Drunk driving laws.
09-08-2009, 08:50 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Drunk driving laws.
I believe that just like "hate crimes," drunk driving laws are redundant, and in some circumstances are a victimless crime.
As an example: Say someone commits assault. No racial or bigoted bias, just a assault for the sake of assault.
Now, let's say someone else assaults someone and they did it because they didn't like the other person's ethnicity. The person who committed that assault will get a worse sentence than the other person. Why is that? Because they didn't like that person? Since when do we have to like every one? Since when is disliking someone a crime? And what makes the first assault not a hate crime? They certainly didn't assault the person because they liked them. Hence why I believe "hate crimes" are redundant and punish thought and opinion.
Now, drunk driving laws.
Let's say you're driving home, completely sober, in a hurry but not paying attention. So you weave, overcompensate, spin out of control and take two other cars with you. You are charged with speeding, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and you have caused several accidents. What was the cause of your accident? Not paying attention. Do they charge you with the crime of "not paying attention"? No.
Now what if you're drunk and in the same scenario? Weave, overcompensate, etc. You are charged with speeding, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and you've caused several accidents. What was the cause of your accident? Alcohol. Do they charge you with a DWI? Yes.
THEN let's say you're drunk, drive home and cause no problems, no accidents, follow all traffic laws and everyone is safe and happy -- but at the last second before you turn into your driveway, an officer pulls you over on a whim. You are charged with DWI. Have you committed a crime beyond that? No. Are you being charged with a victimless crime? Yes.
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
As an example: Say someone commits assault. No racial or bigoted bias, just a assault for the sake of assault.
Now, let's say someone else assaults someone and they did it because they didn't like the other person's ethnicity. The person who committed that assault will get a worse sentence than the other person. Why is that? Because they didn't like that person? Since when do we have to like every one? Since when is disliking someone a crime? And what makes the first assault not a hate crime? They certainly didn't assault the person because they liked them. Hence why I believe "hate crimes" are redundant and punish thought and opinion.
Now, drunk driving laws.
Let's say you're driving home, completely sober, in a hurry but not paying attention. So you weave, overcompensate, spin out of control and take two other cars with you. You are charged with speeding, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and you have caused several accidents. What was the cause of your accident? Not paying attention. Do they charge you with the crime of "not paying attention"? No.
Now what if you're drunk and in the same scenario? Weave, overcompensate, etc. You are charged with speeding, reckless driving, reckless endangerment, and you've caused several accidents. What was the cause of your accident? Alcohol. Do they charge you with a DWI? Yes.
THEN let's say you're drunk, drive home and cause no problems, no accidents, follow all traffic laws and everyone is safe and happy -- but at the last second before you turn into your driveway, an officer pulls you over on a whim. You are charged with DWI. Have you committed a crime beyond that? No. Are you being charged with a victimless crime? Yes.
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
09-08-2009, 08:59 AM
#2
That's stupid.
In the last senerio the person was almost home and was still driving fine but still got pulled over. Now they didn't specify on how drunk he was. Was he "legally" drunk or **** faced drunk. People have higher tolerances and can control themselves fine even when intoxicated.
Then there are those people who can't stand up after having one drink. So why should they be allowed to drive?
The DUI laws are there to save others, if you're going to be dumb enough to drive drunk then it's fine if you take yourself out but not innocent people. The laws are there to also try and scare people from thinking they can get away with it.
That's a lot from typing on the iPod lol
In the last senerio the person was almost home and was still driving fine but still got pulled over. Now they didn't specify on how drunk he was. Was he "legally" drunk or **** faced drunk. People have higher tolerances and can control themselves fine even when intoxicated.
Then there are those people who can't stand up after having one drink. So why should they be allowed to drive?
The DUI laws are there to save others, if you're going to be dumb enough to drive drunk then it's fine if you take yourself out but not innocent people. The laws are there to also try and scare people from thinking they can get away with it.
That's a lot from typing on the iPod lol
09-08-2009, 09:08 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Although I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I think calling it "stupid" is a bit much. :P
Specifying whether the person was over the legal limit or ****-faced drunk was irrelevant to the point, I believe -- the point was that the person made it home without causing any problems or breaking any laws except for DWI. In effect, a victimless crime.
Again, I think the point was this:
Here's another couple posts that might help illuminate the position:
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I disagree entirely, but here's the thing: your rights haven't been impeded by a drunk driver that hasn't caused any problems, so you want to make them a criminal because of the possibility of them causing trouble? By that logic, everyone on the road represents a threat to each other, and as such no one should be allowed to drive.
