Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by Exuberant1

Blinded by his ideology? You are the one who doesn't want to ban cars, pal. You know that they kill tens of thousands each year, but the belief system which has been indoctrinated into you since childhood prevents you from being able to see the logic behind saving lives. You think it is more important for you to be able to drive your car than for forty-plus thousands people to not die.

Drunk driving is order of magnitude more dangerous than normal driving, and brings nothing but loss to the society. Thats why it is banned. Normal driving is order of magnitude less dangerous than drunk driving, and brings enormous good to the society. Thats why it is not banned, just regulated by lots of laws and limits.

If you prove that driving kills more people than it saves (and generally brings more harm than good to the society, both directly and indirectly), just like drunk driving, I would be all for banning it. Simple as that. Look at net effect, not just single issue.

The opposite is also true - if you prove that drunk driving saves more lives than it ends, and brings more good for the society than bad, we can unban it.

Just saw this after someone posted it on my local paper's forums after 3 drunk drivers crashed in the same night.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Drunk driving may cause crime but it is not always necessarily!!

It seems all the angry flare ups at the OP are the result of people not being intelligent enough to distinguish between morals and laws.

The OP points out in a very reasoned and logical manor the pointlessness and counter-production of DUI laws, but all the ragers get on the bandwagon and interpret that to mean the OP is morally endorsing (or even encouraging) DUI.

They then tell of all the horrific cases of DUI crashes but forget that their precious law failed to prevent these.

It's frustrating living in a society filled with this kind of unintelligence.

I think a part of the law is BS, and that is the "legal limit", 3 beers puts you over the limit in most if not all states. I used to drink a lot, and 3 beers wont do anything to me, yet id go to jail if caught. When I was in the military, I got drunk one day, and a sgt saw how much I drank and got a lil concerned, so he took me to the hospital. I blew a .370... They called in other docs and nurses, saying "look at this guy" he drank enough to kill a man, yet he is conscience, carrying on a convo, can walk just fine, etc.. They were shocked.. So what may be "too much" for some people is not for others. I think the law should be based on your ability, not by what you blow.


Deebo

reply to post by mnemeth1


Prevention is part of the cure! You don't want people who are under the influence thinking they can drive safely when their actions are impared. All drugs do this to the person invovled but the user will think they are safe due to the fact they are thinking purely of themself and not other people.

Law is required on this issue to assist the innocent driving down the road becoming a victim of an idiot under the influence!

You know, I kind of agree with you on this one.

Anytime anyone gets hurt they should have to pay the time for it.

If someone gets hurt from a drunk driver they should be tried at the harshest sentence, as in the kill someone they get murder one. If they hit someones property they are tried for vandalism and careless driving. Get rid of the DUI and charge these bastards.

If they want to get rid of drunk drivers get rid of alcohol. Why don't they? Because to many people would bitch and complain, but yet wouldn't give it up to eliminate drunk driving. Too many people love alcohol and it has become a staple of society.

I hate alcohol, with a passion, it is so detrimental to society and the persons physical/mental health that it is amazing that it is legal and marijuana is not. Alcohol ruins families, in every shape and form and if people REALLY wanted to get rid of drunk driving they would eliminate alcohol.

I don't know how many times I have seen a completely inebriated person trying to tell me how okay they are. Alcohol makes people stupid and sloppy.

Pred...

reply to post by Archangelelijah


No law is helping with prevention, no law is getting drunks off the road. They arrest them, if they catch them, on the road and have already put people at risk. Doesn't do any help in the long run.

They do not prevent anything.

Pred...

Originally posted by predator0187
reply to post by Archangelelijah

 

No law is helping with prevention, no law is getting drunks off the road. They arrest them, if they catch them, on the road and have already put people at risk. Doesn't do any help in the long run.

They do not prevent anything.

Pred...

People should be aware of the consequences they place on others! If society really wanted to act you would have no alcohol at all.

It does help in the long run by stopping incidents before they occur!

reply to post by predator0187

No law is helping with prevention, no law is getting drunks off the road. They arrest them, if they catch them, on the road and have already put people at risk. Doesn't do any help in the long run.

It helps by enabling police to get drunk people off the road immidiatelly, instead of waiting till they start to drive dangerously, which may be too late.
It also helps by placing additional incentive to not drive drunk, in addition to morality, because not all people are moral. Dont tell me that if DUI was legal there will be less drunk people on the roads than if its illegal, it is just completely illogical to suggest something like that.

Effectivity of enforcement of particular law has nothing to do with its morality. Or are you suggesting that if many people were commiting murders, we should make murdering legal?

reply to post by Azp420


" It's frustrating living in a society filled with this kind of unintelligence. "

I fell your cerebral pain.. 31 pages and folks still reference "drunk driving"..

