Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

Should drunk driving be legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 78 38.4%

  • No (explain your penalty of choice)

    Votes: 111 54.7%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 14 6.9%
  • Total voters
    203
BarryDonegan said:
drunk driving without incident should not be illegal. however, driving drunk and then getting into an accident should carry the penalties that it currently carries, sometimes vehicular homicide depending on state and circumstance.

i would support a law that increased the level of criminality of an accident which was proven to be caused by the drunken negligence of the drunk driver, however not a law that punishes a driver with a certain blood alcohol who is not violating anyones life or property.
Click to expand...

well said.
 
SeanEdwards said:
Might as well let blind people drive too while your at it, silly anarchists.
Click to expand...

What degree of vision is your personal cut off? See, it is arbitrary.

Yes, I can see standards for reckless diving; something that is outwardly causing a hazard to other drivers. But everybody has different abilities, some could drive just as well with a .10+ blood alcohol level as a sober elderly lady. If the only reason someone is being charged is because of the chemicals in their bloodstream without any victims from their actions, that to me is an unjust law.
 
Last edited:
Danke said:
What degree of vision is your personal cut off? See, it is arbitrary.

Yes, I can see standards for reckless diving; something that is outwardly causing a hazard to other drivers. But everybody has different abilities, some could drive just as well with a 1.0+ blood alcohol level as a sober elderly lady. If the only reason someone is being charged is because of the chemicals in their bloodstream without any victims from their actions, that to me is an unjust law.
Click to expand...

There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.
 
nate895 said:
There is a status called "legally blind" which means that you are beyond the ability of modern corrective lenses to correct your vision.

BTW, if you have a 1.0 alcohol level, you are really dead. Your blood is pure alcohol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. And it is arbitrary.
 
BarryDonegan said:
drunk driving without incident should not be illegal. however, driving drunk and then getting into an accident should carry the penalties that it currently carries, sometimes vehicular homicide depending on state and circumstance.

i would support a law that increased the level of criminality of an accident which was proven to be caused by the drunken negligence of the drunk driver, however not a law that punishes a driver with a certain blood alcohol who is not violating anyones life or property.
Click to expand...

+2
 
The laws in place work fine now. I drive "drunk" all of the time but as I don't let myself do so overly wasted, I react correctly and drive fine and I've never been pulled over. If you're pulled over drunk there's probably a good reason for it.
 
robmpreston said:
If you're pulled over drunk there's probably a good reason for it.
Click to expand...




I've been pulled over several times late at night when I didn't drink anything or break any traffic laws by cops fishing for a dui. not to mention DWI checkpoints.
 
Yes.

I think I would support harsher punishment for those who get in wrecks while drunk, especially in cases where death occurs. Proof would have to be provided, of course.
 
AutoDas said:
No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.
Click to expand...

Precisely. This problem can easily be solved with private property rights. Don't you dare have a blood alcohol level of over .015 (or around that area) on my private road or its a $500 fine according to my road's term of use, enforced by private courts that uphold contract rights!
 
travismofo said:
Precisely. This problem can easily be solved with private property rights. Don't you dare have a blood alcohol level of over .015 (or around that area) on my private road or its a $500 fine according to my road's term of use, enforced by private courts that uphold contract rights!
Click to expand...

First off; for those wanting to privatize the roads......how do you plan to keep the roads in good shape. That takes money.......if you make laws/rukes like the one above youre no different than the states that currently exsist. IE: youre still making something at someone elses expense regardless of why you do it.

Second: anyone wants to argue this out. Any of you anti- government believers; how would you feel if you abolished all laws regarding this matter and it was your wife or mother or father or uncle or sister or child that was killed and the murder was allowed to get off scott free? Remember....you all would abolish the laws.
 
I don't like MADD, and either do many police officer or judges from what I hear. DUI's are another reason to make money for the state and the judges know it. Take a trip down to your court house and you will see almost 90% of the cases are DUI's. I disagree with 90% of the laws we are now under. The problems with laws such as these is they never end and they become more strict and costly as time goes on.

It's not right to drive drunk and hurt somebody, but there are many more accidents involved with people that are not drinking. Shit happens...accidents in life happen.....no law will protect any of us from being hurt.

Anyone who disagrees with what I wrote, know that I see your side as well.
 
RP4EVER said:
First off; for those wanting to privatize the roads......how do you plan to keep the roads in good shape. That takes money.......if you make laws/rukes like the one above youre no different than the states that currently exsist. IE: youre still making something at someone elses expense regardless of why you do it.
Click to expand...

The incentive for profit will force you to not only keep it in good shape, but also provide security for your property. Governments have no incentive to keep them in shape, unless of course a state official happens to use it. And of course it's different to have rules on your own private property as opposed to government rules. Government is coercive while private property is voluntary.

RP4EVER said:
Second: anyone wants to argue this out. Any of you anti- government believers; how would you feel if you abolished all laws regarding this matter and it was your wife or mother or father or uncle or sister or child that was killed and the murder was allowed to get off scott free? Remember....you all would abolish the laws.
Click to expand...

Scott free? Are you high? That person would be held accountable for any death regardless of what they have consumed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
So What? [There should be nothing illegal about]
Replies
13
Views
5K
TheCount
TheCount
Pauls' Revere
Your driving score
Replies
1
Views
377
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
PAF
This Is How It Begins: The Deep State Wants To Terminate the Constitution
Replies
9
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
PAF
A Powerful Government and a Weak Nation
Replies
1
Views
52
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
How to Contradict Yourself about Rights
Replies
0
Views
706
PAF
PAF
Back
Top