That's stupid.
In the last senerio the person was almost home and was still driving fine but still got pulled over. Now they didn't specify on how drunk he was. Was he "legally" drunk or **** faced drunk. People have higher tolerances and can control themselves fine even when intoxicated.
In the last senerio the person was almost home and was still driving fine but still got pulled over. Now they didn't specify on how drunk he was. Was he "legally" drunk or **** faced drunk. People have higher tolerances and can control themselves fine even when intoxicated.
Then there are those people who can't stand up after having one drink. So why should they be allowed to drive?
The DUI laws are there to save others, if you're going to be dumb enough to drive drunk then it's fine if you take yourself out but not innocent people. The laws are there to also try and scare people from thinking they can get away with it.
That's a lot from typing on the iPod lol
The DUI laws are there to save others, if you're going to be dumb enough to drive drunk then it's fine if you take yourself out but not innocent people. The laws are there to also try and scare people from thinking they can get away with it.
That's a lot from typing on the iPod lol
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
Originally Posted by Original poster
Originally Posted by Response
I believe people have the right to do just about anything they want as long as it doesn't impede on other people's rights. If you are driving drunk your judgement and reflexes are dimmed and you are more likely to crash into me. Because drunk driving is more likely to cause injury to others as opposed to driving sober--I am all for drunk driving laws. If you want to build a private road on a piece of land you own with nobody on it then drive drunk all you want 
09-08-2009, 09:47 AM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
I doubt it's first degree murder, as that is premeditated murder.
09-08-2009, 09:56 AM
#6
They are commiting a crime, it's against the law to drink and drive.
It's the law to legally drink at the age of 21, so it's against the law for anyone younger to drink.
It's like saying "it's not illegal and they arnt a criminal if it wasn't a law"
It's the law to legally drink at the age of 21, so it's against the law for anyone younger to drink.
It's like saying "it's not illegal and they arnt a criminal if it wasn't a law"
09-08-2009, 09:59 AM
#7
If they remove the DUI laws, how many more people do you think will get behind the wheel and drive after drinking? Not 100% of those people will cause any harm to property/people but I would say the majority would.
I know there are some members on here (thinking of one specifically right now) that have been hit by a drunk driver. Ask them what they think of the laws.
I know there are some members on here (thinking of one specifically right now) that have been hit by a drunk driver. Ask them what they think of the laws.
09-08-2009, 10:02 AM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
You seem to be stuck in an infinite logical loop. Think out of the box for a minute: you say that the law exists as a preventative measure. This means that people that commit no crime other than being over the legal limit are considered criminals simply because you want to prevent the possibility of them causing you harm.
A person driving while intoxicated who obeyed the speed limit, was not swerving, got into no accidents, ran no red lights, did not follow too closely, and otherwise broke no laws and put no one in danger, is considered a criminal simply because of the possibility that they could have hurt you. By that logic, no one should be allowed to drive because we all put each other in danger when we drive on the road.
A person driving while intoxicated who obeyed the speed limit, was not swerving, got into no accidents, ran no red lights, did not follow too closely, and otherwise broke no laws and put no one in danger, is considered a criminal simply because of the possibility that they could have hurt you. By that logic, no one should be allowed to drive because we all put each other in danger when we drive on the road.
09-08-2009, 10:06 AM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
If they remove the DUI laws, how many more people do you think will get behind the wheel and drive after drinking? Not 100% of those people will cause any harm to property/people but I would say the majority would.
I know there are some members on here (thinking of one specifically right now) that have been hit by a drunk driver. Ask them what they think of the laws.
I know there are some members on here (thinking of one specifically right now) that have been hit by a drunk driver. Ask them what they think of the laws.
Also, there are still the myriad of laws in place that confront the actual crimes committed: manslaughter, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights -- all things that drunk drivers do, for which laws already exist. So your insinuation that there will be nothing holding people back from slaughtering people on the road is false.
09-08-2009, 10:10 AM
#11
You seem to be stuck in an infinite logical loop. Think out of the box for a minute: you say that the law exists as a preventative measure. This means that people that commit no crime other than being over the legal limit are considered criminals simply because you want to prevent the possibility of them causing you harm.
A person driving while intoxicated who obeyed the speed limit, was not swerving, got into no accidents, ran no red lights, did not follow too closely, and otherwise broke no laws and put no one in danger, is considered a criminal simply because of the possibility that they could have hurt you. By that logic, no one should be allowed to drive because we all put each other in danger when we drive on the road.
