Drunk driving laws.
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
All actions involve risk.
What is your level of acceptance of risk?
Most people that complain of gov't intrusion are the same folks that what "safety".
What is your level of acceptance of risk?
Most people that complain of gov't intrusion are the same folks that what "safety".
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Are you really going to try to play this off as you didn't attack the writing abilities of the original poster, and by extension, their intelligence? And not just that, but then attempt to blame that on me instead? Really? That's pretty weak.
You seem very intent on "facts" when it's a discussion about an opinion.
You seem very intent on "facts" when it's a discussion about an opinion.
I was talking about HALF OF A SENTENCE being presented, as I took it, as fact. What do you base your opinions on? Fairy dust or facts? I assumed the writing was written by someone that knew how to form an argumentative or opinion paper and was comparing his opinion to a fact in order to solidify his opinion.
Reread the entire first section of the writing. He is presenting facts which he then relates his opinion of DUI charges to.
Last edited by VRT MBasile; Sep 8, 2009 at 04:07 PM.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,504
From: Leg Humper
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
I really don't care if you throw knives up and try and catch them in your home, but if you throw a knife randomly across the mall, I'm not okay with that...seems pretty simple to me...or one I saw on TV recently, a sober guy, drove his Vette into a mall...not okay with that one either.
Off hand, I would say, "who's going to get hurt?", if it's anyone who is not voluntarily participating, then it's not okay with me.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
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.
Driving while intoxicated (legal definition: over .08 bac) for the sake of this argument is similar to driving while talking on the phone, texting, giving your passenger a handy, etc. While driving under the influence you may not intend to lose focus on your driving or reduce your motor skills, but ultimately that is no longer 100% under your control. The illusion that you're in control of the vehicle while drunk is still an illusion which may be reinforced by the fact that you didn't hit anything after a few trips. Maybe arguing that the .08 bac is arbitrary would be a more reasonable stance.
So, why does driver A get a reckless driving charge and driver B get a DUI +/- reckless driving?
Driver A was shown to be sober and managed to **** up. Driver B knowingly put himself into a position where he'd be better capable to **** up (he was drunk), and surprise, he ****ed up. Not only did he put himself at a greater risk of ****ing up, he put everyone else on the road at greater risk (poring gas onto the fire as it were).
Why does driver B get penalized for making it home safely? Simply, and this is just my opinion, he knowingly inhibited his thinking coordination and decided he was still good to go while no one else on the road had much choice in the matter. Everyone else on the road would have to end up relying on driver B's diluted judgment on whether he was the just perfect kind of drunk where you can still drive good or whether the facade will fall apart in a few minutes and driver B unknowingly runs a red light. Is this a flawless opinion, no. Is it fairly rational, I think so.
Is it not fair to mitigate the risk of driving intoxicated which (depending on your alcohol consumption) will eventually have a negative impact on your ability to drive safely?
I agree with the original posts statement. DUI anything (drug related: tylenol, vikodin, alcohol, cocaine, etc) is bad. However, the punishment for DUI is excessive, whether it was intended as avoidance or post crime.
Yes, each person is impaired on any drug, but many folks without any drugs are absolutely horrible at driving anyways. These people who just suck at driving are sometimes more dangerous than someone who is over the legal limit.
ex of excessive:
Crime:
-Running a stop sign.
Punishment:
-The person that drives bad gets a ticket for rolling a stop sign.
-The person under the influence gets a ticket for rolling a stop sign AND DUI.
People do not go to jail for texting/being on the phone with a bluetooth. This has shown to impair drivers 2-3X more than a drunk driver (yes there are studies out there that show this).
Saying "Well what about the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Are we going to wait until he smashes into a van and kills 3 kids?"
The answer is yes, there are a lot of other possibilities besides alcohol that could lead to such an event and then again there could be NO incident.
People drive drunk regardless, this "scare" tactic, is the same means to "no weapons on campus." People bring guns either way if they want to, it isn't enforced until another incident occurs. This is a classic example of hate crimes, campus gun safety. This law causes hindrance to the general population than the purpose of the laws creation.
