mrawesome22
New member
I've never drank and drove in my life. But to say that a couple beers makes you a drunk driver is rediculous to me. It's just a way for the government to make more money. Don't believe everything you see on T.V.
Legalize Drunk Driving
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
DonR101395
New member
You don't have to be falling down drunk to be impaired and I'm not watching T.V.
I've lived it, my dad was an alcoholic and I had a problem with alcohol for a number of years. I was just lucky enough to realize it before someone else did.
Loss of rights?
How many of your rights are you willing to forfeit, to save us?
So far we've given up at least:
Freedom of travel (DUI Roadblocks.)
The right to not incriminate yourself
A right to jury trial.
*Miranda rights.
*The right to counsel.
*The last two are denied until after arrest.
IOW, is the cure worse than the problem we are attempting to solve?
Here's a link for you to consider: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/
How many of your rights are you willing to forfeit, to save us?
So far we've given up at least:
Freedom of travel (DUI Roadblocks.)
The right to not incriminate yourself
A right to jury trial.
*Miranda rights.
*The right to counsel.
*The last two are denied until after arrest.
IOW, is the cure worse than the problem we are attempting to solve?
Here's a link for you to consider: http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/
DonR101395
New member
Drinking and driving is not a right.
Freedom of travel isn't prevented. Drinking or driving are not rights. The only people I've seen pulled over are people who have been drinking.
You've incriminated yourself by having alcohol on your breath.
You have a right to a jury trial if you're arrested, it hasn't been taken from you.
If you're arresting your Miranda rights will be read to you. You don't have to answer any questions at that time. the problem is most people who are drinking and driving can't keep their mouth shut. The cops aren't making you talk, you're talking because you're impaired and pissed off.
You'll get counsel after arrest. Refuse to answer answer questions, they will arrest you and you can invoke your right to counsel.
The last two are only applicable if you're arrested.
Not in my opinion. Nobody says you can't drink. Nobody says you can't drive. They are saying you can't do both at the same time. You don't have to be drunk to get a DUI or impaired driving conviction. You can be impaired from the meds the doctor gave you that have a label on the side about driving heavy machinery and driving etc.
Try taking personal responsibility using a DD, calling a cab etc. The only person I know who has a harder stance than me on DUI is my wife. When she was working as an LEO in a place known for spring break and partying, she's cut you slack if you were walking and not being a safety hazard, trying to get a ride etc. She even gave a several people "courtesy" rides if they asked before they got into their cars. Get into the car and you've made a decision that you don't give two hoots about your fellow motorists who are being responsible. She's had grown men cry, get physical and even been swung at a few times all because they only had "2 beers". Everytime she pulled on over the standard answer to have you been drinking is "Yes, I had 2 beers". So, based on her experience and their answers to the questions; I would say two beers makes you drunk.
BTW: All of our cops friends seem to get the same 2 beer answer.
JuanCarlos
New member
I've seen DUI checkpoints where every Nth car is pulled over, regardless, and checked for sobriety. Perhaps these are illegal where you live, perhaps they simply don't do them.
I thought somebody mentioned some state or another where you don't have a right to a jury trial on a DUI. Too lazy to go back and look it up, though.
"I've only had two officers, beer!"
I'll say it again, a DUI is the easiest thing on the planet to avoid. You can simply not drink, or more than likely you can actually have only one or two beers.
Legalize Drunk Shooting Also
I can't BELIEVE they have the affrontery to interfere with our RIGHT TO DRIVE DRUNK!
Get RID of it! Then legalize: Drunk Gun Play, Drunk Aircraft Piloting of Airplanes, Drunk Fire-Fighting - and for Heaven's Sake: don't forget: DRUNK EYE SURGERY!
Come on, Break Off Our Chains!!!
I can't BELIEVE they have the affrontery to interfere with our RIGHT TO DRIVE DRUNK!
Get RID of it! Then legalize: Drunk Gun Play, Drunk Aircraft Piloting of Airplanes, Drunk Fire-Fighting - and for Heaven's Sake: don't forget: DRUNK EYE SURGERY!
Come on, Break Off Our Chains!!!
