You want to get shit faced, bang a hooker and smoke a fattie with your friends, that’s cool. I wouldn’t be associated with people like that anyways.
BUT.
If you get in a car after that, and I’m driving home, or even more so, if someone I love is driving home, and YOU hit them, injure them, kill them…I am going to make sure that every single one of your limbs is removed slowly with a rusty butter knife while I burn you alive.
I think the bigger problem here is that most of those people had a prior record whether it involved DWI, suspension or speeding. The laws regarding repeat offenders needs to be addressed. That is the blaring issue and they are not acknowledging it.
This is the primary line with what you said that I agree with. Irregardless of anything else… if you get behind the wheel you’re a danger; regardless of alcohol. But how do we enforce all the other actions people do that increase this risk? Cell phones, car stereos, coffee, cigarettes, makeup, kids, other people in the car, emotional distress, etc. So today it’s alcohol, ok, so we reduce that; tomorrow it’s cell phones, next week it’s food, the week after that it’s no more car stereo’s, the month after that all cars are 1 person only, the year after that you have to take a verbal test from the car that determines your emotional state and if you’re mentally ok that moment to drive… Where does the line stop is my question? (Not talking just booze or pot here).
---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------
Agree completely! But if now a DWI drops to what a DWAI was, I’d be willing to bet the A-DWI will get dropped to what a DWI was… therefore more big business $$.
Police state. People are moving toward the feeling of not having to worry about these issues because “the government will handle it”. It really is sad that more people are ok with more regulations because as a society as a whole, we can’t make our own decisions. We need to be told how much alcohol to drink, how many rounds to load in our weapons, how much soda we can drink, what food we can eat, what tv shows we can watch, and what we can read on the internet. It start’s with this and what’s next?
Look back at my previous posts saying I don’t believe in the drop… I believe in harsher penalties instead. Leave it at .08 but make it so people get harsher penalties for the actions.
I’m shocked to admit it, me and you actually agree on something. Its really annoying listening to people complain about not being able to go out and drink. Well then drink at home if you don’t have a ride. If not, go out and drink some pop or something else, why does one need a beer.
Because something like 10,000 people a year die from something that is 100% preventable.
Something that isn’t a right
isn’t protected by the constitution
Serves 0 legitimate purpose
If you want to talk about cell/text distracted driving once it became an issue and start having an increasing death toll states started making laws and year by year they increase the penalties at some point it will end up not being worth it and prevent the majority.
Don’t understand how anyone can argue this. You cant take prescription drugs and drive, you cant smoke pot at all which has more benefits than drinking alcohol and has 0 overdose deaths, why should you be able to drink and drive? It alters your reaction time… whether it be 1 beer or 8 beers.
No one is saying you cant drink, no one is saying you cant get wasted… you are just being limited on the driving you can do while drinking. Its called being responsible.
LOL Being responsible would be not having a law that tells you what to do. Obviously they think we can’t be responsible so they are going to tell us what we can do. For you to think that this will actually work, is crazy. Do you think that if someone is drunk enough to think that it is a good idea to drive, they are going to be able to think that it is not a good idea to drive?
---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------
The same people will still drive drunk, but the penalty will be harsher than it is now and they will get a bigger slap on the wrist.
Bigger penalties will just take a productive member of society and turn them into a government dependent. If you take a professional who is earning a good living, paying their taxes, and otherwise following laws and lock them in jail and/or take away their ability to continue that career over a non-injury DWI, so they’re not only no longer paying taxes but mooching off government benefits by default, it’s counterproductive.
Instead of tackling the real issue of repeat offenders who most likely make up the large portion of these accidents/deaths, they want to put together a law that includes people who do actually drink in moderation and do it in a fashion that allows them to drive home within the laws.
You can say that my logic is “twisted to justify doing it”, but I can say your logic is twisted for thinking that this will actually work by assuming that people will think about the penalty before driving.
Again, if someone is drunk enough to think it is a good idea to drive, they certainly aren’t going to think it is not a good idea to drive.
Actually I’m not taking the “why do anything stand”. I’m just asking where and how do we draw the line as a society and what determines the line.
If we look at it from a scientific and statistically standpoint (I know logic, why the fuck would we let this drive any decision); then the whole process of driving and getting a license to drive is massively flawed and fuck everything from the start. Automobile accidents are 100% preventable, just remove cars and go to mass transit, solved. We know this isn’t a reasonable solution, so we come up with a solution that has an acceptable risk, the question I am posing… How do we as a society determine what that acceptable risk level is? Right now it’s driven off emotion, as evidenced by a lot of the responses on this thread, and not data. If data was driving the risk, then the laws regarding license process alone would be massively adjusted, the testing standards would be changed, cell phones physically wouldn’t work inside of a car, etc. But instead, companies and the government/society have balanced the risk of these actions vs the consequences either rightly or wrongly, and either for the right reasons or wrong reasons.
My question is, what do we as a society use as a baseline for determining the acceptable risk for actions and the appropriate consequences for detrimental actions?
I mean should we adjust the punishment for shoplifting like other countries/societies have? Steal a pack of gum and loose your hand works great in those countries!
But you’re saying that drunk driving deaths are 100% preventable as your justification to why it should be completely illegal and to lower the laws even more. I’m saying that all automobile accidents are 100% preventable; just get rid of cars. Same logic. Cars are not a right, they’re not in the constitution, and if we look at data, a majority of automobile accidents and deaths are NOT due to alcohol but to OTHER issues. Drunk Driving just strikes a nerve emotionally with people… therefore a larger reaction.