Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[newyearsrevolution08]

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.

THat is different because THEN would have been an actual crime. Before the accident itself, nothing has occurred and no laws were broken.

 

[fr33domfightr]

It may be true, someone who is drunk may drive home safely, however, as probability would have it, one day they may have an accident.

In a big city, like back east, it's easy to either walk home or get a short taxi ride. Out West, we've got major suburban sprawl. Couple that with zoning laws and now you've got to drive to get where you're going. Someone who's had a few too many might like to take a bus, but there isn't any to take, and the taxi will cost a small fortune!!

I suppose more arrests have occurred in California since they lowered the DUI BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) to .08%, from the old limit of .10%. I just heard today that after January 1st, in California, if you kill someone and get a DUI, you'll be charged with Murder.

Regarding this topic thread, it would seem to be reasonable, that operating machinery while under the influence of any drug (or alcohol) can impair your ability to control that machinery. As such, there should be restrictions on how drunk you can be.

That being said, should you be under the influence and drive OK, you probably won't get stopped, and therefore you're practically legal. It's those little things that the cop looks for that will get the arrest (ie. NO tail light, NO headlight, NO brake light, even NO license plate light). Once you're stopped they'll always ask about any drinking, try and smell any alcohol coming from the car, and even look at your eye movement (for alcohol intoxication).


FF

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

It may be true, someone who is drunk may drive home safely, however, as probability would have it, one day they may have an accident.
FF

And ONCE that accident occurs an ACTUAL crime would THEN be committed. Until that time it is simply an ASSumption or probability and zero crime would have happened..

 

[DFF]

Not only no, but fuck no. I live in TX, and there are more people killed due to alcohol related accidents than any other state. Drunk drivers are a menace, and to say otherwise is a shortcut to thinking. That said, I'm not in favor of people going to prison for drinking and driving. Alcoholism is a disease; it should be treated as such (rehab).

 

[fr33domfightr]

And ONCE that accident occurs an ACTUAL crime would THEN be committed. Until that time it is simply an ASSumption or probability and zero crime would have happened..

OK, so let's assume it isn't a crime to drive drunk and its only a crime (illegal) to have an accident while under the influence. Under those circumstances, why even set a dui limit like .10%, we might as well make it .20% or more, since you won't get the dui unless you've had an accident. I think you'll find, that as you raise the dui limit higher and higher you'll see more and more accidents (ie. dui crimes being committed). So how would you fix that? Recommend people not drink as much, thereby lowering their BAC, which would cause less crime (and accidents)? The problem isn't the drinking, or even being drunk, its not being able to operate machinery safely. As such, it puts other people at risk. What a society must determine is, how much risk is it willing to accept? I've seen some extremely drunk people adamantly insist they can drive safely, at the same time, they can barely stand up.

If people could get realtime information about their impairment, this might help them decide NOT to drive for a period of time, thereby reducing the chance of having an accident (and hurting someone else), and being charged with the dui.


FF

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

OK, so let's assume it isn't a crime to drive drunk and its only a crime (illegal) to have an accident while under the influence. Under those circumstances, why even set a dui limit like .10%, we might as well make it .20% or more, since you won't get the dui unless you've had an accident.
FF

No that is not what I am saying at all.

Here this might make it easier.


A drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A sober guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime


It isn't the LEVEL that is the issue but rather once the crime is committed that it is an issue.

Someone COMPLETELY trashed can drive around all day without a single accident and a completely sober person can have multiple accidents in their lifetime. UNTIL an actual crime is committed why try and punish someone before.

 

[fr33domfightr]

No that is not what I am saying at all.

Here this might make it easier.


A drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun = no crime

A sober guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime

A REALLY drunk guy with a gun shoots someone = crime


It isn't the LEVEL that is the issue but rather once the crime is committed that it is an issue.

Someone COMPLETELY trashed can drive around all day without a single accident and a completely sober person can have multiple accidents in their lifetime. UNTIL an actual crime is committed why try and punish someone before.

I think I understand your point, that you feel there shouldn't be a crime, until an accident occurs.

I'm saying, we already know that accidents will occur to some degree, depending on how drivers can drive, while under the influence of alcohol, at various concentrations.

Your gun analogy seems OK on the surface, but I don't feel its quite the same. Put that same guy in a room full of people (to represent the road full of people), now have him playing with the trigger and hammer (risky behavior). While sober, he probably won't accidently shoot someone, but it could happen. Now, let him get drunk and do the same thing. Someone will probably get shot. How many get shot will probably depend on how drunk the person is.

