Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by kalisdad


Driving drunk, whether you are good at it or not, IS driving recklessly. When we all know the loss of ability and proper cognitive function that comes with driving drunk, we all know the increased risks. What don't you get? Sure some people make it home, but the chances of having an accident due to improper judgment have significantly risen. Why do you wish to increase the risk of death on the road when it can be made smaller by these procedures and laws you deem wasteful?

reply to post by For(Home)Country


because it is costing American's tens of billions of dollars a year to prevent a handful of deaths as well as destroyign their civil rights.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
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.

edit on 18-12-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross because: (no reason given)

that may be the differance between you and I...

I've been drinking hard liquor for over 20 years(14 of which I have been driving) and I know my own tolerance

I know long before I have had TO MUCH to drink and I stop drinking alcohol

this is what allows me to go out and have a few long island iced teas and a beer in a 2 hour period and still know I am in complete control of my faculties to drive the 3-4 miles it is from the bar to get home

I agree wholeheartedly that not everyone knows their limits and that people will and do drink more than their bodies are capable of processing in a given period of time.

however, by instituing a blanket law, saying that anyone that has 'x' amount of alochol in their bloodstream will be arrested is not solving the problem... we can see this by the continued statistics showing that DUI is still an issue

the cost of the taxpayer for the arrests of people that are causing no harm to person or property out weights the risk of letting those same people just go home

DUI laws are entirely about making money for the state and less about protecting the public

if you really think that LEO are there to protect the public, then you have been missing out on alot of threads that would say otherwise...

LEO are there to make money for the state... thats as simple as it gets... and DUI laws are just one peg in that wheel of injustice

Originally posted by kalisdad
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...

WRONG

As an example:

All states in the U.S. designate a per se blood or breath alcohol level as the ...
require more serious penalties (such as jail time, larger fines, longer DUI programs...

Source

Most certainly NOT THE SAME CONSEQUENCES. The penalties where alcohol are involved are much stricter/harsh for good reason. Bye bye to your argument.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
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.

many do not out of fear that having a drink is going to cause them to be arrested... not a fear that they will cause harm to a person or cause property damage

reply to post by kalisdad


Again no offense, but every drunk driver says the same thing. Even when they are so intoxicated they cannot stand up and walk the line, or count backwards from 1.

reply to post by kalisdad


Doesn't really matter, the law is working.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Not to sure where those numbers are pulled from but I had a friend get a DUI (I was with him, smart I know.) and his total cost for the ordeal was $750. No small amount but still a far cry from the crazy 10,000 in the OP. Granted it was his first offense but I would think someone who does this enough to have it costing them tens of thousands of dollars has much deeper issues that should be addressed.

Originally posted by cycondra
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Not to sure where those numbers are pulled from but I had a friend get a DUI (I was with him, smart I know.) and his total cost for the ordeal was $750. No small amount but still a far cry from the crazy 10,000 in the OP. Granted it was his first offense but I would think someone who does this enough to have it costing them tens of thousands of dollars has much deeper issues that should be addressed.

Costs vary widely in terms of fines from State to state and from offense to offense.

But the 750 dollar fine does not include his increased insurance premiums, missed work (if any), and other ancillary costs.

It also doesn't include any lawyer fees and the actual public cost of the court and jail time.

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

 

Driving drunk, whether you are good at it or not, IS driving recklessly. When we all know the loss of ability and proper cognitive function that comes with driving drunk, we all know the increased risks. What don't you get? Sure some people make it home, but the chances of having an accident due to improper judgment have significantly risen. Why do you wish to increase the risk of death on the road when it can be made smaller by these procedures and laws you deem wasteful?

edit on 123131p://666 by For(Home)Country because: clarification

the risk of an accident regardless of either driver being intoxicated is one of the highest risk things everyone does in their lifetime...

when I go out to have a couple drinks and sing a few songs, I am not going out to get blitzed beyond comprehension... having a drink or two relaxes me and allows me to be up in front of other people while I sing without being completely self conscious...

and having been doing this for many many years without any adverse effect on my driving ability, I can say for certain that I impose no increased risk on either myself, my passengers, or other drivers when I engage in this activity

and again, regardless of DUI laws... if someone drinks to excess and causes physical harm to a person or property damage, they obviously had no concern for DUI laws, and will be held accountable for their actions regardless of those laws.

OP is pointing out that the current DUI laws do little to actualy prevent DUIs from occuring, and more often than not cause finacial repercussions to drivers that are actually commiting not crime against a peron or property

its not the fear of driving and causing an accident that is stopping you from having a drink or two and driving home

it is the fear of being arrested for having a drink and driving that is preventing some people from engaging in this activity

I have enough faith in my own driving skill and faith in my judgement of my own imparement when I do drink to excess to know that I haven't yet driven when I was beyond ability to do so over the past 14 years

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by kalisdad
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...

WRONG

As an example:

All states in the U.S. designate a per se blood or breath alcohol level as the ...
require more serious penalties (such as jail time, larger fines, longer DUI programs...

