Legalize Drunk Driving

GoSlash

You thought that was a joke? Ok, maybe the part about calling it Driving While Stupid. Maybe.....I really think there are many types of impaired driving and all should be treated harshly. I also really think folks should have to re-test at least every 10 years. Why do we give senior citizens permanent license after a certain age when it is clear that all our abilities eventually decline as we age?
 
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.
Click to expand...

And how about those people flipping through the CD collection, or scanning around the radio dial looking for something other than loud car commercials? Or the kids who seem to be trying to damage the asphalt with the sound emanating from their vehicles, making it impossible to hear an emergency siren if one approaches? Let's outlaw sound systems in vehicles.

If my wife catches me on the cell on my way to Home Despot, saving me from having to make the 25 mile trip twice in my gas-guzzling hickup truck because we forgot to put something crucial on the list, does that count as a positive use?
 
Rangefinder, of the 100 or so Fatal MVA's i've been directly involved with over the past 20 years, over 80 Percent of them have been caused by one of the operators being drunk. Of the Non Fatals, which i stopped counting LONG ago, probably a Quarter involve DWI in one form or another, whether its through Alcohol or other drugs. Im Sorry but Bull****, Bull**** BULL**** to that "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." there's no "Manufacturing" anything here. THEy Accepted the License, THEY have been told on numerous occasions that DWI is illegal. THEY Chose to ignore that law and do it anyway..the only "Manufacturing of Criminals" is being done by those who commit the crime in the first place.
 
Kpd>>I'm not defending driving drunk in any way. What I AM defending is that a person does have rights whether it's a DUI charge or any other charge. No other crime is hunted or handled with the extremes that DUI's are. I can't speak for all areas, but in mine I know exactly where every LOE in town is after dark on any given night--either waiting outside one of the three bars in town, or driving around the college campus. They literally hunt alcohol consumption. It really has gotten rediculous how much time and energy is spent on it when so many other things that they could be making a positive impact on go unnoticed or remain unresolved.

Lets put this in a little different light for a moment. Excluding actual murders involving the use of firearms, there are also a fair number of fatalities and injuries that result from a negligent use of firearms through careless handling, disrespect of the general safety rules, etc. So lets say that as a result, any and all irresponsible use of firearms is not only prosecuted with the same harshness, but LEO are now tagging popular firearms establishments--gun stores, ranges (indoor and out), stopping people coming from these locations to check them for a firearms "margine of safety," and arresting people based on the possibility they could kill someone. Statistically, how many people here have ever had an AD? It sure scares the hell out of a person to think what the possibilities are that "could" result. I've never had one, but I've almost been made a statistic by one. But is the previous scenerio going to dramatically affect the amount of AD's that occure? And then what? Do we arrest everyone who has an AD, confescate their firearms, make them pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to get them back, drag them through months of legal battles, fine them thousands of dollars, sentence them to jail time and probation, restrict or even revoke their privilage to handle firearms---because a few moments of carelessness put a hole in the book case, or floor, or ceiling? All because other people have been killed as a result of AD's, and the possibility that such carelessness could have resulted in someone being hurt or killed?

My point is that DUI laws make no distinctions. The justice system has become so extreme that the consequences are capable of destroying a person's life based on nothing more than a level of detectable alcohol in a person's system regardless of what occured as a result, and it actively persues anyone suspected of such as guilty until proven innocent.
 
It really has gotten rediculous how much time and energy is spent on it when so many other things that they could be making a positive impact on go unnoticed or remain unresolved.
Click to expand...

Depends where you live, obviously, but around there there isn't necessarily much else they could/should be focusing on after midnight or so. Drunk drivers are probably the single most dangerous criminals in my town at that point in the evening.

Statistically, how many people here have ever had an AD? It sure scares the hell out of a person to think what the possibilities are that "could" result. I've never had one, but I've almost been made a statistic by one. But is the previous scenerio going to dramatically affect the amount of AD's that occure? And then what? Do we arrest everyone who has an AD, confescate their firearms, make them pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to get them back, drag them through months of legal battles, fine them thousands of dollars, sentence them to jail time and probation, restrict or even revoke their privilage to handle firearms---because a few moments of carelessness put a hole in the book case, or floor, or ceiling? All because other people have been killed as a result of AD's, and the possibility that such carelessness could have resulted in someone being hurt or killed?
Click to expand...

An argument could be made for punishing AD's pretty severely, especially within city limits. I'd not agree, though, because I think there is a huge difference between an AD and a DUI. An AD is generally the result of an accident, or unintended negligence (I prefer ND to AD anyway). Nobody actively chooses to have an AD/ND, it's a mistake. Driving while under the influence is a willful act that one must make a deliberate choice to commit.

More analogous (though still not perfectly) would be willfully firing a round in a random direction in a populated area.

