Terbolizard was arrested for DUI this weekend??

[MrZach]

That's pretty odd, considering my graduating class was HUGE compared to most of the numbers that I hear, and we were in a pretty rough part of town too. This back in the early '80's before the nanny state started cracking down on such things, to be sure we didn't hurt ourselves.

Alcohol wasn't out biggest problem - drugs were far more dibilitating. ANd I don't know a single person who died. in a DUI car accident or otherwise. So I have to say that I don't believe you when you said your friends were dropping like flies around you. It just doesn't compute statistically.

The Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were indeed a violation of our rights, but because it made the world safe, they were going to allow them.

Congratulations on destroying freedom, because thats what DUI laws do. THey destroyed our right to drive down a public street without getting pulled over for no reason.

The same public that finances the construction of roads has the right to regulate their usage.

As for your accusation that I didn't have 16 friends die while I was in high school, well that is just plain pointless to argue with. What am I going to do? Bring up all the obits? Basically you're calling me a liar based on... statistics - which you haven't even provided... so basically you're really just interested in calling me a liar because you don't want to believe me. Well, call me tragically unlucky, but it is true.

What I can't believe is that you have the disrespect to argue over whether or not someone died. That is pretty sick...

Oh, and actually none of my friends who died went to my high school - only the one girl who was put in a coma. Wow, I actually had friends who didn't go to my hight school! Wow... imagine that! Guess you didn't think of that, didja? lol

 

[MrZach]

I pay for the roads. Probably more than you do, because Chicago is expensive and inefficient.

Um... in case you didn't notice, I live in Chicago too, buddy... Or are you having trouble reading the top right corner of every post I make?

Seriously, why am I arguing with someone who even the most obvious of observable facts escape his attention?

Your argument that since you pay some for the roads that you have the right to do whatever you want with them makes no sense whatsoever. I pay for the roads too - in fact the exact same ones you are paying for, so I guess my vote cancels out yours! You paying a tiny portion for the roads gives you a say, that's all. Not the final word. Deal with it.

 

[MrZach]

It is obvious how weak an argument is when someone has to come up with totally unrealistic hypotheticals to support it.

Thank you for that lovely illustration, Mr. 20-Miles-In-The-Middle-Of-Nowhere-Desert-Driver. LMAO

 

[tommy7154]

Killing your daughter was a crime...doesn't make any difference whether the person responsible was drunk and did it with a vehicle, a knife, or a nail gun. The person responsible should be charged and sentenced accordingly.

Ok I see your viewpoint I wasn't paying much attention to where this thread had gone but I still disagree with it. The very act of driving while drunk is and should be illegal imo. Normally a drunk will get pulled over for swerving, speeding, a light out...whatever.

So what you are saying is that you agree that if the person was swerving he should be arrested for reckless driving or whatever the charge for swerving all over may be.

But going with the light out scenario, you don't believe he should be arrested simply for being drunk?

Just seeing if i'm understanding the argument.

 

[DealzOnWheelz]

yeah Zach you put actions behind your beliefs so you decided to stop driving because you are scared of all the dumb drunk drivers

are you sure you don't want to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here??

 

[MrZach]

Okay, I gotta jet. Besides, at this point I'm only repeating myself because no one wants to actually read everything I've posted before they react to me and therefore end up saying stuff that doesn't make any sense in light of my most recent arguments... totally pointless argument, especially when no one reads what you write and just goes on and on with their cognitive flatulence.

I've pretty much said all I need to say on it. If you missed something, go back and read my posts again... I have other things to do now besides waste my time arguing the same thing over and over again, lol...

 

[nosebruise]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

 

[MrZach]

yeah Zach you put actions behind your beliefs so you decided to stop driving because you are scared of all the dumb drunk drivers

are you sure you don't want to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here??

You fail to impress with you completely illogical connections.

And, yes - I don't drive because I believe the risk to my life isn't worth it.

I decided this after my last accident. I was in a 5 car (4 SUV's and a van) pileup on the the highway (94) that was caused when the driver of a van drifted over the right shoulder and stuck my vehicle at 70 mph (limit is 55) while I was still on the entrance ramp and not even on the highway yet. The impact caused my left front tire to be smashed under my vehicle which pulled my car onto the highway - at a mere 30 mph - into traffic all going about 60-70 mph, where I was pummeled by three other SUV's before we all came to a stop on the left shoulder smashed into the median.

It was a miracle that I was able to walk away from that incident. By the way - the driver of the van who caused the accident? Didn't have a license. His excuse? He was tired. He got off.

I'm done with these fucking roads.