The drivers ability to drive is what should determine if they are breaking the law , not the level of whatever is in their blood. As an interesting observation , we saw a drastic decrease of alcohol related traumas when the drinking age was raised to 21. not so much as when the "legal" limit was dropped to 0.08.
mrawesome22
New member
I think DUI checkpoints should be abolished. What ever happened to probable cause?
You know... a lot of the points against gun control or ccw are also the same as those for legalizing drunk driving. Punish the criminal gun owner, not me. If someone cannot be irresponsible carrying a firearm, punish them when they cause harm, but don't make a pre-emptive strike against all people. If someone cannot be responsible driving with alcohol, punish them when they cause harm, but not everyone else. Don't punish all the other who can control themselves carrying a gun in public without shooting people, or those can who drive after drinking without swerving all over the road. A top pro circuit driver can still maintain better control of his vehicle than the 16 year old sober kid fresh out of DMV even after a few beers. So why punish him? Punish unsafe driving, no matter the cause.
JuanCarlos
New member
Do you need me to go ahead and explain all the differences between drunk driving and gun ownership/concealed carry?
We'll start with the fact that a much lower percentage of people can drive with a BAC of .10 safely than can carry a firearm safely. Also, it's not just about swerving all over the road; it's also about reaction time. You may have no problem keeping it in the lines, but be completely unable to stop in time (due to slowed reaction) if something unexpected happens...causing an accident.
Also, owning a gun does not impair your ability to tell if you're handling a gun safely.
Put it this way: if I actually thought firearms ownership and/or concealed carry was as dangerous to the public at large as drunk driving, I'd be leading the charge for an amendment repealing the 2nd.
Well, that's pretty rude, Juan. Why're you getting so heated?
Do you have anything to confirm this?
And I was speaking of vehicle control in general. But reaction times vary from person to person anyways. Someone's .1 bac reaction speed may well be much faster than another persons sober reaction speed. Why not set a minimum ability to control the vehicle rather than a maximum amount of intoxication? Would you care whether someones BAC was .50 or 0.0 as long as they could control the vehicle well?
Also, having a drink doesn't impair judgement like you think. People tend to think they're more intoxicated than they really are. And general attitudes towards drinking and driving remain about the same whether sober or drunk. There's many journals to confirm this, but I'll just list one.
Tara K MacDonanld, Mark P Zanna, Geoffery T. Fong.- Decision making in altered states: Effects of alcohol on attitudes toward drinking and driving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68, 973-985.
Go ahead and explain the differences please. You know, we actually do have a lot more gun crimes than comparative countries. There is a moderate correlation between gun availability and murder rates. Overall violent crime seems to be a good bit lower though. I just came to the conclusion long ago that the freedom is worth it.
Do you have anything to confirm this?
And I was speaking of vehicle control in general. But reaction times vary from person to person anyways. Someone's .1 bac reaction speed may well be much faster than another persons sober reaction speed. Why not set a minimum ability to control the vehicle rather than a maximum amount of intoxication? Would you care whether someones BAC was .50 or 0.0 as long as they could control the vehicle well?
Also, having a drink doesn't impair judgement like you think. People tend to think they're more intoxicated than they really are. And general attitudes towards drinking and driving remain about the same whether sober or drunk. There's many journals to confirm this, but I'll just list one.
Tara K MacDonanld, Mark P Zanna, Geoffery T. Fong.- Decision making in altered states: Effects of alcohol on attitudes toward drinking and driving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68, 973-985.
Go ahead and explain the differences please. You know, we actually do have a lot more gun crimes than comparative countries. There is a moderate correlation between gun availability and murder rates. Overall violent crime seems to be a good bit lower though. I just came to the conclusion long ago that the freedom is worth it.
Actually, drinking and driving is usually legal. It is driving while impaired that is not allowed.
WRONG! The cops are allowed to set up DUI roadblocks that flat-out erase any right against unreasonable searches, right to privacy, etc.
WRONG. It is not illegal to have alcohol on your breath. The police can force you to incriminate yourself by forcing you to take a breathalyzer or blood test. If you don't, they will charge you anyway and suspend your license for a year (in my state).
Unrealistic. The cops will continue to question you long after they were going to arrest you.
