Legalize Drunk Driving

reply to post by mnemeth1

It really doesn't matter who owns the roads. The right to travel is a basic human right. Because a court is given power by people with money does not mean they have made a correct interpretation. They will make any interpretation depending on the money they are given. I have a basic human right to travel that is not a privilege.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It really doesn't matter who owns the roads. The right to travel is a basic human right. Because a court is given power by people with money does not mean they have made a correct interpretation. They will make any interpretation depending on the money they are given. I have a basic human right to travel that is not a privilege.

You have a right to travel freely, however you do not have a right to use other people's property against their consent.

You do not have a right to drive your car across other people's lawns.

You do not have a right to drive your car through a farmer's corn field.

And you don't have a right to drive drunk on a private highway if the owner of the highway doesn't want drunks on his road.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you think government agents should stand in our bedrooms with a gun to our heads and force us to use condoms?

Not surprisingly, this is pure demagoguery.

The government was not in the post I was replying to, and it was not in my reply. You make up an idiotic reply and proceed to debunk same. How very intelligent.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

It really doesn't matter who owns the roads. The right to travel is a basic human right. Because a court is given power by people with money does not mean they have made a correct interpretation. They will make any interpretation depending on the money they are given. I have a basic human right to travel that is not a privilege.

You have a right to travel freely, however you do not have a right to use other people's property against their consent.

You do not have a right to drive your car across other people's lawns.

You do not have a right to drive your car through a farmer's corn field.

And you don't have a right to drive drunk on a private highway if the owner of the highway doesn't want drunks on his road.

edit on 21-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Mnemeth, I disagree in that the government has created a system where I can not travel without using their roads. Even if the roads are sold off, my right to travel is now limited. All land in the US is either owned by the state, federal government or private property. I do respect people's private property rights but the right to travel is not a privilege.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you think government agents should stand in our bedrooms with a gun to our heads and force us to use condoms?

Is this a trick question? If not, can I make a list of potential test subjects?

I think all sides of the issue have been beaten to death, so I will discontinue my argument. I did go back and flag your thread. It is uncommon for me to flag threads, with which I immediately, vehemently disagree. However, overall, the thread has been civil and deserves recognition.

Thanks and happy ATSing!

reply to post by Miraj


Perfectly sober people also cause accidents and kill people with their cars. So, I fail to see your point. I agree that there is point where motor control is just gone, but most people can have one or two drinks and not have any detrimental effects. They can even pass all the dumb tests that cops have you do (touch fingers to your nose etc), and still get taken in and charged for nothing but blood alcohol content.

The state has no right to regulate what you put in your body, or how you drive. Just as long as you don't hurt anyone else or infringe on them.

You think the Founding Fathers rode their horses, or drove a carriage drunk? Cause I'd bet they did. And please refrain from the escalation argument, a car is really no different, and being trampled by a horse can be much more lethal in some ways.

If you are drunk, and you make it from point A to point B without hitting anything. You haven't committed a crime. Just being drunk and operating a car isn't Constitutionally illegal.

Now if you hit a car or a pedestrian while drunk then you should be charged accordingly. But only for whatever particular crime, not for being drunk, or being drunk and committing the act. Only the act.

The ultimate proof that drunk driving laws are BS, IMO:
The fact that if you turn on the electrical system on a vehicle, but do NOT start the engine or manipulate the transmission in any way, that is considered operating the vehicle/drunk driving and they will charge you even though your car didn't even move a millimeter and you couldn't possibly hurt anyone due to the engine being turned off.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


The point you seem to be missing in all of this is that drunk driving laws don't actually reduce drunk driving.

Therefore, your loved ones could be hit regardless.

The best estimates are that drunk driving laws save 400 lives a year. - BUT - at a cost of 20 billion annually, we can rest assured that far more people than 400 end up dying early deaths because of the money that was taken from them.

We already have laws against reckless endangerment, murder, assault, and property damage. Those laws are sufficient to deter drunk drivers.

edit on 21-12-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

From what source are you obtaining these numbers? The best estimates of prevented drunk driving fatalities are only 400 per year? Thats impossible to calculate, since there are no numbers to calculate with.

And yes DUI laws do deter drunk driving. Not all laws are 100% effective, but that doesn't mean we should repeal all of them.

Does it matter if we already have laws in place against endangerment, murder and assault? Its not enough to deter drunk driving, even with the DUI laws and the aforementioned laws, drunk driving is still prevalent. Without DUI laws our roads are akin to Demolition Derby.

reply to post by mnemeth1

The point you seem to be missing in all of this is that drunk driving laws don't actually reduce drunk driving

Nah, I got your point, but it is only a subjective opinion because this is a statistic we have no way of knowing. I know many, many people who refuse to drive while drinking, including myself. Who's to say they would or would not be in an accident if they did? Perhaps it's only the people who are law abiding who care? It's not that big a deal. You can always find someone to drive. Maybe it's the people who are driven by alcohol who pose the objections.

It's an unknown.

There are people who are going to break the law, period, in any arena of society.
But until there are studies to back up these comments, my belief remains that the laws do act as a deterrent.

those who believe driving under the influence is same or even safer than driving sober are just kidding themselves, it is putting passengers, your children most likely, other road users, yourself at higher risk of accident or death.

there is no excuse for dui, as other forms of transport are available and easily obtained. the laws are fair, if you break them, you risk the consequences due. fair enough if someone wants to only put themselves at risk, but when others are involved or using the road at the same time, there is no excuse.

taking such risks has no meaning more than the real fact in death of a family member or other innocent party caused by actions of anyone driving over the limit. either pay the penalties or don't break the law, simple as that.

