Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[Scofield]

Do you realize that your DUI laws destroy families and lives, while not even being a successful deterrent against driving drunk?

My girlfriends mom recently got arrested for her 3rd DUI. She is a single mom and still has a 15 year old kid at living home. She is going to have to serve several months in jail for her DUI. Meanwhile, her son will be forced to move and she will be forced to sell her home because she can't make mortgage payments in jail.

Oh yea, and she never got in an accident.

Good fucking riddance. Three DUI's?

She is a threat to society, as she continuously shows that she doesn't care about human life (you don't drink and drive multiple times if you have any sense of responsibility or morality), and she should not be free to walk (or drive) on our streets. I am sorry that she will have to leave her children, but she does not deserve the same Liberties I "enjoy."

Edit: And your response is just as emotional as any of mine. We just have different emotions.

 

[M House]

Um...aren't you the pro drinking and driving dumbass and this doesn't make you just think a minute there's a problem with your OWN goddamn fucking actions!? I...just....don't...have...the...words...

 

[danberkeley]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

I will say that I think the law/punishment should be left to the individual States, as it is a 10th Amendment issue.

So since I am a taxpayer and I, therefore, own the roads, why cant I just give myself permission to drive drunk on roads? Also, can I sell my share of the roads to you?

 

[Printo]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive. You do not have the right to threaten the lives of others with your irresponsible behavior. I dont even see how this is an argument. When you are threatening the life, liberty & property of others with your recklessness, you should be held accountable for those actions. 33% Geeez. The people on this board make no sense whatsoever sometimes.

 

[Danke]

This kinda talk is making me thirsty. I'm hopping in my SUV and heading to the bar.

 

[NaT805]

The tax-payer's own the public highways, and since I am a tax-payer, I do not want anyone drinking and driving on "my" roads. Therefore, it is up to me (and society) to determine the legality of drinking and driving on "our" roads, and thankfully the vast majority of us are against it.

Sounds like democracy!

Where did the republic go?

 

[NaT805]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive.

So if someone had only a few beers and is physically capable of driving then it is ok?

 

[M House]

There is a already a legal limit, it's already just a few drinks for people, why would you wanna push it?

 

[mellamojuana]

Wow! Are emotions illegal? What about freedom to feel?

I am delighted to learn from this thread that the Driving While Intoxicated laws are my laws. ("Your DUI laws destroy...") I am encouraged that my thoughts, votes, comments, protests, emails, letters, and financial and--ahem--emotional support actually count. Mr. Your Laws Destroy, Sir, you have made my weekend!

Laws are words on paper essentially. DWI laws don't ruin lives. I've worked and volunteered in enough of my state prisons to learn that personal choice overrides laws, verbal abuse, misogyny, rape, molestation, name-calling, addiction of all kinds, and, yes, even flawed logic.

I don't often get onto any rpaulforums because I don't enjoy the expressions of disrespect that discussions often deteriorate into. This thread, however, has made me happy as a lark. I feel truly important now. My laws. Wow!

Yes, people are free to drink kool-aid of any kind to reach any altered state they desire. People should also be allowed to feel, and to express feelings in non-combative, non-abusive, 1/2 decent ways.

 

[danberkeley]

If you are not physically able to operate a vehicle, you should not be allowed to drive. You do not have the right to threaten the lives of others with your irresponsible behavior. I dont even see how this is an argument. When you are threatening the life, liberty & property of others with your recklessness, you should be held accountable for those actions. 33% Geeez. The people on this board make no sense whatsoever sometimes.

What if your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

 

[Printo]

What is your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

 

[Danke]

What is your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's?

Drunks slur their speech, so they'd probably injure innocent women and children with such a vehicle.

 

[danberkeley]

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

It mean this: what IF your vehicle is voice-controlled like Batman's? My bad on the mispelling.

Drunks slur their speech, so they'd probably injure innocent women and children with such a vehicle.

couldnt the car be programmed so that it avoids injuring anyone?

 

[Danke]

couldnt the car be programmed so that it avoids injuring anyone?

Well, I guess if everyone was chipped so the onboard sensors in the car could detect them, then maybe...


But as well programed as your computer can be, does it ever crash?

 

[danberkeley]

Well, I guess if everyone was chipped so the onboard sensors in the car could detect them, then maybe...