But, you will be forced to answer highly technical questions without counsel. For example, do I take the field sobriety tests? Are they mandatory? (no)Do I take the Intoxilizer? Will they suspend my license? Or was that on the first one? I wonder if the machine is working right? Hmm.
BAC based DUI law is trash. The police should be forced to articulate less safe driving. If they can't, they shouldn't have pulled you over in the first place.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
"Punish the criminal gun owner, not me. If someone cannot be irresponsible carrying a firearm, punish them when they cause harm, but don't make a pre-emptive strike against all people. If someone cannot be responsible driving with alcohol, punish them when they cause harm, but not everyone.."
"Well, that's pretty rude, Juan. Why're you getting so heated?"
Well, razor,
I must, although seldom, have to side with Juan's reply to you. I saw no rudeness, just point blank opinion. Also, the rights vs. privelage has been beat to death on this thread alone. And, think about this:
Like it or not, you pretty much stated that you want someone to cause harm such as vehicular homicide to happen before he should be tried and/or punished. I think you'd change your tune REAL fast if that victim was a loved one. Think about that real hard.
Someone willfully breaking the law(whether you like the law or not) and harms someone. That someone that possibly should have had what most here wants: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And it all goes down in the toilet because of some people don't want to do anything to the accused UNTIL the event happens.
That philosophy makes me feel like a cat having its fur stroked from tail to head in one fell swoop...
"Well, that's pretty rude, Juan. Why're you getting so heated?"
Well, razor,
I must, although seldom, have to side with Juan's reply to you. I saw no rudeness, just point blank opinion. Also, the rights vs. privelage has been beat to death on this thread alone. And, think about this:
Like it or not, you pretty much stated that you want someone to cause harm such as vehicular homicide to happen before he should be tried and/or punished. I think you'd change your tune REAL fast if that victim was a loved one. Think about that real hard.
Someone willfully breaking the law(whether you like the law or not) and harms someone. That someone that possibly should have had what most here wants: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. And it all goes down in the toilet because of some people don't want to do anything to the accused UNTIL the event happens.
That philosophy makes me feel like a cat having its fur stroked from tail to head in one fell swoop...
mrawesome22
New member
tuttle8, Your reasoning scares the heck out of me.
Do you want to take my guns from me because I could eventually go crazy and kill someone? Take a premptive strike!
Do you want to take my guns from me because I could eventually go crazy and kill someone? Take a premptive strike!
In my opinion, the first offense shoud result in 6 months jail time. 2nd offense 1 year and loss of driving privileges for 5 years. 3rd offense a felony 5-10 years and permanent loss of driving privileges. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR DRIVING DRUNK. If you can't control your drinking then control your driving. It's called designated driver.
AZGunLover
New member
DonR101395
New member
Actually it's not, most states have open container laws, so it's not even legal to ride while drinking.
You're on public roads, and they are stopping cars looking for intoxicated drivers. Are you also against them setting up road blocks and looking for a felon?
The cops can't force you to take a breathalyzer or field sobriety tests. Many times they don't even need them to get a conviction, they just seal the deal.
It doesn't mean you have to answer. It's your choice. Problem is most people get pissy and start spouting off about what they are going to do, who they know etc. My kids used to ask daily for a pony. They never got one.
"How much have you had to drink" doesn't sound too technical to me. You agreed to your state laws when you got a driver's license, if you don't like the fact that you agreed to forfeit your license for refusing a breathalyzer maybe you should give your license back. It's a privilege, not a right.
In summary,
The cops don't force you to drink.
The cops don't force you to drink and drive.
The cops don't force you to take a breathalyzer.
The cops don't take your driver's license.
Try a little self control and self discipline and none of these will ever be a problem.
JuanCarlos
New member
This can be more difficult than it sounds while intoxicated, though.
ZING!
Let it Bleed
New member
Guilty until proven innocent. 
Individuals have a right to due process even when the government seeks to revoke a privilege.
Individuals have a right to due process even when the government seeks to revoke a privilege.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yeah, if there's one problem I have with DUI laws in most places it's that people suddenly don't want to deal with silly things like "due process" regarding them anymore. Not having objective standards like BAC limits.