Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[free_mail]

To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

Are you serious with this analogy? This is equivalent to someone being pissed off and getting into a car for the soul purpose of running someone over and killing them. See the difference?

 

[free_mail]

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.

A Republic, where the Minority often has to be protected by the will of the Majority.

 

[pcosmar]

Sounds like democracy!

Where did the republic go?

It seems to have died somewhere around the beginning of the last century.
Unfortunately, our efforts to revive it are met with resistance from those that wish promote social control.

 

[pcosmar]

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

Yes,and it was pushed by people like MADD using lies, deception , and emotional manipulation.
They operate very much like the Brady folks do with the 2nd amendment.

Of drivers involved in accidents, less than 127 thousandths of one percent
are drinking drivers in fatal accidents. According to numbers from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration -- THE source of traffic statistics.

.127% of fatal accidents are caused by drunks.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on the 99+% that are not cause by alcohol?

I wonder how many of these folks are members of BOTH organizations.

 

[pcosmar]

Originally Posted by SeanEdwards
To the people who voted yes:

I guess you wouldn't object then if I pointed a gun at your face and discharged it, as long as I missed, right? After all, no harm was done.

And here we see the Brady / MADD analogy demonstrated.

 

[luke-gr]

This is a tough one for me. If we abolish DUI laws then we should abolish speed limits then no longer mandate which side of the road on which we are to drive.

I have had several alcohol related incidents and was barely over the legal limit each time. I skimmed through this thread and am playing catch-up but I know that alcohol increases risk. While I do not agree that the government should dictate what I do to my own body, I have to wonder what might become if we are allowed to drink as much as we want and drive on public highways. That being said, DUI laws did not stop me from drinking and driving.

We cannot stop accidents on the highways but we can do our best to make sure that we remove unnecessary risks.

I am well aware that there are many other irresponsible actions taking while driving; digging for a CD, text messaging, etc. For ,me, I keep coming back to the idea of IMPAIRMENT. Is alcohol not to be a factor at all? Is a drunk driver no more responsible than a driver who got distracted for a moment, both causing equal accidents?

I disagree with seat belt laws. They are in place to protect ME. Drunk driving laws are in place to protect OTHERS. At least that is how I perceive it today.

 

[phill4paul]

Even if the first conviction for driving with a .08 BAC were increased there would still be deaths through driver negligence.

Murder carries the harshest penalties known to our justice system. Life in prison or the DEATH penalty.

There were 16,929 murders in the U.S. in 2007. Almost the same as the inflated claim of DUI related fatalities by the NHTSA.

No matter how harsh the penalty there will always be those who ignore it, are caught up by emotion or just plain crazy.

 

[mellamojuana]

Kudos for the luke_gr argument!

luke_gr, you are indeed an honest person, and a very good writer, imo. Your "take" includes many viewpoints and some genuine soul-searching.

I could vote for someone like you.

 

[ryanduff]

Lets just outlaw doing anything when drunk. What happens if you "accidentally" shoot somebody when drunk? Heck, lets just outlaw alcohol again because nothing good can come of it.

By the standards some people on these forums think, its no wonder we're becoming a socialist country.

 

[luke-gr]

I am actually not arguing one way or the other, but I understand the reasoning behind the law. While I agree that a person can drink and drive on their own property as much as they would like, when one gets out on the state highways amongst a lot of other vehicles and people.

For those of you opposed to drunk driving laws do you oppose speed limits? Just curious?

Ryanduff, being under the influence of a substance is an aggravating factor in any incident or crime and may be the determining factor in whether or not a person is charged with a crime or not. If someone has an accident with a firearm and are intoxicated they are more likely to be charged with negligence.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Are you serious with this analogy? This is equivalent to someone being pissed off and getting into a car for the soul purpose of running someone over and killing them. See the difference?

No it isn't. You don't know my intent when I point a gun at your face and pull the trigger. Maybe I just meant to demonstrate my shiny handgun to you. If the bullet doesn't hit you, then by the logic of the legalize drunk driving crowd no crime was comitted because nobody got hurt.

Of course this is ridiculous, and it's the very reason why criminal negligence is not tolerated in American society. And it's exactly the same concept when an intoxicated person operates a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is an exhibition of criminally negligent behavior.

And if that's not convincing enough, for all you libertarian fanatics there is the fact that the a driver's license is a voluntary contract. The person receiving the license agrees to not violate the rules of the road, and they're even tested on their knowledge of those rules which always include a question or two regarding legal blood-alcohol limits. If some drunk doesn't like those restrictions then they are perfectly free to not drive.

 

[Scofield]

I have no idea what I believe anymore.

While driving back to school tonight, some retard decided it'd be a good idea to speed down the highway, regardless of the fact that it was and had been sleeting outside for hours. Needless to say, after a few miles I came across an accident (nothing too bad, just in the ditch) and guess who it was...none other than the speeding moron.

