Legalize Drunk Driving

Consider how much money is made by the local and state from DUI's... It's practically their most profitable law (especially here in Utah--where they actively hunt anyone who they think might have been in close proximity of alcohol at some point in their lifetime). Do I agree with drunk driving? No. But I also don't agree with the extent of laws that will convict a person who is .09 in their driveway getting home for the night after a christmas party, and potentially destroy the next 10 years of their life based on the idea of "probability" he might have caused harm. Happened to a good friend of mine last december, and it's been interesting to see how things appear from the other side of the ruling. Violent crime deserves harsh penalties. Dui laws as they are currently seem to be more of a way to manufacture criminals out of otherwise good, honest people and bring lots of easy money into the state and local departments.
 
TBM,
I see what you're driving at, but your argument is also an appeal to emotion. My cousins don't hunt and my "child" could serve to teach them a thing or three about firearm safety if they did.

To answer your question, no. But neither would he and there's more stupidity around firearms than just the alcohol-induced variety. That's *my* point.
Yeah. Stupid drunk behavior with firearms is not to be encouraged, but neither is stupid sober behavior.
 
My argument isn't an appeal to emotion, simply a logical decision. Regardless, you answered the question.

GoSlash27 said:
...there's more stupidity around firearms than just the alcohol-induced variety. That's *my* point.
Click to expand...
And a good point it is! Now if I may ask a follow up question: Does alcohol have any effect on such stupidity? Does it intensify or diminish the effect?

It's called impairment. Some people are naturally impared even when stone sober. I wouldn't go shooting with them or let them drive my kids around. I can think of an old codger I know that fits this description. Now if you put a couple of beers into that old codger, will he be safer or more dangerous behind a wheel or a trigger?

You say that stupid, drunk behavior with firearms isn't to be encouraged, but you apparently believe that encouraging stupid, drunk behavior with automobiles is a fine idea.

There's a disconnect there that I don't understand. :confused:
 
What would make you more mad? To be T-Boned by a drunk or sober driver. In a way, IMHO, the sober would make it worse. At least the drunk has an excuse. I'm serious. I really enjoyed reading that article but it is a bad and wrong idea to drive drunk. There is a time and place to do things. Choose wisely.

Hey, I even think that we should legalize marijuana. That should also be a crime to smoke that and drive. but, I do start to sit on the fence when .gov gets into every facet of life eg. talking on cell phone or eating while driving.

TWO HANDS ON STEERING WHEEL AND PAY ATTENTION. I ONLY WANT TO GET HOME WITH OUT GETTING SLAMMED INTO FOR ANY REASON
 
Okay, how many of those advocating the legalization of drunk driving have already been pulled over for DUI? I'm starting a pool.
Knowing that the roads are full of idiots, kids with cell phones, and near-deads who can't see over the steering wheels why in the world would you want to ruin your reflexes by drinking before you get behind the wheel...or shooting? If you do they you're a [censored] idiot. No amount of whining or legal wheedling will change that.
If you're trying to justify driving drunk then maybe you should examine the possibility that you're in the denial phase of an addiction.
 
Nuts

This is crazy stuff. Drunk drivers killed more than 17000 in 2003 alone.
What do you think, people have a right to drive a 2000 pound projectile-machine while bombed!
What kind of narcissism is that. You don't have any right to do that because you're out of control, and that's the medical facts - and quite a lot of people have more of a right to live than you do to buzz around the streets drunk.

And sure, we'll wait to arrest you til AFTER you've careened into 5 people, just so you're rights aren't stepped on.
 
There's a disconnect there that I don't understand.
Click to expand...

It's because I'm not *encouraging* either. You keep interpreting my stance against drunk driving laws as if I'm pro-drunk driving. I'm saying I'm against all forms of reckless driving and offenders should be severely punished.

Now if you put a couple of beers into that old codger, will he be safer or more dangerous behind a wheel or a trigger?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. He's either dangerous or he's not. Not only do I not want him driving my kids around, I don't even want to be on the same road with him.
Suppose he's out there swerving around and a cop pulls him over. Gives him a breathalyzer and he blows clean. Should he be let go to run over a few schoolchildren just because he's not drunk? I don't think so.

Again I ask you: What's the difference between one form of reckless endangerment and another?
 
Quoted by GoSlash: "I thought we were all about "personal responsibility"??"

