Should We Abolish Drunk Driving Laws?

[Benny]

I prefer it not be my son, daughter, wife, or any one else's life that put's drunk who drives drunk on probation or restricted license. A drunk is a drunk is a drunk what ever long winded pile of crap they want to blather on about before they get to the one fact that matters, ... over the limit on the test..., They are drunks, they are a danger to sober society and to their selves. Not that I care if they want to have a drunk driver day at the 500 track and let all the drunks kill each other a few times a year.

Drunk + driving = go to jail and it can't be for long enough.

I really don't much care what the drunks and alkies think or want not about their good they think they drive drunk, what they think about being loaded or about their suffering the DT's because their stupid stinking drunken fuddled mind is incapable of recognizing closing time Saturday night and they'll have to do their boozing at the higher restaurant per drink prices.

A drunk is a drunk is a drunk, losing his LTC or even better being refuse it in the first place he's still a stinking useless drunk. On his drunk cycle, in a car, a truck or a plane he's still a drunk. Funny how you guys think a guy sucking down a beer in 30 minutes at lunch and suddenly if you think he's a union member and boom you want him burnt with fire, fired, what ever stupid idea you come up with but if it's your brother in law then suddenly there is a thread about "How Can I help my son's, boss's drunk sister get a license to carry a weapon" or How can I help the low life drunk who killed some one get a gun?

A drunk is a drunk. If he's driving he's subject to being stopped and checked for drunk driving. If he's driving and he meets the state's standards for drunk driving he's a drunk. JAIL him. It's irrelevant if he's a union member, congressman, your brother in law, your little boy's boss, or if he's going down to the Goodwill store to donate Lucky Charms to under priveledge unicorns.

A drunk is a drunk. What ever.

This sounds like a Dr. Seuss book for adults.

 

[lashicoN]

... But if you ever want to attract more than a couple percentage points in an election you might want to consider the message that you are making and how it is heard by the masses.

Did our founders bother convincing everyone freedom was a sound idea? They only had a few percentage points too, don't forget.

Driving isnt a "right." You break the law and drive drunk you lose the ability to drive. The system isnt perfect but I would gladly have some system in place than nothing. I do believe that there has to be a better way than check points and police judgement. I don't have the solution though. I do like the idea if you are ever caught driving under the influence that you would have to "take a breath test" that shows no alcohol in your system before you can drive your car. You still get to drive.

First, diving, in the United States, in 2010, absolutely is a right. The government simply doesn't recognize it as one, but their word and opinions as of late hold as much water as a barrel full of holes. I don't think anyone is saying "Let's all drive drunk with no repercussions!" We're saying, if we aren't driving recklessly or causing any damage, don't take away our license for being a single digit over the government's limit, so that they can further profit off of the people of the United States.

 

[jbombelli]

I got that spell checked and fixed a couple of missing spaces Miss jbombelli.

Will you be spell checking the rest of the forum now or is that just something you do when you get frustrated trying to rationalize drunk driving?

No, it's just something I do in response to meandering, angry ramblings full of grammatical errors.

Nobody's tried to justify drunk driving. You will never hear me say "hey... sometimes you just gotta drive drunk, ya know?" That will never happen, because I can't think of a reason in the world that drunk driving would be okay.


I just don't agree with punishing somebody when nobody got hurt.

I know the risk; I drive on the very same roads as you, and I don't drink, let alone drink and drive. I just believe in freedom, and proper grammar, which these days are unpopular, frightening things for many people. I believe in freedom, and all of the risk that comes along with that.


You want a free society? Society buys its freedom with its blood. There is no other way. I guess some of us just believe in it more than others.

 

[Jack Ryan]

You want a free society? Society buys its freedom with its blood. There is no other way. I guess some of us just believe in it more than others.

Guess all you want.

Drunks belong in jail, not behind the wheel on the public highway. I'm all for seeing them go there.

 

[lashicoN]

Guess all you want.

Drunks belong in jail, not behind the wheel on the public highway. I'm all for seeing them go there.

So do pot heads, coffee fiends, sugar rushers, people who don't get enough sleep, angry people, people on cell phone, people who eat, people who drink any liquid, people who blink often, and people who fail their first driving test then. Alcohol isn't the only impairment while you're on the King's highway.

Send the people who kill people to jail, send the drunks home to sleep it off.

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

Hey Jack, I'd like to repeal the open container law!

And I'm not a drunk.

However, if at the end of a long week of work I decide that I'd like a beer on the way home from work (30 min drive) on a Friday, then that's exactly what I do. I'm not drunk, it's the first one of the night, and I don't understand the problem with it. Furthermore, I'm typically the DD for many friends whenever spending an evening in town. Why is it that the passengers of the vehicle, all over the age of 21, cannot consume an alcoholic beverage if the driver is sober?

And one more redneck/Hoosier point (since state's rights dictate, right?): On those extremely snowy days in the dead of winter, and we get 8-10 inches of snow at once, there's nothing better than grabbing a sixer and hitting the back country roads. Thirty miles an hour of pure enjoyment!!!

 

[ATOMonkey]

So do pot heads, coffee fiends, sugar rushers, people who don't get enough sleep, angry people, people on cell phone, people who eat, people who drink any liquid, people who blink often, and people who fail their first driving test then. Alcohol isn't the only impairment while you're on the King's highway.