The crime being discussed IS NOT FRIK'N DRUNK DRIVING.. learn it, know it, live it..

It's called "DUI", an acronym, the letter "I" denotes "Influence".. and no, "D" isn't "Drunk"..stands for "Driving"... and for the record "U" = "Under". All the emotionally charged antidotes of loves ones lost to "drunk drivers", while kinda sad.. losing a loved one truly sucks, sound un informed to the point of ignorance... at least KNOW wtf you're angry about.

While the other driver involved might have been charged with DUI, that in no way, shape or from means they were "drunk", or even had been drinking. I've made arrests for DUI PCP, DUI stimulant (coc aine), DUI opiate (heroine).. heck even DUI nicotine after a teen non smoker puffed a passengers un filtered Camel, got dizzy and plowed into 3 parked cars.

Driving under the influence includes alcohol OR drugs.. so lets say the dentist gives you a 7 day supply of Tylenol 3s with codeine, on day number 4 some sober dude injures himself and you after rear ending your car. At the hospital they draw blood.. oops, results show high level of opiates.. next thing you know a letter from the DA informs that not only are you now "party 1", most at fault, but felony DUI charges will be filed and you need to report for formal booking before a court date. The state "experts" are going to argue, based on the level of opiates in your blood.. you were operating a motor vehicle under the influence... DUI opiate.

..next thing you know, dudes' friends / family are on the internet railing about the menace of "drunk drivers".

reply to post by GovtFlu


The topic of this thread is "legalize drunk driving", not "make DUI laws less strict". I would agree with that, criminalizing drivers because of prescription drugs in their blood, especially if they were not told in advance that you cannot drive while taking them is insane. Almost as insane as completely abolishing DUI laws.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by Azp420

 

" It's frustrating living in a society filled with this kind of unintelligence. "

I fell your cerebral pain.. 31 pages and folks still reference "drunk driving"..

The crime being discussed IS NOT FRIK'N DRUNK DRIVING.. learn it, know it, live it..

It's called "DUI", an acronym, the letter "I" denotes "Influence".. and no, "D" isn't "Drunk"..stands for "Driving"... and for the record "U" = "Under". All the emotionally charged antidotes of loves ones lost to "drunk drivers", while kinda sad.. losing a loved one truly sucks, sound un informed to the point of ignorance... at least KNOW wtf you're angry about.

While the other driver involved might have been charged with DUI, that in no way, shape or from means they were "drunk", or even had been drinking. I've made arrests for DUI PCP, DUI stimulant (coc aine), DUI opiate (heroine).. heck even DUI nicotine after a teen non smoker puffed a passengers un filtered Camel, got dizzy and plowed into 3 parked cars.

Driving under the influence includes alcohol OR drugs.. so lets say the dentist gives you a 7 day supply of Tylenol 3s with codeine, on day number 4 some sober dude injures himself and you after rear ending your car. At the hospital they draw blood.. oops, results show high level of opiates.. next thing you know a letter from the DA informs that not only are you now "party 1", most at fault, but felony DUI charges will be filed and you need to report for formal booking before a court date. The state "experts" are going to argue, based on the level of opiates in your blood.. you were operating a motor vehicle under the influence... DUI opiate.

..next thing you know, dudes' friends / family are on the internet railing about the menace of "drunk drivers".

You being a policeman should know of the consequences any substance holds on the responsibility of the driver! We need law to assist the innocent.
Yes, it's not perfect with the amount of prescription drugs on the market but the mindset is to assist the innocent! Surely you have encounted more cases where the innocent needs protecting and the guilty requires conviction. This is law.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by WTFover

 

If you were looking for an honest discussion on the subject, you wouldn't be misrepresenting what I am saying.

I would be glad to discuss what you imagine I misrepresented. Unfortunately, your entire post was merely a regurgitation of what I pointed as being your entire platform.

I answered your question, you just don't want to consider the reality.

You have not. Again, the question is... (Questioning your logic) If we can not end all traffic fatalities, we shouldn't even try to prevent any?

reply to post by WTFover


It is clearly obvious that you have no desire to try and prevent fatalities from MVT.

You only seek to embrace ignorance and hypocrisy.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Thanks for your excellent post.

Finally an honest look at the realities of the law, and how it is practiced.

Driving under the influence includes alcohol OR drugs.. so lets say the dentist gives you a 7 day supply of Tylenol 3s with codeine, on day number 4 some sober dude injures himself and you after rear ending your car. At the hospital they draw blood.. oops, results show high level of opiates.. next thing you know a letter from the DA informs that not only are you now "party 1", most at fault, but felony DUI charges will be filed and you need to report for formal booking before a court date. The state "experts" are going to argue, based on the level of opiates in your blood.. you were operating a motor vehicle under the influence... DUI opiate.

