. In fact, the slight feeling of paranoia you feel when you drive home after a few drinks and your brain tells you that you might get a DUI is probably comparable to the hunger pangs that one feels right before they die of starvation.

Originally posted by For(Home)Country

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by For(Home)Country

 

Besides feeling threatened, the threat must present imminent physical harm.

"Feeling threatened" by drunks is not enough.

One must be physically threatened with imminent harm.

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

Why does it have to be physical harm? Why can't it be emotional harm? Stress? You can't tell me that you don't know the increased potential in harm that a drunk driver can cause. YES, I agree that some drunk drivers are capable of making it home, but you would be an idiot to deny the fact that there is a major increase in your ability to cause harm when driving drunk. So with that said, if driving drunk was legal, and thus much more common, how fair is it that I sit at home wondering if my wife will make it home safe tonight because I know of the increased risk of car accidents? What about my child playing out on the street? Sure I can watch the child from my front yard, but I still can't stop a drunk driver from coming around the corner and destroying her.

What about my daughter? She went to party and now she will be coming home with a drunk driver because they are all drunk, but feel capable of driving home. I can't stop her because "She's 18 now". Am I not entitled to the peace of mind that anti-drunk driving legislation provides? Or am I overly paranoid?

None of the people in these situations are directly threatened, but due to your purposed change in laws, the roads are now much less safer for them, and my life has become a lot more stressful and worrisome because a simple commute home from a friends house at night has turned into a fiasco threatened by drunk drivers who think themselves capable.

edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country because: (no reason given)

Your daughter is an adult.

She is responsible for her own actions.

You are not entitled to a "piece of mind" over drunk driving legislation, if that legislation is blatantly destroying the middle class of this country and infringing on their civil rights.

Originally posted by worlds_away

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.

obviously a drunk driver, because if they were not intoxicated, they wouldn't have cause such a fiasco by almost running you down...

this point goes to show that the OP is correct in saying that regardles of DD law, or even whether a person is intoxicated or not... people will get hurt by drivers and or property damage will happen

its not the DD laws that are going to change anything... people are responsible for their actions behind the wheel regardless of whether they had a few beers or not

reply to post by mnemeth1


No? So would you be cool if I took some PCP and walked through your child's school with no one to stop me and a fully loaded assault rifle? I promise I'd try and make the right decisions and not do anything wrong...

Originally posted by kinda kurious
The premise of this thread is just plain wrong on so many levels notwithstanding he OP's intent to invoke shock value and controversy. The defense logic presented reminds me of a yard sale with trinkets of misguided, fanatical thinking strewn about.

First and foremost, the laws prohibit "driving under the influence." The OP conjures the false illusion that it is OK to drive drunk if you do no harm/commit no crime. That somehow you are innocent of a crime unless you do damage. WRONG! If you are driving and impaired that is illegal.

Secondly (as can be said for theft, murder, larceny) It is not a crime UNLESS YOU ARE CAUGHT.

In a nutshell, or in this case a beer cap...........Weak sauce.

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

you are wrong...

the OP is saying that if you cause personal harm or property damage regardless of whether you are drunk or not, you should be held accountable

but if you are driving home, again regardless of level of intoxication or not, and cause no physical harm to a person or proterty damge, then you are commiting no crime

I agree completely

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by kalisdad
I see exactly where the OP is coming from

...you see where he's coming from because you have something to gain by legalizing drunk driving... no logic there... just selfishness...

I'm not advocating legalizing drunk driving... I'm advocating decriminalizing it...

if a person causes physical harm to another person, or causes property damamge, regardless of their level of intoxication, they both face the same consequence...

to arrest someone that has caused no harm to a person or physical damage to property just because they had a few beers in irrational

DUI laws don't stop people from drinking and driving... that is proven by statists that people are still doing it..

reply to post by kalisdad


Yes, but the assumptions made by you and the OP are ridiculous. The assumption is that anyone who drives drunk can and will get home safe. This is clearly not the case if you take a look at the facts. If it can be prevented, why not stop it? Just so you can have a better time tonight and more convenience to get home?

If there was a pill that, if taken, was guaranteed to make you ten times more dangerous, such as making you go around assaulting people and hurting them, why should it be legal? Of course there will be people who take the pill and don't assault people, but despite that, there is still a major increase in the likelihood which endangers everyone.

Originally posted by kalisdad
...if you are driving home, again regardless of level of intoxication or not, and cause no physical harm to a person or proterty damge, then you are commiting no crime I agree completely

Okee Dokee, one more time. It is ILLEGAL to drive under the influence /impaired.

The FALLACY of the argument is IT IS ONLY A CRIME IF YOU GET CAUGHT. Pure semantics my friend.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by kalisdad

 

That's a horrible line of logic.