Send the people who kill people to jail, send the drunks home to sleep it off.

Don't forget people with allergies. All of that sneezing is going to send them flying into oncoming traffic, mostly school buses full of orphans and bunnies that will die in a firey explosion.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's funny to make light of the various ways that people drive inattentively, but it's certainly not funny when one of yours suffers for what someone else has done. There are far more cases of drunk drivers killing themselves, others, and damaging property than of people with allergies losing control and crashing. My grandfather had a heart attack while driving and killed a family in an oncoming car. Likely, because he was an alcoholic trying to cope with the loss of his wife, he was drunk as well.

The only way I can see of fairly getting rid of "driving under the influence" laws, is to get rid of the underlying structure of law that allows citizens to get away with responsibility for their actions. If we get to the point where we can be held financially liable for damages to people and property - and be forced to pay - there is little point in legalizing and legitimizing a hazardous behavior; there are enough impaired drivers on the road with the laws in place.

 

[lashicoN]

It's funny to make light of the various ways that people drive inattentively, but it's certainly not funny when one of yours suffers for what someone else has done.

I was being completely serious. I'm just as dangerous driving around after being awake for 20 hours as I am driving around with a couple beers in me, which I don't do.

 

[hornadylnl]

Don't forget people with allergies. All of that sneezing is going to send them flying into oncoming traffic, mostly school buses full of orphans and bunnies that will die in a firey explosion.

I actually know of a girl that was hit head by a guy who was having a sneezing fit. She was about 20 at the time and will have life long problems due to that accident.

I agree with point of the op. .08 laws are nit much different than zero tolerance policies in school. I've known some drunks that would probably drive better at .10 than they would at .00.

 

[serpicostraight]

It's funny to make light of the various ways that people drive inattentively, but it's certainly not funny when one of yours suffers for what someone else has done. There are far more cases of drunk drivers killing themselves, others, and damaging property than of people with allergies losing control and crashing. My grandfather had a heart attack while driving and killed a family in an oncoming car. Likely, because he was an alcoholic trying to cope with the loss of his wife, he was drunk as well.

The only way I can see of fairly getting rid of "driving under the influence" laws, is to get rid of the underlying structure of law that allows citizens to get away with responsibility for their actions. If we get to the point where we can be held financially liable for damages to people and property - and be forced to pay - there is little point in legalizing and legitimizing a hazardous behavior; there are enough impaired drivers on the road with the laws in place.

you are wrong about more drunks getting in wrecks. 40% of wrecks invovle alchohol. which means the other 60% involve stupid. i think we need to worry more about fixing the stupid they do more damage.

 

[dross]

you are wrong about more drunks getting in wrecks. 40% of wrecks invovle alchohol. which means the other 60% involve stupid. i think we need to worry more about fixing the stupid they do more damage.

Now we're talkin'. I'd have to be pretty drunk to be as stupid as a lot of folks I see.

How about a graduated scale of drunkeness correlated to IQ? I bet I could get pretty drunk and still be legal to drive if we used that method.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I got that spell checked and fixed a couple of missing spaces Miss jbombelli.

Will you be spell checking the rest of the forum now or is that just something you do when you get frustrated trying to rationalize drunk driving?

I just started reading this thread today & I thought the same as jbombelli about your post...apparently even after you "fixed" it. So, am I to understand it used to be even worse?...

 

[radonc73]

But are 40% of drivers drunk? Or do the 10% or so drunks on the road get involved in 40% of accidents.

you are wrong about more drunks getting in wrecks. 40% of wrecks invovle alchohol. which means the other 60% involve stupid. i think we need to worry more about fixing the stupid they do more damage.

 

[dross]

But are 40% of drivers drunk? Or do the 10% or so drunks on the road get involved in 40% of accidents.

Keep in mind that if I'm stopped at a light and you rear-end me, if I'm drunk, the wreck goes down in the stats as alcohol-related.

 

[Expat]

But are 40% of drivers drunk? Or do the 10% or so drunks on the road get involved in 40% of accidents.

Well now that would be an uncomfortable way of looking at it wouldn't it?

Keep in mind that if I'm stopped at a light and you rear-end me, if I'm drunk, the wreck goes down in the stats as alcohol-related.

I always feel sorry for the poor drunk on those. Sitting there minding his own business, has a not at fault accident but he goes to jail.

 

[dross]

I always feel sorry for the poor drunk on those. Sitting there minding his own business, has a not at fault accident but he goes to jail.

Was that sarcasm? My point wasn't about the drunk either way, just that some accidents might be recorded as alcohol related when in real life alcohol may not have actually been the cause.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Alcohol related does not mean legally drunk either.

It can also mean that a passenger was drunk or had been drinking.

 

[UncleMike]

Now we're talkin'. I'd have to be pretty drunk to be as stupid as a lot of folks I see.

How about a graduated scale of drunkeness correlated to IQ? I bet I could get pretty drunk and still be legal to drive if we used that method.

And conversely, some people wouldn't be able to even look at a drink without committing a violation.

 

[Expat]

Was that sarcasm? .

Actually it wasn't. I know it isn't very PC. I know no one is supposed to have any alcohol in their system and driver. But I still feel sorry for a guy that gets arrested because of a sober driver that hits him. Talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.