I'm done with this argument. I have night class. History of American Business - VERY good class - don't want to miss a moment!

 

[MrZach]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

The only problem with your argument is that the causes of the reckless driving are what people are interested in mitigating - and that is why there are laws to attack those things directly - eliminate contributing factors to recklessness. There's nothing wrong with that, and by attacking a direct cause you can mitigate the symptoms. Makes sense to me...

Okay, if I don't leave in 5 I'm going to miss my train downtown. Seriously! lol... gotta jet!

 

[nosebruise]

so i guess we should have timecards to punch how long we've been awake before driving as well then, eh?

 

[Eponym_mi]

So what you are saying is that you agree that if the person was swerving he should be arrested for reckless driving or whatever the charge for swerving all over may be.

But going with the light out scenario, you don't believe he should be arrested simply for being drunk?

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

 

[tommy7154]

i dont know about him, but that's what i'm saying.


the problem is driving recklessly, not the fact that you have alcohol in your system. its the equivalent of being tired and ready for a nap and driving home after doing overtime at work,
and being so tired you can't drive straight and are starting to nod off every 5 minutes.

driving recklessly whether it's too much alcohol, too little sleep, makeup, DVDs, having a fight with your wife, reading a newspaper, talking on a cellphone... this is the problem... it doesnt matter which one it is if you are swerving or cause an accident, and the accident that "kills your daughter" isn't going to be any different between any of them.

I see your point I just can't agree with it when it comes to driving drunk. It should just be common sense and responsibility that prevents anyone from doing it (along with reading a newspaper, talking on the phone, putting on makeup etc..) but unfortunately too many people are lacking in both of those areas. The way I see it is if driving drunk were legal it would cost many more people their lives plain and simple. I can't agree with something that would do that.

It's like if I were driving a forklift at work, I would not be allowed to talk on a phone, put on makeup, or anything so dumb that it may cost someone their life. If I did any of those things while operating that machinery, I would hope that i'd be fired for being so negligent. It's just plain old common sense and I think the same things should apply to public roads as well. Maybe that's a minority viewpoint here, but it's one that won't change in my mind.

 

[MrZach]

Argh! I'm such an idiot! I missed my train!!! Now I'm going to be 30 minutes late for class because the next one doesn't come for an hour! =o( stupid, stupid, Zach...

 

[MrZach]

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

There has been a strong correlation (and very scientifically backed up I might add) that inebriation directly causes recklessness. Therefore, this is the reason the laws attack a choice that someone can freely make and can easily be clearly identified.

On the other hand, all your other examples, old age, poor health, being tired - these things either are not choices, or cannot be easily identified, or there is not a strong enough cause-effect relationship between them and recklessness. Being under the influence directly correlates, it is a choice, and it can be easily identified. That is why it is under attack.

So far, all these other off the wall examples I've heard don't fit those basic descriptors, so it is pointless to bring them up at this point.

 

[nosebruise]

the problem here is the definition of DRUNK. you are equating drunk with being to the point where you are driving irresponsibly, which would be the same point where you are nodding off while driving. im sure we're both on the same page with that.

the difference here is the stringency of the laws tend to put people who are the equivalent of "being tired", and not "too tired to drive" or "about to nod off" in the same position.

there is a scale, and people can handle alcohol, like people handling staying awake, are varied from person to person. if there is a problem with recklessness it should be handled on an individual basis to see if the person actually posed a danger or not. blanketing everyone under the same rules and regulations, especially ultra stringent ones may help some people from doing something irresponsible, but it also punishes people who wouldnt be a danger and simply are trying to get home, and also invites for abuse of these laws by law enforcement to harass or criminalize people who otherwise would not be a danger to society.

 

[tommy7154]

In those situations, there might be some lesser offense for being a hazard to others, but the activities you describe occur even with sober people. Should the person be arrested? Should their vehicle be impounded? Today, you're more likely to be given a ticket and sent on your way unless you're obviously impaired or have caused an accident. I don't know, but I oppose random searches, which is how I would characterize most traffic enforcement stops.

Hell, how about grandpa plowing through 35 people at an outdoor market? Seems I've read about a few of those...bet he never went to jail.

If a person sober or drunk is swerving all over they should not be on the roads plain and simple. If a light is out and the person is sober then no they should not go to jail. They should be told that it's out and it needs to get fixed.

I also absolutely oppose random searches on public roads. THAT crosses way over the line imo. That is an invasion. If I pull someone over for a reason though and then discover they're drunk then I think they should be held responsible. They are impaired and should not have been driving.