My point is that DUI laws make no distinctions. The justice system has become so extreme that the consequences are capable of destroying a person's life based on nothing more than a level of detectable alcohol in a person's system regardless of what occured as a result...
Click to expand...

It's reckless disregard for the lives of others. Just because you didn't manage to kill anybody that time doesn't mean you were any less negligent. If you fire a firearm in a random direction inside most city limits, you're going to get charged regardless of whether it hits anybody right?

...and it actively persues anyone suspected of such as guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

And here we find the sole portion of your post I agree with.
 
An argument could be made for punishing AD's pretty severely, especially within city limits. I'd not agree, though, because I think there is a huge difference between an AD and a DUI. An AD is generally the result of an accident, or unintended negligence (I prefer ND to AD anyway). Nobody actively chooses to have an AD/ND, it's a mistake. Driving while under the influence is a willful act that one must make a deliberate choice to commit.
Click to expand...

An argument could also be made that an increasing number of DUI charges do not result from accidents, but are based on the suspicion that alcohol is present in relation to location and time of night; and those charged are right on the margine of what is the current legal limit (which continues to be moved lower all the time, making it more difficult for a person to judge their own safety behind the wheel) with no way to know if they are or aren't over the limit but are treated and charged just as harshly as someone who is blatently over the limit and chooses to drive anyway.
 
An argument could also be made that an increasing number of DUI charges do not result from accidents, but are based on the suspicion that alcohol is present in relation to location and time of night;
Click to expand...

Okay, so let's pose it as a question: do you think you should be able to pop off a couple random shots in an urban area for no good reason, provided they don't actually hit anybody? Or do you accept that there are some actions that are inherently dangerous and negligent enough that they should be prohibited and prosecuted regardless of whether they managed to injure/kill another person in that instance?

An argument could also be made that an increasing number of DUI charges do not result from accidents, but are based on the suspicion that alcohol is present in relation to location and time of night; and those charged are right on the margine of what is the current legal limit (which continues to be moved lower all the time, making it more difficult for a person to judge their own safety behind the wheel) with no way to know if they are or aren't over the limit but are treated and charged just as harshly as someone who is blatently over the limit and chooses to drive anyway.
Click to expand...

That's a load of BS. You have every way of knowing you aren't over the limit. For starters, there's simply not drinking before driving. You're definitely good to go then. If you want to put a little more time into it, there are plenty of BAC calculators that should give you an idea of a "safe" (legally) number of drinks to have. I wouldn't trust it as you get closer to the legal limit in your state, but it seems to suggest that I can have two or three beers and be just fine legally.

I guess you're correct in that there's no way of knowing if you're over, but it's actually incredibly easy to know for a fact that you are under.

With every additional drink, you are making a conscious choice to increase your BAC and increase your risk of getting pegged with a DUI. You are also increasing your risk of driving impaired, since part of the reason for DUI laws is that people who are impaired are often unable to tell when they are impaired. There is a giant "grey area" where you aren't drunkenly stumbling around but probably shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

EDIT: Upon further reflection it seems as though you may only have issue with such measures as DUI checkpoints, where all (or some portion of) traffic is stopped and checked for sobriety. Yeah, I'm not a fan of those, either. I'd say there are plenty of other ways to drum up an excuse to pull somebody over (everything from equipment violations to petty traffic violations) and check sobriety. If somebody drive without breaking any laws, from speeding down to changing lanes without signaling...well, I'd prefer they be left alone.

Not because I think that those who are over the legal limit but still able to drive effectively have some sort of "right" to do so, or because I give a crap if somebody with a higher tolerance can have that one last beer before jumping behind the wheel...I just think random traffic stops in general are a horrible tactic as far as civil liberties are concerned, and I don't think the end justifies the means.
 
Last edited:
An argument could also be made that an increasing number of DUI charges do not result from accidents, but are based on the suspicion that alcohol is present in relation to location and time of night; and those charged are right on the margine of what is the current legal limit (which continues to be moved lower all the time, making it more difficult for a person to judge their own safety behind the wheel) with no way to know if they are or aren't over the limit but are treated and charged just as harshly as someone who is blatently over the limit and chooses to drive anyway.