...and when you get behind the wheel being under the influence, you just became irresponsible. Now is where I feel the govt. should have the priviledge to exercise public safety.

I wonder if this thread was titled legalize cell phone use while driving would generate the same defensive statements using drunk driving as an example...:confused:

What I mean is, I'm seeing bad decisions trying to be justified by other bad decisions that aren't being dealt with in the same manner.

Also, what I think trumps the ones that want to legalize drunk driving is this:
Driving is a privelage, NOT A RIGHT. Big, big difference.

Like it or not, stats to support or oppose:
One less drunk driver on the road quite possibly means one less drunk driver kills an innocent LAW ABIDING citizen.
 
tuttle8 said:
...and when you get behind the wheel being under the influence, you just became irresponsible. Now is where I feel the govt. should have the priviledge to exercise public safety.
Click to expand...

Good post, tuttle. You said it better than I could. :)

-Dave
 
I think if we were to remove the penalty for being drunk while driving, more people would drive drunk.. so it would not be a good idea to do that... I do however think that reckless driving should be punished equally, regardless of wether [sic] its [si] a cell phone, screaming kids, or 3 beers.
Click to expand...

No argument, but there is an implicit premise that other forms of recklessness are NOT criminal. That is absurd.

Call it "failure to keep a lookout," "improper operation for hte conditions" or whatever your state classifies such negligence as, it is still negligence and still reckless. As such, it is still illegal.

In my state, rear-ending someone is prima facie proof of fault. It does not matter if you were sober or not; you are presumed at fault.

If you were drunk, that enhances the penalty. If you were yapping on a phone, watching your DVD player, groping your girl, turning around to deal with your kids or trying to eat/drink/read while driving, you are at fault.

WHY you rear-ended another car is merely determinative of the penalty for your negligence.
 
WHY you rear-ended another car is merely determinative of the penalty for your negligence.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And IMO it shouldn't be that way. Criminal negligence is criminal negligence. The same penalty should be applied to all forms of it. The penalty for drunk driving *should* be severe, but the penalty for driving with any other impairment should be exactly the same.

I've never been pulled over for DUI (which I stated up-stream) but I am more than a little miffed that the blind near-deader who creamed me was every bit as negligent as a drunk driver, yet got a relative slap on the wrist.
Whether you're blind-drunk or just blind, the decision to get in a car and drive is every bit as negligent.
 
I am not condoning drinking and driving, but in places the penalty is out of control. For a guy to lose a 50K vehicle cause he had a couple of beers after work or a couple of glasses of wine out for dinner is absurd.

If any of you can not see the difference in a drink or two compared in dog drunk and killing, maiming people go join those idiots at MADD.

I read a article were drivers were as dangerous on a cell phone as there were with a beer or two. Lets use our heads and have the punishment fit the crime.. Wear seat belts or a helmet on a motorcycle is NOT the gov's job. I do both but shouldn't get a ticket if i don't. same idea gov control gone amok .08 is not drunk, your not 100% but your not when your overly tired or on the phone either.

I DO NOT condone drinking and driving, but lets have the penalty fit the crime.
I'll get off my soap box now but I am not alone in this thread on preaching.
 
As a paramedic, we have a saying: "If you are working an auto accident after midnight, and no one there is drunk, keep looking, because you haven't found everyone yet." The majority of collisions I see that occur after midnight involve drunks. During the day, distracted drivers are usually the cause. Medical conditions like diabetes and heart attacks are also a frequent cause.

I have often wondered if that means drunks cause more accidents, or if there is such a high percentage of drunks on the road after midnight that any accident is statistically likely to have a drunk involved.

I once read a statistic that said after midnight, one third of all drivers on the road are intoxicated. IMo, that may be a low estimate.

I see just as many accidents caused by cell phone use, old people, and teenagers. Each group brings certain additional risks to the table. While I am not for drinking and driving (being a non-drinker myself) I think that sobriety check points and the like should be disallowed.

With that being said, I look at drunk driving laws like hate crime laws: It shouldn't matter WHY you committed the crime (whether that be vehicular homicide, or just property damage) but WHETHER you committed a crime.
 
Everybody has posted some good points

But we in the various States still have not found a method to keep drunks from behind the wheel. In my State the same chronic offenders keep bouncing back after very high fines, jail time and loss of licenses. And not a few go to prison following the third offense, Many have already done the prison several times for DWI. Arrests and fines for persons caught driving after licenses were suspended are numerous.