I think the idea of the law isn't to penalize people as much as it's to be a deterent. Although, this may not be how the law is enforced today.

If we think back to the horse and buggy days, this probably wasn't an issue, since those animals didn't go that fast as to kill or maim someone.


FF

 

[tod evans]

those of you who abide by this type of legislation should give thought to following it to it`s logical conclusion, that being autos that are equiped to judge not only reaction time but visual ability and blood content.....

as someone posted earlier if you where to leave the gym or even get up late after a physically exhausting night and try to start your car to drive to work this type of restraint may keep you from doing so.
what if you where old and needed to drive to the pharmacy to get your medicine?
should your car fail to start because of the chemicals in your bloodstream or possibly because you`ve had cataracts surgury?
any legislation that permits sanctions for crimes that "might" be commited or that allows public servents to invade your privacy under the guise of protecting the general public from how you choose to use your own body or what you choose to put in it should be avoided at all costs.

 

[fr33domfightr]

those of you who abide by this type of legislation should give thought to following it to it`s logical conclusion, that being autos that are equiped to judge not only reaction time but visual ability and blood content.....

as someone posted earlier if you where to leave the gym or even get up late after a physically exhausting night and try to start your car to drive to work this type of restraint may keep you from doing so.
what if you where old and needed to drive to the pharmacy to get your medicine?
should your car fail to start because of the chemicals in your bloodstream or possibly because you`ve had cataracts surgury?
any legislation that permits sanctions for crimes that "might" be commited or that allows public servents to invade your privacy under the guise of protecting the general public from how you choose to use your own body or what you choose to put in it should be avoided at all costs.

I believe statistically, young drivers have more accidents than seniors. Seniors probably don't see as well, nor do they have the reaction time of there younger counterparts, yet young drivers have more accidents. It probably has more to do with behavior behind the wheel than those factors. At some point in time though, Seniors do have to give up the privilege of driving. Now that will get your goat when you get that old. I'm sure many Seniors swear they can drive just fine, but their actual driving ability would prove otherwise.

Those car sensors you're talking about are actually being installed in some newer cars I've seen on TV. At least the alcohol sensor.

I personally don't like them, and if I had one I'd have it removed. The alcohol measurement is tricky, because when you have alcohol in your mouth, the measurement device will read very high, which wouldn't be a true indicator of your intoxication. You have to wait about 15 minutes for the alcohol in your mouth to be ingested.

Again, this thread isn't about drug use or alcohol use, it's specifically about drunk driving. The State has no mechanism of testing which driver is better at driving while intoxicated versus the next guy. Their only mechanism is BAC (Blood Alcohol Content). You can be a good driver while drunk, but if you get caught, and blow .08% in my state, you'll get a DUI. A law change to increase the BAC to .10% or .15% would have the effect of handing out LESS DUIs. As it is now, the state has no mechanism to measure impairment. If there was one, then that would be a better way to quantify a safe driver from a risky driver.


FF

 

[MikeStanart]

Absolutely not.

Granted, I think the punishment for such should be a state-by state, or county-by county decision.

Driving drunk in a rural town in the middle of nowhere has a much smaller risk of inflicting harm; so i'm perfectly ok with the punishment being less severe for drunk driving in these areas.

I'm also totally fine with drug legalization / decriminalization; but once you step behind the wheel while you are high / drunk; I truly believe you are putting others liberties at risk and therefore you should be punished.

Drunk driving legalization will never fly; so just forget about this idea. Significantly less government involvement in our lives is excellent; but drunk driving legalization is borderline bonkers.

 

[Nate K]

some of you take theory wayyy too far. My family was destroyed by 2 separate drunk drivers.

I wish those who drink and drive an eternity in hell.

 

[pastortony]

some of you take theory wayyy too far.

My thought exactly.

That's why it is so easy to destroy an ideological libertarian of this strain in a political contest - all a reporter has to do is ask him/her a question like this one and any credibility they have with voters is instantly gone.

 

[MikeStanart]

some of you take theory wayyy too far. My family was destroyed by 2 separate drunk drivers.

I wish those who drink and drive an eternity in hell.

Sorry for your loss.

And I totally agree with you.

There's a special place in hell for child molesters, people who drink and drive, and people who talk in the theatre.