Drinking is a choice, texting is a choice. If an accident occurs, the drivers in each instance know what they did wrong. One will get a couple of points, the other a couple of points AND slapped with DUI.
I dont know how everyone can argue the other side, this is very plain and simple.
Other examples of dumb laws:
Redlight traffic ticket
Guns on Campus
Texting while driving
Yes, each person is impaired on any drug, but many folks without any drugs are absolutely horrible at driving anyways. These people who just suck at driving are sometimes more dangerous than someone who is over the legal limit.
ex of excessive:
Crime:
-Running a stop sign.
Punishment:
-The person that drives bad gets a ticket for rolling a stop sign.
-The person under the influence gets a ticket for rolling a stop sign AND DUI.
People do not go to jail for texting/being on the phone with a bluetooth. This has shown to impair drivers 2-3X more than a drunk driver (yes there are studies out there that show this).
Saying "Well what about the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Are we going to wait until he smashes into a van and kills 3 kids?"
The answer is yes, there are a lot of other possibilities besides alcohol that could lead to such an event and then again there could be NO incident.
People drive drunk regardless, this "scare" tactic, is the same means to "no weapons on campus." People bring guns either way if they want to, it isn't enforced until another incident occurs. This is a classic example of hate crimes, campus gun safety. This law causes hindrance to the general population than the purpose of the laws creation.
Drinking is a choice, texting is a choice. If an accident occurs, the drivers in each instance know what they did wrong. One will get a couple of points, the other a couple of points AND slapped with DUI.
I dont know how everyone can argue the other side, this is very plain and simple.
Other examples of dumb laws:
Redlight traffic ticket
Guns on Campus
Texting while driving
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
I understand, but, the laws governing what I can & can't do should end at my driveway/property line.
I routinely drink beer whilst riding my riding mower.
It is bull**** that this action is illegal.
Idiots?
In what sense?
Do you favor intrusive gov't policies that make me a criminal in my own house?
I routinely drink beer whilst riding my riding mower.
It is bull**** that this action is illegal.
Idiots?
In what sense?
Do you favor intrusive gov't policies that make me a criminal in my own house?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
It strikes me that you're just upset that I pointed out that you were judging the author's writing ability, all the while ignoring the author's clear statements of opinion, illustrating a poor absorption of the material on your part. I'm not calling you stupid (because I don't think you are); chances are you just skimmed the original post, and that's ok. And if what I said bothered you, I apologize -- it was only meant as an observation. But just as I give you the respect of acknowledging that you're a smart guy, I request that you don't insult my intelligence with equivocations and straw man arguments.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Seems to me I already did, if you hurt yourself, alcohol or cigarettes, that's fine with me - but if drink and drive a car on the public motorways, not so good.
I really don't care if you throw knives up and try and catch them in your home, but if you throw a knife randomly across the mall, I'm not okay with that...seems pretty simple to me...or one I saw on TV recently, a sober guy, drove his Vette into a mall...not okay with that one either.
Off hand, I would say, "who's going to get hurt?", if it's anyone who is not voluntarily participating, then it's not okay with me.
I really don't care if you throw knives up and try and catch them in your home, but if you throw a knife randomly across the mall, I'm not okay with that...seems pretty simple to me...or one I saw on TV recently, a sober guy, drove his Vette into a mall...not okay with that one either.
Off hand, I would say, "who's going to get hurt?", if it's anyone who is not voluntarily participating, then it's not okay with me.
Here's your statement:
Originally Posted by AntiochCali
If your behavior, DUI, collecting nuclear waste, firing guns off in random directions, etc., is likely to cause harm to innocent ppl outside of your control, then yes.
Second hand cigarette smoke has been shown to correlate to serious health problems. Again following your train of thought, we should ban cigarettes also.
If not, what makes those different than what you stated?
In fact, with your statement, we should ban all things that pose a likely possible threat to people other than the individual themselves, which is a pretty long list of things to make illegal.