Originally posted by Byteman
The state has no right to regulate what you put in your body, or how you drive. Just as long as you don't hurt anyone else or infringe on them.

Read my post above. If you think that doing something potentially harmful or lethal to others should never be discouraged, I rest my case, there is no arguing to you -- let me just say that I do drink, and on occasion do drink more than is optimal -- and I know really well that I have no business behind the wheel when I'm buzzed, no matter how bold or energetic I feel at the moment.

As a drinker, I declare all and everyone who thinks it's OK to drive after more than 1 or 2 small drinks -- an imbecile.

You think the Founding Fathers rode their horses, or drove a carriage drunk? Cause I'd bet they did.

It was not uncommon for Central American cultures to resort to human sacrifice when times were tough. Find a few Atztecas and ask them to perform that ritual on your body to bring prosperity and peace to the United States. Just using another historical analogy akin to yours.

Dumb.

It is not subjective.

We can look at the statistical data of what goes on before and after drunk driving laws are enacted.

We can look at the reports that drunk drivers themselves provide.

We can measure the effectiveness of changes to the DUI laws.

This not subjective evidence, it is empirical evidence.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is not subjective. We can look at the statistical data of what goes on before and after drunk driving laws are enacted.

I oblige:

link

What is a mobile RBT? (random breath test)

All standard police vehicles are mobile RBT units and can randomly pull drivers over to perform a breath test .

Since the introduction of RBT in 1982, fatal crashes involving alcohol have dropped from 40 per cent of all fatalities in 1982 to the current level of 19 per cent. Last year police conducted 3.4 million breath tests in NSW.

Case closed. You lose.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is not subjective. We can look at the statistical data of what goes on before and after drunk driving laws are enacted.

I oblige:

link

What is a mobile RBT? (random breath test)

All standard police vehicles are mobile RBT units and can randomly pull drivers over to perform a breath test .

Since the introduction of RBT in 1982, fatal crashes involving alcohol have dropped from 40 per cent of all fatalities in 1982 to the current level of 19 per cent. Last year police conducted 3.4 million breath tests in NSW.

Case closed. You lose.

That - is subjective.

Uncontrolled for bias the stat is meaningless.

Of course, you already know this.

Further, America still has some 4th amendment rights in tact.... Random stop and seachs would never fly here. Besides, randomly searching people has nothing to do with DUI laws.

Police could still do random stop and searches of drivers WITHOUT any DUI laws, and the results would be just as effective as if they simply took the keys away and made the driver get a cab.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you think government agents should stand in our bedrooms with a gun to our heads and force us to use condoms?

Not surprisingly, this is pure demagoguery.

LOL

As if what you are doing is any different.

Seriously, thanks for the laff.

I'm half in the bag and that comment totally cracked me up.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That - is subjective.

Uncontrolled for bias the stat is meaningless.

Sorry dude but the effect is so large I can't imagine lots of sources of bias to steer it back. I love seeing a demagogue writhing in the face of evidence

Further, America still has some 4th amendment rights in tact.... Random stop and seachs would never fly here. Besides, randomly searching people has nothing to do with DUI laws.

Breathalizer test having nothing to do with DUI? You are really clasping straws here.

Dismissed.

reply to post by mnemeth1


...............But it does what it was enacted to do. It acts as a deterrent. That's all any law can do, even the death penalty. Yes?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That - is subjective.

Uncontrolled for bias the stat is meaningless.

Sorry dude but the effect is so large I can't imagine lots of sources of bias to steer it back. I love seeing a demagogue writhing in the face of evidence

Further, America still has some 4th amendment rights in tact.... Random stop and seachs would never fly here. Besides, randomly searching people has nothing to do with DUI laws.

Breathalizer test having nothing to do with DUI? You are really clasping straws here.

Dismissed.

You are acting like a child.

You do realize this right?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You are acting like a child.

You do realize this right?

Another content-free post from you, but -- what else is new under the Sun?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Breathalizer test having nothing to do with DUI? You are really clasping straws here.

Dismissed.

A few pages ago he said the same thing. The DUI laws haven't done any good. I told him deaths have dropped by 50% in the last few decades. The evidence is real and its primary cause are education efforts against drunk driving and increased vigilance from law enforcement. Back in the 50s it was kind of unheard of to get prosecuted for a DUI. The cause and effect is blatantly obvious. But some choose to live in a bubble ignoring reality if it doesn't fall into their bizarre ideology.

Originally posted by Schaden
A few pages ago he said the same thing. The DUI laws haven't done any good. I told him deaths have dropped by 50% in the last few decades. The evidence is real and its primary cause are education efforts against drunk driving and increased vigilance from law enforcement. Back in the 50s it was kind of unheard of to get prosecuted for a DUI. The cause and effect is blatantly obvious. But some choose to live in a bubble ignoring reality if it doesn't fall into their bizarre ideology.

Thank you for stating what may be obvious. Then again, somebody willing to chant the mantra "Einstein was an idiot" ad infinitum - see a pattern here?