Every driver who refuses to blow strapped to table, put in headlock, blood drawn

[1911ly]

We are going to give amnesty to illegal aliens. We got the DOMA thing going on. Pot's going to be legal. Hell let's just throw in making drunk driving legal. Just don't cry over the death of a loved one when they get plowed over by someone that's drunk.

Some where there has to be a distinction between "right" and "right's"

 

[Liberty Sanders]

So, if an officer believes that I may at some point in time harm someone they have RS to do anything to me? The State should not be prosecuting people for something that could happen to someone else. Better come get my guns, I could shoot someone with them

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[88GT]

A contract that is forced, yes?

To my mind, yes.

We are going to give amnesty to illegal aliens. We got the DOMA thing going on. Pot's going to be legal. Hell let's just throw in making drunk driving legal. Just don't cry over the death of a loved one when they get plowed over by someone that's drunk.

Well, the act of driving drunk harms no one. And property damage or the taking of life is illegal anyway. Since a law doesn't prevent a crime or change the consequences of an action, what good do drunk driving laws really do? /rhetorical

Some where there has to be a distinction between "right" and "right's"

Only people who want to control other people think that. If you really believe in rights, you wouldn't feel the need to tell other people what's right to do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A contract that is forced, yes?

How so? Getting a DL is not req'd by law.

 

[j706]

Why don't we just loose all the speed limits, let folks drive all jacked up on dope and or alcohol and pretty much let them do what they want no matter how it may effect others. Yea that would work out great. Some people just do not like having to abide by rules.

BTW this so call victimless crimes excuse is pretty lame and worn out IMO. No it is just plain goofy.

 

[88GT]

Why don't we just loose all the speed limits, let folks drive all jacked up on dope and or alcohol and pretty much let them do what they want no matter how it may effect others. Yea that would work out great. Some people just do not like having to abide by rules.

BTW this so call victimless crimes excuse is pretty lame and worn out IMO. No it is just plain goofy.

I'm perfectly okay with standards of use for shared roadways, so to a certain extent, I understand why they exist. But I don't think that any of them actually improve the safety of drivers. Drunk driving laws didn't stop the drunk that hit us. Speed limit laws don't stop people from speeding. I don't know why they can't be sentence enhancers instead of laws unto themselves for that reason. What's the point of criminalizing a behavior that doesn't infringe on someone's rights?

 

[public servant]

What on earth are you talking about?

He believes that drunk driving is a victimless crime.

 

[IndyDave1776]

He believes that drunk driving is a victimless crime.

Answer me this: Is it somehow less damaging to be injured or killed by a sober driver than one who has been drinking?

 

[1911ly]

Answer me this: Is it somehow less damaging to be injured or killed by a sober driver than one who has been drinking?

I thing it is less likely that you will be hit by a sober driver.

 

[MikeDVB]

According to the CDC "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States."

That would seem to indicate one is more likely to be hit by a sober driver than a drunk one.

 

[lucky4034]

I thing it is less likely that you will be hit by a sober driver.

Statistics would probably say otherwise....

 

[KG1]

According to the CDC "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States."

That would seem to indicate one is more likely to be hit by a sober driver than a drunk one.

Although I do not advocate for drunk driving, this is a possible reason why I would agree with 88GT's point about incidences involving drunk driving being "sentence enhancers instead of laws unto themselves"

 

[public servant]

According to the CDC "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States."

That would seem to indicate one is more likely to be hit by a sober driver than a drunk one.

Do you think that 31% of all drivers are impaired? It's 11%. Which means 11% of drivers cause 31% of all traffic fatalities.

A 160-pound person drinking two beers within an hour would probably have a BAC of 0.04, well below the legal limits of driving under the influence, but 1.4 times more likely to have an accident than someone who is sober.

Two more beers? The likelihood of an accident goes up almost tenfold. At .08 BAC, a driver is 11 times more likely than the non-drinking driver to be involved in a crash. As the amount of alcohol in the driver's system rises mathematically on the BAC scale, the likelihood of a traffic accident multiples.

Two more beers? Up to a six-pack now? The likelihood of having an accident is now 48 times higher than the abstainer and the driver has just now passed the 0.10 BAC level.

Two more? Hey, you've already had a six pack, two more couldn't hurt, right? Except two more beers could put your BAC close to 0.15 at which point you are 380 times more likely to have an accident.

Alcohol-related accidents are so prevalent, an estimated 40 percent of all persons in the United States will be involved in a traffic mishap blamed on alcohol at some point in their lives.

The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes (not just deaths) totals more than $51 billion.

 

[public servant]

Statistics from 2000:

*An estimated total of 2,163,210 crashes in the United States
involved alcohol. These crashes killed 16,792 and injured an estimated 513,000 people.

*Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public
an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill.

*The average alcohol-related fatality in the United States costs $3.5 million:
• $1.1 million in monetary costs
• $2.4 million in quality of life losses

*The estimated cost per injured survivor of an alcohol-related crash averaged $99,000:
• $49,000 in monetary costs
• $50,000 in quality of life losses

 

[public servant]

Answer me this: Is it somehow less damaging to be injured or killed by a sober driver than one who has been drinking?

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe a person should be allowed to drive as drunk as they wish and should only be punished if they kill, injure or damage property?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe a person should be allowed to drive as drunk as they wish and should only be punished if they kill, injure or damage property?

Are we to use the criteria that many of our libertarian friends use for other types of behaviors? For if the answer is 'yes' then the response to your question is 'yes'.

 

[KG1]

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe a person should be allowed to drive as drunk as they wish and should only be punished if they kill, injure or damage property?

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe that every person that is suspected of driving under the influence but has not driven to the extreme of killing or injuring or damaging property should be subject to harsh penalties or be "compelled" to have their blood drawn?

 

[public servant]

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe that every person that is suspected of driving under the influence but has not driven to the extreme of killing or injuring or damaging property should be subject to harsh penalties or be "compelled" to have their blood drawn?

Yes. I believe the law is correct exactly as it is written. I do not believe, however, that the penalties are stiff enough for repeat offenders.

Do I believe you should be tied to a table if you cooperate with the BD? No.

Your answer to your own question?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do I believe you should be tied to a table if you cooperate with the BD? No.

Which is likely 99.9% of law enforcement's reaction, which is why I find it . . . surprising that no one has skipped off to challenge this.

Why no injunctions? Why no interloc appeals? Why no rolling on the ground frothing at the mouth in front of a judge? Granted I don't know Georgia law but I would think someone would be doing something.

 

[KG1]

Yes. I believe the law is correct exactly as it is written. I do not believe, however, that the penalties are stiff enough for repeat offenders.

Do I believe you should be tied to a table if you cooperate with the BD? No.

Your answer to your own question?

What I am getting at is there are plenty of people driving somewhat under the influence that are able to make it to their destination and do so without killing or injuring or destroying property.

It should all be hinged on degrees of impairment. Obviously if someone exhibits signs of being so impaired that they are not in control of their vehicle then they should be dealt with.

I'm talking about someone for instance that is caught up in a road check situation and is suspected of driving under the influence but exhibits no other indication that they are a danger.