But as well programed as your computer can be, does it ever crash?

No. It will never crash and it will never be crashed upon. It will be programmed to not be in any type of accident. Even if you are drunk and tell it to crash, it will recognize that you are drunk and will ignore you.

 

[cordscords]

What the hell does that even mean? Drunk driving threatens the life, liberty & property of others. It should be illegal. Period.

Everything threatens the life of others. Certain foods do. In fact California passed a ban that bans trans fat throughout the entire state. The majority of us on here find that rediculous as we should be able to eat whatever we want, but dont consider it to be as big an issue as drunk driving. Perhaps it's not, but we start to walk a slippery slope.

There remain places where mixed martial arts events are illegal. The UFC cant put on a show in NY because they have a problem with two adults giving their consent to fight each other. Again it's rediculous, but we have more important things to worry about right?

There are some people who still advocate banning tackle football. All it's going to take is a star player have the white sheet put over them on national TV. A large movement will certainly start after that. Again it's rediculous. It was just an accident to somebody who understood the risk when they took the field that day.

Eventually should we just always assume the worst? Lets make the only thing legal to sit down. Nothing bad can happen by sitting down. But wait! Eventually the chair legs will give out! We dont want to fall down and get hurt. So lets stand instead. But wait! Our legs will get tired! You see where I'm trying to go with this...

Things happen. Period. People will do whatever they want even if there are laws in place. You can get into a stats argument all you want, but there are stats to skew statistics on either side. The bottom line is that liberty needs to be protected, even in times where it is a bit extreme.

 

[mellamojuana]

Everything threatens the life of others? Pardon me; I don't understand.

Probability isn't absolute.

There might be "collateral damage" if someone drinks alcohol and then tries to operate a motor vehicle. There might not.

The liberty loving thing to do is to exercise one's right to drink and drive, and hope for the best; is that what you are saying, cords?

Where did the idea for the assertion that everything threatens the life of others originate?

Interesting how many things are "rediculous" [sic].

 

[cordscords]

Probability isn't absolute.

There might be "collateral damage" if someone drinks alcohol and then tries to operate a motor vehicle. There might not.

The liberty loving thing to do is to exercise one's right to drink and drive, and hope for the best; is that what you are saying, cords?

Where did the idea for the assertion that everything threatens the life of others originate?

Interesting how many things are "rediculous" [sic].

Exactly. We should trust people to do the right thing. The majority of us already do. When a person does take the privilege of drinking and driving too far (fatal accident) they should face hard punishment. The same goes for other cases of negligence. Such as a person fishing for a CD in their backseat who hits another driver and they die. Drunk drivers, and sober drivers who take their eyes off the road, are both stupid and negligent. Why come down harder on the drunk driver?

BTW- I guess I need to work on my spelling of "ridiculous"

 

[free_mail]

This is one of those cases I always talk about how people who fight or desire liberty cannot view it at ALL fronts. Only if it affects them.

I voted on YES. Why? As others have suggested there had been no victims yet. Is it more of a probability that they'll hit someone? Sure. But as others I'm sure have already pointed out, this law is criminalizing YOU for your potential to be dangerous. It's criminalizing YOU for future damages you MIGHT cause. Hmmm. Reminds me of the movie Minority Report.

Have I ever drank alcohol and driven home? Yes when I was younger (under the legal drinking age btw). Without hitting anyone. Whether I was just below the .08, just above it or wayyy above it, I have driven home "drunk". Was it a good choice for me to have done so? No. Would I ever do it again? Not a chance.

What it comes down to is individual responsibility. Was I irresponsible when I was younger? Most definitely. Could I have caused serious damage? Yes. I didn't though.

Do I need the government to force me and others to be responsible? I suppose that's the true question in this argument. Do we NEED it? We shouldn't need it.

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

I feel the major issue with your analogy is the responsibility level of the individual. Would I want to pull the trigger on a loaded gun for S&G in a loaded room? No. If I were drunk, would I be responsible enough to say to myself "hey, I shouldn't play with that gun because I'm hammered drunk". Are there idiots out there that would? Of course. Again, the issue is with personal responsibility.

You want to criminalize risky behavior is what I'm gathering from this post....

 

[TER]

True liberty is to do the will of God and love your neighbor.