How government encourages drunk driving.

[bolil]

See the next sentence, it was pure luck that no one got hurt as I was swerving, blowing through red lights and hopping curbs. I knew I had no business driving, and I don't need a law to tell me that what I was doing was completely dangerous and reckless.

Don't you think there is a difference between belligerently drunk, as you were, and being intoxicated without hampering your ability to drive safely? If your jumping curbs and swerving you should be stopped. If you forget to signal a right turn and you happen to have had a drink or two or three you shouldn't get the screwing that is now coming your way.

 

[TheGrinch]

You are confusing personal responsibility with Social controls.
There is no need for the laws. But rather hold people accountable for their actions.
Hit something= you are responsible for that.
Don't hit anything= -------------

whatever substances may or may not be in your system are irrelevant.

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Maybe it's not possible in the current enviornment to have fair drunk driving laws without overreach, but I absolutely disagree that you can jsut be reckless on p;ublic roads without consequence, just because you've been lucky in the past. Many other causes of crashes are grey areas as far as the degree of gross negligence, but not injesting enough of a substance to where you can't walk a straight line, to be driving a two-ton hunk of steel.

 

[TheGrinch]

Don't you think there is a difference between belligerently drunk, as you were, and being intoxicated without hampering your ability to drive safely? If your jumping curbs and swerving you should be stopped. If you forget to signal a right turn and you happen to have had a drink or two or three you shouldn't get the screwing that is now coming your way.

As I've repeated many times in this thread, I don't think the current drunk driving laws are fair, as I know I can easily handle myself beyond the legal limit, but that doesn't mean I don't support measures in general to punish those who have no business operating a vehicle like I was.

 

[bolil]

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Maybe it's not possible in the current enviornment to have fair drunk driving laws without overreach, but I absolutely disagree that you can jsut be reckless on p;ublic roads without consequence, just because you've been lucky in the past. Many other causes of crashes are grey areas as far as the degree of gross negligence, but not injesting enough of a substance to where you can't walk a straight line, to be driving a two-ton hunk of steel.

In light of your admission, should you not be going to your police department for consequences? Driving isn't walking, you would have a better time of persuading people saying that any test for excessive intoxication while driving should be administered in the form of a DRIVING test, perhaps a simulator.

 

[raystone]

City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.

In this way government does the most to cause drunk driving. More specifically, by limiting the number of alcohol permits that can be "awarded" in a certain jurisdiction, everyone isn't allowed a neighborhood bar to walk to. The most extreme examples of this are the dry counties in Kentucky and other states. Dry counties have the HIGHEST rate of drunk driving. As you might guess, drunks are driving long distances to get back home after visiting the neighboring wet county.

 

[pcosmar]

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone,

How do you know it is a "criminal" with a gun and not just a person with a gun. Precrime? Are you psychic?

Are you advocating Gun Control as well?
Or just Precrime judgements?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone, or do you wait for them to start taking lives? Because you cannot be held "accountable" for killing someone, only punished. There is no restitution that will bring that person back.

Well, I'll let pcosmar chime in on that.

See, he's an ex-con, and, were he to acquire a firearm he would become a felon again, just by possession.

But as for me, I could not think of too many other people I would prefer to be living next door to me with guns, than pcosmar, the felon.

I have no doubt in my mind that he is not going to go off randomly killing people.

 

[Anti Federalist]

As I've repeated many times in this thread, I don't think the current drunk driving laws are fair, as I know I can easily handle myself beyond the legal limit, but that doesn't mean I don't support measures in general to punish those who have no business operating a vehicle like I was.

Yes, they are called reckless driving laws, and are already on the books, and have been on the books.

 

[tod evans]

The success of brainwashing is when those who are affected don't realize it.

Calm down, take a few breaths...........It'll be okay.

Bullshit. It's not brainwashing to realize that when you're drunk you have no business operating a two-ton piece of steel.

I've made it abundantly clear that I don't like the overreach and revenue it's used to justify, but to act like there's nothing wrong with truly driving drunk unless you hit someone is flat out absurd.

 

[tod evans]

So do you think it's wrong to stop a criminal with a gun before the kill someone,[snip]

And just how, pray-tell, do you determine that the person with the gun is a "criminal"?

Step back a bit man.....

Everything that's been spoon fed to you isn't all true..

 

[phill4paul]

Another DUI thread. I spent my load about 5-6 years ago on this forum giving MADD, NHTSA statistics vs. statistics that included many more factors. Posted the destruction of individuals lives of laws too harsh for a first offense. I've done it all. That thread is wayyyy down the memory hole. I'm at the point were I've been arguing and giving rebuttal on this issue too long.
I just don't have it in me anymore.
Prohibitionists will prohibit.
Believe what you want to believe.
Fuck it.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't

 

[tod evans]

Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't

What a sane and logical approach...

 

[TheGrinch]

How do you know it is a "criminal" with a gun and not just a person with a gun. Precrime? Are you psychic?

Are you advocating Gun Control as well?
Or just Precrime judgements?

You're taking the analogy far too literally, but it doesn't take a psychic to determine that person pointing a gun at innocent people is acting in a criminally forceful manner.

Advocating gun control? Lol, no it just makes my point that I support those trying to stop the criminal before he does cause people harm, same deal here.

A more strict analogy would be to punish those who discharge a gun in an irresponsible and unnecessary manner where it puts lives at risk. Hitting someone would only compound more charges, but gross negligence with a killing device should be a crime in itself, not precrime.

Similarly, I'm not going to wait for someone to get killed to see that someone who can't walk a straight line is a clear threat to my liberty and safety.

You would see the exact same thing if roads were privately funded, that they would not tolerate gross negligence that could even make them liable.

 

[TheGrinch]

The success of brainwashing is when those who are affected don't realize it.

Calm down, take a few breaths...........It'll be okay.

Sorry, but GFY if you're going to treat me like a sheep who only believed what they're told.

I could say the same about those that hate laws so much that they can justify any behavior that clearly threatens lives.

 

[TheGrinch]

Yes, they are called reckless driving laws, and are already on the books, and have been on the books.

That is all I'm advocating for, and was just speaking against the "no harm, no foul" argument. Reckless disregard for others should not be acceptable

 

[The Free Hornet]

John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

Can you requote that in the next abortion thread? Actually, that quote works on two levels. Nevermind.

 

[DamianTV]

When the Legal Consequences are more severe than the Crime itself, you have Injustice.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

Exactly. Pretty much said everything I was going to say. I'd only add that there is no way to determine how many people have a couple drinks or smoke a spliff without incident. We only have the statistics of the ones that had their lives ruined or were in an accident. I drove for years 'impaired' and never got into even so much as a fender bender. (And there are many that I know that have done the same) For some people to consider that driving drunk equates to playing Russian roulette with your life and the lives of others just goes to show how much 'paid programming' can work.

I've known some good 'drunk drivers' and I've known some bad sober drivers.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I grew up in a time and place where people regularly navigated roads "drunk" by todays standards, myself included.

Statistically there were less accidents per-capita and significantly less arrests.

Statements like "pilot a killing machine" are signs that the brainwashing has already worked.

Sorry state of affairs..

Was it the 1890s?:



Note: I do not attribute that chart to government intervention. Technology and progress allows us - even encourages us - to put more emphasis on safety.