Yeah. It's under control when it's swerving in and out of lanes. As long as it doesn't cause damage it must be ok!

people swerve and go in and out of the lines even when they are completely sober

does that mean they should be charged with reckless driving and fined and/or have their liscence revolked?

personally when I drink and drive, I tend to pay that much more attention to what I am doing and I swerve less, just because I am aware that I am slightly impared after having a few drinks...

when I am sober, I tend to talk to my passenger, sing along to the radio, and/or have a phone conversation... all of which causes more distractions to my driving ability than I have when focusing on driving after a few drinks

Originally posted by For(Home)Country

Ya know, I feel sorry for you, bro. It's a bloody shame that you feel obligated to not have a few drinks and then drive because of these laws. Must really wreck your life. Reminds me of the thousands of children that die due to starvation every day. In fact, the slight feeling of paranoia you feel when you drive home after a few drinks and your brain tells you that you might get a DUI is probably comparable to the hunger pangs that one feels right before they die of starvation.

I have absoulutely no paranoia when I drive after I have a few drinks...

because I know I don't drink to excess where my ability to drive is completely gone... anytime I drink that much, I plan ahead and stay the night where I am drinking, or I have someone else drive me home

but to have an arbitrary law saying how much I can or cannot drink before I become a menace to society is not the right way to go either

regardless of the level of intoxication, a drunk and a sober driver should be held to the same standards when it comes to harming a person or property damage

this is what I am getting from the OP, and I agree 100%

Yea if it was a level playing field to begin with.
With the crooked cops , Judges and Lawyers, it's the ole double standard, look the other way.Who you know. Though it is getting harder for the Professional crooks to get by with it now adays.

To be realistic you should be rated to drink and drive, then pay extra before hand in both license and Insurance.
Like a smoker

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by kalisdad

 

Yes, but the assumptions made by you and the OP are ridiculous. The assumption is that anyone who drives drunk can and will get home safe. This is clearly not the case if you take a look at the facts. If it can be prevented, why not stop it? Just so you can have a better time tonight and more convenience to get home?

If there was a pill that, if taken, was guaranteed to make you ten times more dangerous, such as making you go around assaulting people and hurting them, why should it be legal? Of course there will be people who take the pill and don't assault people, but despite that, there is still a major increase in the likelihood which endangers everyone.

this argument can be used for anything...

if I called you a bitch to your face and you assaulted me for it... does that mean my 1st amendment right of freedom of speech should be revolked?

by revolking that right, is prevents me from calling you a bitch and hense you wouldn't assault me?

the whole point of the OP is that DD laws do not stop people from drinking and driving... yet they still cost the taxpayers millions of dollars a year

and people are going to cause accident for many reasons other than the fact that they are intoxicated

by decriminalizing the DUI laws, the people that cause accidents will still be accountable for their actions

and the people that have NEVER hurt anyone or cause property damage will not be fined for a crime they didn't commit

if you can not see this, than your thinking is way to entrenched for either myself or the OP to change, and we should just go our seperate ways...

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by HelionPrime
I'd reply in graphic detail about exactly how my friend was killed in a car driven by someone over the limit, but I might get modded.

F#cking dick head.

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)

I agree. I think it should be perfectly legal to take a loaded gun in a crowded public place, close your eyes, and shoot off in random directions.

You know, some people, they just have that urge. They should be allowed to have the freedom to seek the thrill of chance.

Hey, if they hit someone then they broke the law. If they would up hitting someone in the head/heart and killed someone, then they are murderers..., but if they don't actually shoot anyone from their random gun shots, then they didn't break the law.

Just kidding...

Are you a complete moron or just a partial one?

reply to post by kalisdad


No offense to you, but drunk drivers often feel they are in complete control. That's the thing about alcohol: you lose control and don't always realize it.

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
I agree. I think it should be perfectly legal to take a loaded gun in a crowded public place, close your eyes, and shoot off in random directions.

You know, some people, they just have that urge. They should be allowed to have the freedom to seek the thrill of chance.

Hey, if they hit someone then they broke the law. If they would up hitting someone in the head/heart and killed someone, then they are murderers..., but if they don't actually shoot anyone from their random gun shots, then they didn't break the law.

Just kidding...

Are you a complete moron or just a partial one?

your analogy is comparable to reckless driving

if you shoot randomly, as a gun owner you are showing reckless behavior

but if you were to goto a shooting range and shoot at a target without having stray bullets, you would be completely fine

in the drinking and driving scenario, if you drink and then drive reckllessly to cause harm to a person or property damage, you should be held accountable for your action.. .but like the shooting range scenario, if you drive home safely without causing harm to a person or property, then you have commited no crime...

the OP has less to do with actually drinking and driving as it does to accountablility regardless of the level of intoxication...

again, DUI laws do NOT stop people from driving under the influence, it still happens... so why are these laws in place, when if people are just held accountable for thir actions regardless of laws about intoxication, then there is no differance with or without a DUI law

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


Yes, the way some individuals are posting on this forum and the "logic" behind their ideas, you would think that they were under the influence as well!

reply to post by kalisdad


Because they do indeed stop people from drinking and driving. Certain selfish people still do it, but many do not.