A person driving while intoxicated who obeyed the speed limit, was not swerving, got into no accidents, ran no red lights, did not follow too closely, and otherwise broke no laws and put no one in danger, is considered a criminal simply because of the possibility that they could have hurt you. By that logic, no one should be allowed to drive because we all put each other in danger when we drive on the road.
Or what about person A who just had 1 too many than normal, but they're a pro a drunk driving, thinks they can make it home fine once again but instead take out a mini van full of kids?
09-08-2009, 10:16 AM
#12
That is a transparent appeal to emotion; people that will suddenly drive drunk simply because there is no law against it are the type of people that will drive drunk regardless.
Also, there are still the myriad of laws in place that confront the actual crimes committed: manslaughter, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights -- all things that drunk drivers do, for which laws already exist. So your insinuation that there will be nothing holding people back from slaughtering people on the road is false.
Also, there are still the myriad of laws in place that confront the actual crimes committed: manslaughter, reckless driving, speeding, running red lights -- all things that drunk drivers do, for which laws already exist. So your insinuation that there will be nothing holding people back from slaughtering people on the road is false.
Isn't it also proven that drinking delays reaction time and perception? So you are at a much higher risk of running lights/stop signs, breaking time ect.
09-08-2009, 10:17 AM
#13
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Leg Humper
Posts: 2,504
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
I feel that to dissuade seriously unsafe to the public behavior, that ALL DUI's should be serious and all the time.
You mention getting home safely, what if he didn't get home safely? What about next time? What happens if the kid who lives 3 houses down dashes in front of the car and your/his reaction time is too slow...DUI is to protect the public.
I have a brother-in-law that is in a wheel chair, his wife was killed, their crime? Walking along river road at 5pm, a drunk, who was on the road - too fast, hit 'em...not very cool is it? If there were no pedestrians, he would've gotten home, a few hundred yards with no trouble...but he didn't, he got manslaughter and my brother-in-law has life in a wheelchair and lost his wife. Fair?
I have one other horror story, a college professor, head of social work dept at Chico State, was hit head-on by a drunk driver - she survived, after about nine months in the hospital. Her problem is that her brain isn't so good anymore, she can no longer teach, she can't even think very well - before the accident she was brilliant, now she can't function, she has trouble thinking about the simplest issues. If any decision making processes are involved, she gets totally confused, I don't mean Toast or Milk for breakfast, or what to wear today - that she can handle, but anything much more than that, and she can't figure it out, kind of like the person that posted this thread.
One last one, one of the hardest professors I've ever known, Wolf Statler, killed while commuting from Half Moon bay to SFSU by a truck driver DUI (not alcohol). He was a very tough professor, taught Systems, but he was also a great guy, a father...now dead.
DUI is serious - maybe not this time, but it might be next time. Please don't DUI of anything.
You mention getting home safely, what if he didn't get home safely? What about next time? What happens if the kid who lives 3 houses down dashes in front of the car and your/his reaction time is too slow...DUI is to protect the public.
I have a brother-in-law that is in a wheel chair, his wife was killed, their crime? Walking along river road at 5pm, a drunk, who was on the road - too fast, hit 'em...not very cool is it? If there were no pedestrians, he would've gotten home, a few hundred yards with no trouble...but he didn't, he got manslaughter and my brother-in-law has life in a wheelchair and lost his wife. Fair?
I have one other horror story, a college professor, head of social work dept at Chico State, was hit head-on by a drunk driver - she survived, after about nine months in the hospital. Her problem is that her brain isn't so good anymore, she can no longer teach, she can't even think very well - before the accident she was brilliant, now she can't function, she has trouble thinking about the simplest issues. If any decision making processes are involved, she gets totally confused, I don't mean Toast or Milk for breakfast, or what to wear today - that she can handle, but anything much more than that, and she can't figure it out, kind of like the person that posted this thread.
One last one, one of the hardest professors I've ever known, Wolf Statler, killed while commuting from Half Moon bay to SFSU by a truck driver DUI (not alcohol). He was a very tough professor, taught Systems, but he was also a great guy, a father...now dead.
DUI is serious - maybe not this time, but it might be next time. Please don't DUI of anything.
Last edited by AntiochCali; 09-08-2009 at 10:20 AM.
09-08-2009, 10:19 AM
#14
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Well then they run a red light/injure someone/vehicular manslaughter/etc and have therefore committed a crime, haven't they?
09-08-2009, 10:20 AM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
I feel that drunk driving laws are in place to avoid crashes, not add extra penalties post-crash. I think the writer is purposefully forgetting some key logic steps in order to write that stuff.