Legalize Drunk Driving

Stand on your mighty soap-box all you care to
Click to expand...

I am the only one that mentioned a soap box so I guess that is directed toward me. No matter if so, or not just let me ad. Before you go and get all excited and start jumpin up am down go reread and see if anywhere in that post I condoned drunk driving. .04 and I doubt you could use mouth wash.

Maybe we should all take a manual dexterity test before we are allowed on the highway. Sure would stop all those dangerous old ladies on the road. Would that be fair? Get real.
 
Maybe we oughta just bring back the prohibition... That'll show them bad, nasty, evil drinkers! :D

How much more overboard can this get? As it's already been stated, there are a lot of other things done much more frequently that "impair" a person's driving, cause a whole lot of accidents, and hurt or kill innocent people. So how about putting "passive observation" at all the mall exits to nail the 17-year old motor mouth zipping through the lot with a cell phone surgically attached to her ear? How about doing something to ensure all the 'golden oldie' seniors that are out cruising the roads aren't a tragedy looking for a place to happen? (That one hits pretty close to home).

Seriously, I'm not going to condone driving drunk. But if we're going to regulate by definition a person's ability to drive on a probability of whether or not they pass a margine of safety, then I'd say it goes all around. Impaired is impaired, regardless of the source.
 
I don't think anyone is advocating drinking and driving, but instead are scrutinizing the current methods of dealing with a real problem. The real problem is drunk drivers.

There is a big difference between those who enjoy wine with dinner and the drunk who has had obviously too much to drink to consider getting behind the wheel.

The distinction is that the drunk person has made a decision that demonstrates an extreme disregard for others. The drunk driver has no concern for others, has shirked his societal responsibility, and essentially doesn't give a damn. This form of negligence is so extreme that we sought to criminalize this behavior. Law enforcement needs nothing more complex than video recorders to document and convict this criminally negligent behavior.

As to the wine with dinner drinker, has this person really shown a callous disregard for others safety? I would submit that the level of culpability is not significant enough to warrant criminal sanctions. If this person proceeds to cause a car wreck, the injured party may certainly seek remedy through civil suit and use the evidence of drinking to try and establish negligence.

There are more than enough actual drunk drivers for the criminal justice system to try and deal with without making more people into criminals. In a perfect world no one would drive while sleepy, distracted, or minimally impaired by Rx or OTC medicine; however, we do not live in such a world and should utilize our resources in a manner that does the most good.
 
What kills me is the drunk driving statistics they come up with. Say you drink one beer and get t-boned by a "sober" person that runs a red light and that person dies. Guess what, more than likely it's going to be your fault. Know why? Because you were "impaired". But even as rediculous as that is, it goes down in the books as a fatality from drunk driving. And there are FAR more fatalities caused by sober drivers than "drunk drivers. If the government was so concerned about our safety, they would outlaw driving altogether. Because there is a very high probability that if you drive, you're going to be in an accident in your lifetime. Drunk or not. And the government's definition of drunk is absurd. A person who drinks regulary, would not be affected at all at .08. Now a person who never drinks might be buzzed pretty good. You can't judge a person's imparement by taking a blood alcohol content. It just doesn't work. But it's the best thing those dumb asses can come up with. This isn't about safety. It's just another way to put more control on us, and people support it. I don't ever drink and drive, but I just feel so sorry for these poor citizens that drink 2 beers and then get pulled over and their lives are ruined, litterally. They lose their jobs, the car gets taken (stolen) from them, they can't get a new job because no one will hire them now, they pay thousands in fines, go to jail for months and years, and basically are pissed on by society. All because they drank, hurt no one, but had a tail light out. We already have a basically communistic government, and it's all because people support the government putting more and more control over us. Next thing you know, they'll tell you that you're not allowed to smoke in a bar. Wait a minute, they already did! And you people supported it! I don't smoke or go to bars, but you can't smoke in a bar? I've seen it all now LOL. I'm going to put up a poll: Bowling, should it be allowed in bowling alleys? And I want to make a prediction. I'll bet within the next 10 years, you won't be allowed to drink in bars and smoking will be illegal altogether. And by the time I die, the name of the country will be U.S.S.A.
 
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?
Click to expand...
Uhh...no? It'd still be an arrestable offense (criminal negligence), just not singled out as somehow worse than any other manifestation of criminal negligence.

This is like the difference between braining someone with a claw-hammer versus shooting him in the face with a Glock. Should one offense come with stiffer penalties than the other? It's still murder, so I say no.
 
Laws banning drunk driving can't be compared to laws banning gun ownership. Merely owning a gun does not directly endanger anyone; dangerous acts committed with a gun are what the law should rightly forbid. Driving drunk is a dangerous act with a significant chance of causing death and destruction, just like firing bullets into the air in an urban or suburban area. Both acts have a relatively low chance of causing harm to anyone, but the risk is significant enough that they have been made illegal.
 
Dws

Maybe we should lump impaired driving (alcohol, drugs, etc.), distracted driving (Cell Phone, makeup, shaving, changing clothes, etc.), and reckless driving (dangerous just because) under a single heading with the same punishment for all. Lets call it Driving While Stupid (DWS). Also, I think everyone should have to re-take a driving test at least every 10 years. :D
 
Great thread!!

Im a paramedic and thus deal with the effects of drunk driving quite often.

Most of the points I would make about the subject have already been made by others. Some points made by others are rediculous.