Sadly, this situation happens a whole lot more than people are willing to recognize, or able to admit.

Why in the world would they charge a person with a crime under these circumstances?

There is only one reason, and that is to justify their huge paychecks and unbelievably generous pension plans. It is really hard to believe how morally blind these people are.

I have been to traffic court a few times, and I was disgusted at how drunk with power those judges were.

I never really grasped how screwed up our nations courts were until I had to deal with child custody courts, when it became obvious that these courts exist for one reason only, and that is to justify their jobs. The numbers of lives these people destroy is far beyond reasonable.

Most of the worst fatalities I have heard about from Motor Vehicle Traffic has nothing to do with alcohol. A girl reaching for a tape, plowing down a group of bike riders. A group of guys stopping in a thick fog because someone had pulled to the side of the road in front of them getting plowed over by a semi from behind.

DUI laws don't stop these kinds of tragedies. DUI laws are nothing but a scapegoat.

reply to post by GovtFlu


A blood test, the day after taking codeine, even in a form more concentrated that Tylenol 3 would not indicate being under the influence. The plasma half life of codeine in the human body is roughly 2.9 hours and the drug is 90% expelled within 24 hours through the kidneys.

The plasma half-life is about 2.9 hours. The elimination of codeine is primarily via the kidneys, and about 90% of an oral dose is excreted by the kidneys within 24 hours of dosing. The urinary secretion products consist of free and glucuronide conjugated codeine (about 70%), free and conjugated norcodeine (about 10%), free and conjugated morphine (about 10%), normorphine (about 4%), and hydrocodone (1%). The remainder of the dose is excreted in the feces.

At therapeutic doses, the analgesic effect reaches a peak within 2 hours and persists between 4 and 6 hours.

Source

A blood test, after just a few hours, would demonstrate the presence of opiates in the blood, but the quantitative values would preclude being considered "under the influence".

~Heff

reply to post by Xcathdra


You seem like a reasonable guy. Maybe where you live police officers don't make a whole lot of money, but where I live, they most certainly do.

I remember one place where I used to work, in the mornings on a regular basis there would be a bunch of cops with a guy in the bushes holding a radar gun to get people coming of the Interstate highway, on the ramp exiting the Interstate. There was no effort here to protect the public. This was at a place were there was no pedestrian traffic, or means or reasons for pedestrian traffic. This was a ticket trap in a wealthy college down. It was disgusting.

Here is the difference on intent. When you decide to kill someone, there is no doubt that what you are doing is morally and legally wrong. When you have had a few alcoholic beverages, and have to drive, you have to make this decision, have I had to many drinks or not? I had three beers in three hours, or maybe four. Am I good, or not? How many pills did I take last night before I went to bed? There is a moral and legal question you have to answer, and if you are under the influence, chances are high that you are not going to make the right decision.

Lets all be honest about driving under the influence.

We drive our vehicles because we have to in order to survive.

Everyone who has a job and responsibilities drives even when they are on medication, because they have to.

Every business that serves alcohol has people leaving their establishment to drive under the influence on a regular basis. Places that primarily serve alcohol have lots of people driving home under the influence on a daily bases. We all know this, and DUI laws due little to stop this.

Heck, most of the people who enforce the laws against DUI, don't want to see DUI stop, it is their gravy train.

Every now and then, someone gets dragged underground and eaten, and people go about their lives pretending it didn't happen.

reply to post by Hefficide


Look at your own quote, it take 24 hours for codeine to leave your system.

The pain relief lasts about 2- to 4 hours, maybe 6, but the stuff stays in your system for 24 hours. If you want to sleep through the night, guess what you do, because you have to get up in the morning and go to work.

Um, yes, DA offices do prosecute people when they find codeine in their system, whether or not they could have been responsible for the accident. This is how they earn their living.

reply to post by poet1b


Your assumptions here are incorrect in application. Blood tests, even very strict drug or tox screens, rely upon standards of quantitative value. In lay terms, simply having the compound in your body is not enough to constitute intoxication - it has to be there in sufficient quantity and in the proper chemical state. Chemicals change composition during metabolization.

Taking a drug screen for a job, the day after taking codeine, might effect your life (if you don't have a prescription for it) not because you are under the influence at all, but because there are residual markers in your blood. But having these same residual markers will NOT result in a driving violation. Not even under the stringent standards of DOT approved drivers.

To say that a person could be DWI'd after having taken codeine many hours before hand is like saying that blowing a .001 on a breathalyzer will get you busted. These arguments are hyperbolic and geared to try and add legitimacy to a position as they are not real world applicable.

~Heff