 

[nodope0695]

Drunk driving is NOT a civil liberty...when one does it, they are endangering the lives, hence the rights, of others. Also, the roads are public domain, so we must follow the laws of the road. However, I don't agree that wearing seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets should be mandated by law because those laws don't serve to protect the rights of others (only the bottom line of insurance companies). Those two things are personal choices, and the person bears the consequence of the choice. I don't need a law telling me to wear a seat belt...I wear them because I don't want to have my face implanted into the windshield. My choice.

 

[Kludge]

On private roads, they may do as they wish, and private roads would be a goal (if only academic) because public property can only result in tyranny.

But since we can't avoid the tyranny of public property ATM, I prefer not to be endangered beyond reason by preventable actions. Drink + Drive = Revoked License, but nothing else unless the person has no license or did actual harm.

 

[pcosmar]

Te poll is flawed. I voted unsure.
"Drunk" Is an arbitrary term. It's meaning has changed over the years. "Drunk Driving" is an emotional and media hyped crime.
I have worked in the auto repair industry for many years, I am sure I have had a close inspection of more wrecked cars than most here.
The most serious threat on the roads are "Driving while Stupid" and "Driving Incompetence".
I also posted some facts or another thread of this type. And may look up those links again, but doubt that those whos reason is clouded by emotion would consider the FACTS.

The FACT is there are many more auto deaths caused by other than "drunk driving".
FACT , An accident is "alcohol related" if,
The driver is sober but the passenger is "drunk".
The driver is sober, but hits a "drunk"
The statistics are flaw to be favorable this Emotionally charged issue.
Fact, "alcohol related" accidents ARE NOT the leading cause of traffic fatalities. Any where.

But who cares about facts, (you can research this yourself, I did) ,everyone knows "somebody" that had an experience. And they have emotions about it.

Lets all support Pre-Crime. It will make us FEEL like we're doing something.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

My thought exactly.

That's why it is so easy to destroy an ideological libertarian of this strain in a political contest - all a reporter has to do is ask him/her a question like this one and any credibility they have with voters is instantly gone.

Drunk driving is NOT a civil liberty...when one does it, they are endangering the lives, hence the rights, of others. Also, the roads are public domain, so we must follow the laws of the road. However, I don't agree that wearing seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets should be mandated by law because those laws don't serve to protect the rights of others (only the bottom line of insurance companies). Those two things are personal choices, and the person bears the consequence of the choice. I don't need a law telling me to wear a seat belt...I wear them because I don't want to have my face implanted into the windshield. My choice.

On private roads, they may do as they wish, and private roads would be a goal (if only academic) because public property can only result in tyranny.

But since we can't avoid the tyranny of public property ATM, I prefer not to be endangered beyond reason by preventable actions. Drink + Drive = Revoked License, but nothing else unless the person has no license or did actual harm.

All of the above.

One of my cousins was killed by a drunk driver who had already lost his license due to multiple drunk driving tickets. Revoking the license isn't any guarantee but it's a reasonable punishment that will work on some offenders.

In my cousin's accident he chose not to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Would a helmet have saved him? No way of knowing, but it was his choice to take that risk. It was not his choice to have a drunk driver in a car smash into him on the motorcycle. The drunk driver was convicted of vehicular homicide and went to jail. I am satisfied with that.

 

[wd4freedom]

Very dissapointed in some of the "freedom" arguments in this thread.

No one in this nation has the "right" to receive a driver's license. It is a privilege granted by individual states and each state has created laws governing the responsibilities that go along with that privilege. If you do not want to be caught as a drunk driver than turn in your driver's license, sell your car, and seek alternative forms of transportation.

This argument is like saying you have the right to prescribe medicine as a medical doctor without a medical license. When a person chooses to enter the medical field he understands that there are laws and rules which dictate responsibilties that come with that license to support the general welfare.

A person is free to not become a doctor just as a person is free to not drive an automobile on public roadways.

 

[pcosmar]

Laws based on emotional arguments and based on FLAWED statistics ought to be questioned.

Those that support these laws should ( in the interest of Intellectual Honesty) should research the facts.

I will suggest the DUI Bolg as a good place to start, but don't stop there.
http://www.duiblog.com/

Ther is information and statistics available on the web. Do some research.

 

[Kludge]

A person is free to not become a doctor just as a person is free to not drive an automobile on public roadways.

It's not my fault if you inhale my toxic fumes. WTF were you thinking?!!! BREATHING while there are toxic fumes around?! You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


You could have solved the whole problem if you had just worn a respirator. You can't expect ALL the air to be safe unless you want tyrannical AIR POLICE!!! Bring your own damn air, you poor statist scum!

(A hyperbole, of course)