One point I would add that I dont think has yet been mentioned: we as a society cannot look at issues as purely black and white. Multiple comparisons have been made between cell-phone use and driving drunk. Those are two different actions - apples and oranges. When a society (or its elected officials) are trying to decide whether or not a specific action should be unregulated, regulated, or banned, many things have to be considered. For instance, is there a need or benefit from said action? There may be times when a cell phone call while driving could have a benefit (like calling 911 to report a drunk driver), firearms can be owned for personal defense, sport, and many other legitimate reasons, but I doubt anyone can find a benefit to drunk driving. Basically, it comes down to a risk vs benefit annaylsis. With driving drunk, the risks are huge and the benifit non-exisitent for all practical purposes. With talking on a cell phone, the risks are also high, but there are some tangible benifits therefore it is tolerated to an extent.

Lastly, to address the .08 vs .10 thing. That whole issue was brought about by discussions such as this. If guy gets pulled over is a state without a specific BAC law it becomes a mater of opinion - that opinion being the defenition of "drunk" or "under the influence" or however you want to say it. What I feel is " a little buzzed" may be "three sheets to the wind" in someone else's opinion, so on which standard should the law be based? The BAC laws give a measureable standard to avoid confusion over what IS drunk and what ISNT drunk.

Sorry that was so long.
 
oh and by the way...

BTW, GoSlash is RIGHT F&%$ING ON about frequent retesting for drivers licences! People change - just because you proved you were a safe and responsible driver 20 years ago (and thus earned the privilage of driving) doesn't mean you still have all of those qualities!! Id say every year for people under the age of 20 and over the age of 65! Dont get me wrong, I know lots of 18 yr old and 65 yr olds that are GREAT drivers, but the odds are against it. As was mentioned in a different post, driving is not a right, its a privalage so no one can complain that "their rights are being violated" by having to retest!:mad:
 
Federalist 45: The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered - For the Independent Journal. Author: James Madison

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained."
Click to expand...
 
Reality check

Say you drink one beer and get t-boned by a "sober" person that runs a red light and that person dies. Guess what, more than likely it's going to be your fault. Know why? Because you were "impaired". But even as rediculous [sic] as that is, it goes down in the books as a fatality from drunk driving.
Click to expand...

What drivel. :rolleyes:

First, "one beer" does not constitute driving while "impaired."

Second, the driver who ran the red light is at fault. PROVING who did that may be difficult, absent witnesses or cameras, but alcohol is not a factor unless it is shown that the driver who ran the light was under the influence of it.

Sounds like the carping of a drunk who got caught....
 
Laws banning drunk driving can't be compared to laws banning gun ownership. Merely owning a gun does not directly endanger anyone; dangerous acts committed with a gun are what the law should rightly forbid. Driving drunk is a dangerous act with a significant chance of causing death and destruction, just like firing bullets into the air in an urban or suburban area. Both acts have a relatively low chance of causing harm to anyone, but the risk is significant enough that they have been made illegal.
Click to expand...

Your posture is sound but it takes into consideration an issue that will always be flawed: Statistics and Probabilities.

All too often, we have elected officials making key decisions on statistical odds. That is the flaw in and of itself! The examples you cite above are not guaranteed dangers to society. Rather, they are deemed "clear and present" dangers based on data analysis, and the analysis is only as good as the person doing the analysis.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
In my opinion recklessly operating a motor vehicle puts others at grave risk of death or serious bodily injury. I can certainly agree to legalizing drunk driving, though, as long as they also legalize my right to defend myself from reckless drivers (regardless of reason) with deadly force. :D
 
This is my first post here. I've been reading on and off for quite some time but this is the first I've felt a response of mine was required...

"The DUI Exception to the Constitution"

http://www.duicenter.com/lectures/exception01.html

Sorry it's so long, but please do read it. It may change your perceptions about some of this, thanks.
Click to expand...

Welcome!

Only had time to skim the link so far, but it seems chock-full of interesting. I can say, though, that all I saw from what I read was justification for the way in which DUI cases are investigated/prosecuted/etc., not an argument for doing away with DUI as a separate offense.

Couple quickies, until I have time for more: one, I support treating cellphone usage while driving just as harshly as DUI, and enforcing it just as strictly. Make exceptions for the few positive uses, such as reporting a crime on one's cellphone. Make it an affirmative defense. But seriously, it is nearly as dangerous (if not more so), and as such should carry penalties just like DUI.

Two, I agree that people who reach a certain age (or heck, at any age...perhaps just make it more frequent at older ages) should have to prove fitness to drive. I cannot count the number of times some old lady has nearly ran into me...and half the time when I honk to let them know that, hey, you almost just caused an accident they look around confused as if they don't even know where they are. There are a ton of stone-cold sober people running around with licenses that have no business whatsoever behind the wheel of a motor vehicle....at least on public roads.
 
Couple quickies, until I have time for more: one, I support treating cellphone usage while driving just as harshly as DUI, and enforcing it just as strictly. Make exceptions for the few positive uses, such as reporting a crime on one's cellphone. Make it an affirmative defense. But seriously, it is nearly as dangerous (if not more so), and as such should carry penalties just like DUI.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other states, but here in NH there's already provisions in the law that justify breaking a law for the greater good. I would think that using a cellphone to report a serious incident like a crime or an accident would fall under such protection even if talking on cellphones while driving was illegal (which it probably should be... I've had way more close calls with distracted cellphone talkers than anybody else... especially the impatient business types who speed down the highway or blow through stop signs with thier phone glued to their ear).
 
Ozarkian>> That was an interesting read. It' s about exactly what my friend has been telling me about the whole process he's been dealing with. I had my doubts in a few area, thinking he might have exagerated--but that read exactly how it's been discribed.

Welcome to TFL, BTW!

In which case I'm going back to my earlier statement. I'm not condoning driving drunk, but the way DUI laws are now, it's nothing more than a profit-making state owned machine that effectively manufactures criminals out of otherwise good people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top