These people are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, and I have no idea how I would punish them. I honestly don't know what the correct punishment is for either case, as every case is different.

 

[free_mail]

No it isn't. You don't know my intent when I point a gun at your face and pull the trigger. Maybe I just meant to demonstrate my shiny handgun to you. If the bullet doesn't hit you, then by the logic of the legalize drunk driving crowd no crime was comitted because nobody got hurt.

Of course this is rediculous, and it's the very reason why criminal negligence is not tolerated in American society. And it's exactly the same concept when an intoxicated person operates a motor vehicle on the public roads. It is an exhibition of criminally negligent behavior.

And if that's not convincing enough, for all you libertarian fanatics there is the fact that the a driver's license is a voluntary contract. The person receiving the license agrees to not violate the rules of the road, and they're even tested on their knowledge of those rules which always include a question or two regarding legal blood-alcohol limits. If some drunk doesn't like those restrictions then they are perfectly free to not drive.

Are you seriously telling me that I don't know someones intent when they point a loaded hand gun to my face with your finger on the trigger? You know what my intent would be? To pull out my gun and get you before you get me. Is there really a question as to your intent in that analogy or are you just trying to be a dick?


Of course, all of this is theoretical since no state will repeal such a law but at the heart of a libertarian you must be able to truly believe in liberty. And you definitely shouldn't be fight for laws that punish someone before an actual crime is committed. You're criminalizing someone for their potential danger to society. Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?

I am not endorsing Drinking and Driving. I am against it on a personal level. But I do believe it's the individuals responsibility to make that decision not the governments. How far will we go to force Americans to be responsible for themselves? At what point will you no longer have to be responsible for yourself because the government will do it for you? That's exactly what most of us here oppose.

 

[SeanEdwards]

And you definitely shouldn't be fight for laws that punish someone before an actual crime is committed.

Criminal negligence is the crime, and it is committed the moment the drunk driver gets behind the wheel.

You're criminalizing someone for their potential danger to society.

Yeah, exactly.

Hell, I have potential to cause harm. I'm in Afghanistan and trained to kill. Should I not be allowed a gun when I get home in case I get an OEF flashback? I have a higher potential to kill don't I?

Would a reasonable person conclude that your owning a firearm has a high likelihood of posing a serious risk to innocent people in your community?

I am not endorsing Drinking and Driving. I am against it on a personal level. But I do believe it's the individuals responsibility to make that decision not the governments. How far will we go to force Americans to be responsible for themselves? At what point will you no longer have to be responsible for yourself because the government will do it for you? That's exactly what most of us here oppose.

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

 

[free_mail]

Criminal negligence is the crime, and it is committed the moment the drunk driver gets behind the wheel.

Yeah, exactly.

Would a reasonable person conclude that your owning a firearm has a high likelihood of posing a serious risk to innocent people in your community?

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

Who's reasonable? You? Who's going to make the determination whether I'm suitable to own a fire arm in the US after having combat experience in Afghanistan?

Of course we all know that it's the law and driving is a privilege. The argument here is whether one believes in a law FORCING people to be responsible rather then allowing people to be responsible for themselves.

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge the similarities between the emotional response/rational against drunk driving and the emotional response/rational of anti-gun people.

 

[free_mail]

[...]The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

Where in the Constitution did it enable the Federal Government to create or enforce such a law?

 

[Danke]

The driver agreed to not operate a vehicle while intoxicated when they acquired their license to drive. Drunk drivers are in breech of contract. The people enact government in order to enforce laws, including contract law.

True. So if I don't have a license, no contract? correct?

 

[powerofreason]

This mentality is exactly my point. Legalizing drunk driving would create many more innocent deaths, pure and simple, because the drunker you are, the more likely you will believe "you won't hurt anyone".

Bullshit.

 

[powerofreason]

SeanEdwards, how are you harmed by potential danger? What are your damages as a result of potential danger? What bills do you have to pay as a result of it? What money did you lose from missing work? Oh thats right. Potential danger is just that, potential. When I get in the car and drive to school every day there is potential danger of me being in an accident. But I'm not going to demand that a person who almost crashed into me the other day be put in a jail cell. For what?

 

[powerofreason]

Government does not legitimately own roads, because roads are funded with stolen property. To draw an analogy, if I stole millions of dollars from someone and built myself a palace with it the palace would rightfully belong to the person I stole that money from. If some private road owner said that people with a BAC over 0.8 are not allowed to drive on the roads, and everyone is subject to sobriety tests at any time I would be okay with that because thats a real contract, and a real agreement. I am not opposed at all to rules. I am opposed to forced rules, and thats what government is. Force. Men with guns claiming to own at least a part of me, and my life. I don't accept that, and I don't bow down to criminals whether you call yourself government or the pope or The Dear Leader I don't give a shit.