I dont know where you are, or how they do things in your state Range. But Here, We DO NOT arrest someone for DWI based on their Brethalyzer reading. I Make the arrest based on MY observations of how they are driving, and then my observations of whether or not they are impaired. There are a number of sobriety tests that we administer, some that are somewhat subjective, and some that are not. The arrest is made on THAT basis. The Brethayzer is just to determine the exact amount of Alcohol involved. I've arrested and convicted people with relatively LOW B.A.C.'s. There was a time when i'd be inclined to drive someone home, rather than write them for DWI..Those days are over now..NOT because of MADD, Not because of any Revenue Scheme, but simply because people ar too STUPID to realize when they've been given a break. Many years ago my partner and I stopped a guy from getting on his motorcycle. Visibly intox, to the point he couldnt even unlock the forks. We drove him home, watched him go into the house. The SOB walked back to his bike, got on it, and drove off, eventually running head-on into one of our police cars. His response, to sue ME for not arresting him. Luckily he hadnt actually been operating the bike the first time. We have something called "John's Law" here in NJ, where when we arrest someone for DWI, thir car has to be impounded for a minimum of 12 hours, and a sober adult has to come and Sign for Custody of the drunk, and assume ANY liability for that person if they drive again. Policy used to be that if there was a legal space, we'd park the car, take the drunk in, do the paperwork, and release them. Well, one night (different part of the state) one of these mutts, took his ticket, walked back to his car, and proceeded to get onto a fatal accident..with the Summons from the first DWI still in his pocket. While i dont actively go trolling for Drunks, when i DO find one, i dont give breaks anymore. If you're old enough to drink, you're old enough to know you shouldnt drive afterwards. Screw Em.
 
If you are not smart enough to have a designated driver or hand the keys over before an evening of drinking and decide to drive while intoxicated you have the potential to deprive other people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a case like this you have endangered your fellow citizens by an act of stupidity. If the DUI isnt a crime the stupidity and endangering other people should be.
 
I'll support drunk driving if you'll support me shooting the morons in the face when I run across one. While we're at it why don't we legalize all drugs, given that you will support the shooting of said drug users upon contact. Nambla, same thing. How about we just make everything legal as well as killing those who need killing. Use your own judgement on who needs killing, nobody should be allowed to make a choice like that for you. After all we can't give the big bad boogie man government any power to attempt to protect stupid people from themselves.
 
Kpd>> As I said, I can not speak for other areas, just my own. Likewise, I can not assume that what practices go on here accurately affect the practices of other area. But here locally where I am, it really is nothing better than a modern witch hunt. That is what I will not support. I am not suggesting legalizing driving drunk in any way. But I can't quite swallow or accept the justice department's free-for-all that goes on here. It's become a serious "us against them"--and by us, I mean the average joe-citizen, not a pack of drunk motorists. LEO's here have successfully alienated themselves from a large portion of the very community they are intended to 'serve and protect', with a multitude of behaviors that can be easily singled out to serve the purpose of thinning out those they don't think belong in their little version of society. DUI's are just a small section of many such issues, and just a small part of the larger picture.

So for me, it's a much larger issue as a whole, but DUI's were the topic of this thread, so I kept it within that context.
 
Unfortunately Range, there are Asshats in EVERY profession, LE included. Luckily around me they are generally the solitary type, but by you it sounds ike they run in packs.
 
fixed

quote" In the wrong hands, vehicles are unguided missiles. Driving while under the influence is not responsible behavior under any circumstance. It becomes a killing machine that costs innocent victims far too much pain, suffering and loss.
__________________.



In the wrong hands, firearms are unguided missiles.Owning a firearm is not responsible behavior under any circumstances. It becomes a killing machine that costs innocent victims far too much pain, suffering and loss.
 
That's spurious logic, rallyhound. You can do better.

If you wanted to draw a true parallel you would have written this:
Shooting while under the influence is not responsible behavior under any circumstance.
Click to expand...
Big difference between owning a firearm and shooting while under the influence.

Not much of a difference between driving while impaired and shooting while impaired.
 
Number 6, I am not a drunk and you sound like someone who believes anything the media feeds you. And in the situation I described, I guarantee that if the innocent invovled admitted to having even one beer, it would automatically be their fault. The law states that even smelling alcohol "impares" your judgement. What a load of bull. Let's just blame alcohol for all of our problems. Like they blame video games for the school shootings. Morons.
 
Experience is a powerful teaching tool. My last wife drank herself to death in 1999. I lost my license 7 years ago on a DUI. My daughter was slaughtered by a drunk driver in 2001, just after her 18th birthday.
Having said this, I'll let you in on another bit of information. There's nothing worse than being called to a hospital at 3:00 AM to identify the remains of a family member and not being able to recognize the pieces.
I've not had a drink in over two years. Not because of the law, but because the very idea of drinking and driving is repulsive.
Social drinking is fine. But keep it off the road. In NO way should a person drink and drive. DUI = A ZERO.
 
Number 6, I am not a drunk and you sound like someone who believes anything the media feeds you. And in the situation I described, I guarantee that if the innocent invovled admitted to having even one beer, it would automatically be their fault. The law states that even smelling alcohol "impares" your judgement. What a load of bull. Let's just blame alcohol for all of our problems. Like they blame video games for the school shootings. Morons.
Click to expand...


I'm not Number 6 but you sound like someone grasping at straws to justify irresponsible behavior. If you've had one beer your motor skills are impaired when compared to a person without alcohol. It's not myth, urban legand, or media hype, it's a fact of biology. Alcohol impairs whether you agree or not you can't change the facts; based on the myth you can hold your liquor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top