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

As for grandpa, he shouldn't have been on the road and he probably knows it. He should be held responsible and he should have gone to jail if he didn't.

And when I say get arrested and go to jail i'm speaking generally and don't necessarily mean just that. There are many deterrents. I just don't believe anyone should be taught that such irresponsible things are OK.

 

[MrZach]

so i guess we should have timecards to punch how long we've been awake before driving as well then, eh?

Maybe when sleepy driving causes enough accidents in some state, people will get fed up and do something about it. What can one reasonably do? You can't really prove one way or another if someone has had enough sleep. It is very easy to measure someone's BAC.

Here's something to think about: When I was in the Air Force, when you take leave and go on a long trip and are under the age of 26, you must submit a travel plan that details how you're getting from point A to point B. If you are driving, there are strict regulations on how many miles/hours you can drive in one day. You are required to show that you are making stops every few hours for at least 15 minutes to rest, and you must allot for at least 8 hours of good sleep. You cannot even switch off drivers and use the "they slept in the car" excuse because there is good evidence that sleeping in the care doesn't give you the "good night's sleep" necessary to really be fully awake and alert.

Anyway, if you are in an accident and injured or killed - your health benefits and or your life insurance benefits will be null and void if there is reasonable evidence that you did not follow your pre-approved plan. Weren't wearing a seatbelt? No benefits. Didn't get a full night's rest and it can actually be proven? No benefits. Anything else can be proven that you did that could have been preventable and caused an accident? No benefits.

Additionally, if you're off your plan, you are subject to further punishment from your commander who signed the approval of your plan. Keep in mind, this is only for people under the age of 26 (don't ask me why - everything they do in the AF is purely statistics driven).

Do I think this is way crazy unreasonable? Yeah... perhaps. Then again, I don't HAVE to drive everywhere, and it isn't too hard for me to follow a plan if I do submit one or to follow... Plus, I don't have to stay in the Air Force (which I didn't) so I do have a choice in the matter... Once you accept the fact that you DO have options and choices - you kinda have to take responsibility for the choices you make... no matter how unreasonable the consequences.

I'm not arguing for making everything as strict as it was in the Air Force... I'm just trying to illustrate the fact that as long as you have choices and recourse - you really don't have a lot of room to complain...

 

[MrZach]

If a person sober or drunk is swerving all over they should not be on the roads plain and simple. If a light is out and the person is sober then no they should not go to jail. They should be told that it's out and it needs to get fixed.

I also absolutely oppose random searches on public roads. THAT crosses way over the line imo. That is an invasion. If I pull someone over for a reason though and then discover they're drunk then I think they should be held responsible. They are impaired and should not have been driving.

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

As for grandpa, he shouldn't have been on the road and he probably knows it. He should be held responsible and he should have gone to jail if he didn't.

And when I say get arrested and go to jail i'm speaking generally and don't necessarily mean just that. There are many deterrents. I just don't believe anyone should be taught that such irresponsible things are OK.

I'm totally against random searches as well. Most places are rising up and making this illegal to do. Someone has to have shown a clear violation of traffic laws to be pulled over, first. THAT is the police state everyone's talking about, and I'm totally against that. Block aids, random searches... all a bunch of bunk!

 

[nosebruise]

If a person is drunk and driving but obeying all observable laws, then there's no reason they should be pulled over to begin with.

wow. come to LA.

better yet, come to LA and have a beer, where you can't park anywhere past 2AM, and it will probably put you over the BAC.

i'll bet 80% of the people driving down sunset or hollywood on a friday or saturday night could probably get charged with a DUI if the cop wanted to whether they posed a danger or not.

and of course to people like celebrities and politicians with pull could have cocaine and a hooker and drive away with their red cells free floating in pure alcohol instead of plasma and they could get away with it.

 

[tommy7154]

wow. come to LA.

better yet, come to LA and have a beer, where you can't park anywhere past 2AM, and it will probably put you over the BAC.

i'll bet 80% of the people driving down sunset or hollywood on a friday or saturday night could probably get charged with a DUI if the cop wanted to whether they posed a danger or not.

and of course to people like celebrities and politicians with pull could have cocaine and a hooker and drive away with their red cells free floating in pure alcohol instead of plasma and they could get away with it.

Yah I know the reality is that it does happen and that is also wrong. They should only be stopped in the first place if they are breaking some other law. It's complete bullshit. I don't mean to say that the cops are the good guys, they can be just as dumb, if not dumber than anyone.

And for whoever compared this with the eeevilll terrorists...come on. It'd be closer if I equated it with running a drunk off the road before they did it to me. That I obviously wouldn't agree with.