I think .08 is too low to be considered impaired and believe that the Insurance Lobbyists and anti-alcohol folks did that number but arguing that point has little to do with the problem.

How does Germany, Denmark and Sweden handle the problem, anybody know?
Perhaps we should take a look.......
 
But we in the various States still have not found a method to keep drunks from behind the wheel. In my State the same chronic offenders keep bouncing back after very high fines, jail time and loss of licenses. And not a few go to prison following the third offense, Many have already done the prison several times for DWI. Arrests and fines for persons caught driving after licenses were suspended are numerous.
Click to expand...

However, MANY people are not driving drunk particularly because of the law. WAY more than the multiple DWIs you reference.

The only reason there is a law is that being drunk impairs your decision process to determine if you are too drunk to drive!

How does Germany, Denmark and Sweden handle the problem, anybody know?
Perhaps we should take a look.......
Click to expand...

Fast, cheap, safe public transportation.
 
I think the article had some good points. The feds shouldn't control things that personal responsibility will control.
However, as previously mentioned, driving is a privilege and as such is subject to rules. These rules should be state controlled.

As a comparison, should we allow legalizing running red lights and stop signs? These offenses won't necessarily cause an accident, but probabilities are high. How about driving without lights at night? Speed limits?

In contrast, seatbelt/helmet laws should be removed. The government, state or federal, shouldn't enforce laws forcing people to protect themselves. At the same time, there is no law to force drivers to drive with their lights on during adverse weather conditions.

I support laws that are statistically proven to protect innocents. Driving under the influence is a law that should be in effect.
 
These are outdated
Click to expand...

Statistics can be misleading too. In 1981 I fell in the dark fishing and broke my leg. I was ask if I had had any alcohol by the Doc. I said yes since 2 PM I had drank a total of two beers. He wrote that the accident was alcohol related. Two beers over a 8 hour period and not two beers just before I fell, but my accident went into the statics as alcohol related. right!
 
Last edited:
Sounds familiar, Rem. About a year ago I shot a 3" nail through my hand at work. The doc asked if I'd had any alcohol in the last 24 hrs. "Well ya, had wine with dinner the night before." Figured maybe because of anesthesia or whatever. NOPE! In Utah, that translates to "I was two stories in the air with a bottle in one hand and a nailgun in the other--hanging trusses." Company insurance wasn't going to cover it because the doctor wrote it up as alcohol related. It almost ended up with attorneys involved before the doctor finally "revised" his paperwork to a work-related injury with no alcohol involved.
 
Quote:
I'll let anyone have the podium to pontificate legalization of drunk driving when they've pulled a bloodied, broken body of a relative that's been hit head on while coming home from a grocery store by a drunk driver.

I'll let anyone have the podium to pontificate legalization of concealed carry when they've pulled a bloodied, ventilated body of a relative that's been shot while coming home from a grocery store by an armed maniac.

Get the idea? Emotion-based arguments get no quarter with me.
Click to expand...

And an reply such as yours gets no quarter with me. Not emotion, just basic fact.

There are laws to deal with (i.e. punish and/or deter the occurrence of) an armed maniac spraying a magazine of bullets at a person. There are laws to deal with (again, punish and/or deter the occurrence of) driving while intoxicated.

Intoxication starts with the first drink. Make no mistake about it. The laws are set at certain limits for a reason. It's not an arbitrary figure concocted by a legislator's staffer while sitting on the dumper and then inserted into a bill destined to become law.

The person may not be drunk in the classic sense - weaving all over the place, irregular speed, etc. Blowing through stop signs and other traffic control devices is common, even with ONE drink.

So, what happens when the drunk driving laws are repealed?? Since it's no longer an arrestable offense, anyone can tie one on after work and not worry about civil or criminal penalties should the person maim or kill someone on the way home?

Baloney.

In my most humble of opinions, there's no difference between a pilot, a truck driver and a driver running down the road in a Ford Exploder. Commercial drivers and pilots are held to a 0.04 BAC limit - all drivers should be held to that standard. The politicians don't have the guts to enact it.

Stand on your mighty soap-box all you care to, but there is absolutely no way those laws should be repealed and DWI/DUI made legal. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top