Source

Most certainly NOT THE SAME CONSEQUENCES. The penalties where alcohol are involved are much stricter/harsh for good reason. Bye bye to your argument.

edit on 18-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

Morgan Stanley financial adviser escapes felony charges for hit-and-run 'because it could jeopardise his job'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

we all know that the laws are biased one way or another depending on who is valued more by the state

OP is saying that there should be no differance based on level of intoxication in cases where a person is hurt or property damage is caused by a driver... drunk or not

reply to post by mnemeth1

Every day I look in the mirror, I look at the scars that cross my face because some tool had to go party. The guy was on his third DUI by the time he nearly ended my life. Preventative laws might not work perfectly, but show me an alternative. I guess we could outlaw alcohol...but people would find a way to make it.

Your logic incenses people who have been damaged by drunk drivers.

Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Every day I look in the mirror, I look at the scars that cross my face because some tool had to go party. The guy was on his third DUI by the time he nearly ended my life. Preventative laws might not work perfectly, but show me an alternative. I guess we could outlaw alcohol...but people would find a way to make it.

Your logic incenses people who have been damaged by drunk drivers.

Yes, I'm sure it does.

However, the crime that happened to you is no different than if a drunk at a bar had slashed your face with a broken bottle.

The man is a criminal guilty of battery.

Drunk driving laws are not necessary to charge people with criminal battery

reply to post by mnemeth1


What a rediculous, stupid and idiotic thread! Not to mention how very insensitive and disheartening it is to state what you have put forth here.

I can understand one wanting to make a point of how DUI and DWI prosecution have become a business in many aspects. But to ignore the thousands killed each year by drunk drivers is moranic.

I can understand that some can handle more then others when it comes to alcohol consumption, but driving is a privelage and not a right. You have no right to endanger my family because you are too selfish to care about anyone else.

When you are drunk, your perception is not right and what you think is ok to do may not be the best idea. How many people have woken up in bed after a night of drinking, next to someone they would have never slept with without being so drunk? That`s just an example of how alcohol can make you do things you normally wouldn`t do with good judgement.

Use your brain before posting such nonsense. Do you want to be held responsible for some dumb 16 year old kid who reads your thread tonight and then goes and wrecks his car killing himself and his friends in the car? What the hell is wrong with you.......HONESTLY?

I`m sorry for the guy who has two beers with dinner, approaches a checkpoint and has the next ten years of his life ruined, but we all know what the law is and it`s smarter to not put yourself in that situation ever.

But honeslty, you state that if there is no harm there is no foul. YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!

Just because circumstances allowed you to be able to get home in one piece without hurting anyone after a night of partying doesn`t mean that is how it will always be for you. Isn`t it easier to not taake that risk?

It is a proven fact that alcohol consumption will slow your reflexes, the same reflexes needed to apply your brakes in time before you smash into somebody. You know how many drunks sideswipe a line of parked cars?? Do you?? What about the people waiting to cross the street who get mowed down because the drunk couldn`t tell what part of the road he needed to be driving on??

I would gladly punch you right in the face for all those who have lost someone to drunk driving as your irresponsible remarks could actually encourage drunken driving for someone and get someone killed, DEAD!

I hope you take back your retarded assumptions and decide to do something positive for mankind.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This was in Kentucky, and that did include his jailing and all court costs. He pleaded guilty of course, said yes sir, yes mam and went on his way.

Now as far as his insurance.. yeah i have no idea.

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

 

because it is costing American's tens of billions of dollars a year to prevent a handful of deaths as well as destroyign their civil rights.

I can see the point you are making. I do not think that your views should bring the threats of violence and ill will toward you that people have mentioned in this thread. One thing that I want to mention, though, is that driving is not considered a right. Driving is considered a privilege.

It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive. Once a person accused of impaired driving understands this, it is much easier to understand why many of the procedural and constitutional safeguards do not apply in regards to driving a motor vehicle following a DWI or DUI arrest.

www.duiattorney.com...

reply to post by Blueracer


Driving is a right.

It is a right, because no one has the legitimate authority to stop you from doing whatever it is you want to do, as long as whatever it is you are doing is not harming others or damaging their property.

That sphere of action is what constitutes "a right"

Thus, driving is a right and the courts are wrong.

See the 9th amendment of the US Constitution for further details.

I know several middle class well meaning people who's lives were completely destroyed by gettings dui's- all while they were barely over the legal limit. I agree that dui laws should remain intact, but the legal limit needs to be reassessed- aswell as the punishment. I mean they allow restaurants and bars to sell liqor. This isnt the 18th century- we dont have a horse and buggy- most people drive. If they allow legally people to consume more than 1 drink at an establishment, and dont "pay" for a person who is too drunk a drive home for free by a taxi service (other than holidays) then who are they kidding.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Just a couple of questions...do you have a drivers license and auto insurance? Do you obey traffic laws?

Originally posted by Blueracer
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Just a couple of questions...do you have a drivers license and auto insurance? Do you obey traffic laws?

Of course.

If I didn't, I would have a gun held to my head.