Drunk Drivers

[Weedmage Princess]

2:30am Memorial Day Morning. I'm on my way to work, on Rte 93/128 when all of a sudden I see a sea of red lights and about a mile ahead, the lights of firetrucks, ambulances and police cars. After being in stand still traffic for about 45 minutes, the police take down a part of the guard rail in the median separating the northbound and southbound lanes, make everyone drive on the median to get into the southbound lanes. A bunch of people who were trying to get into Boston are now stranded out in the middle of nowhere plotting out directions with a map in the light of the headlights while a few others are looking out for coyotes..heh. We find our way, and two hours later, I make it to work.

Turns out the accident was a severe one (figures, that's why they closed down the highway) ...some drunk guy (some say he was 22, others say he was 17) was speeding and tried to switch lanes, causing a 4 car pile up...one of the cars, an SUV, ejected the driver from his vehicle.

I'm not sure about where everyone else lives, but it seems like every other week you hear about some drunk driver getting into an accident. It happens way too much, and unfortunately innocent people who are just trying to get from point A to point B wind up suffering for the neglegance and inconsideration of others. Personally, I'd like to see the penalties for drunk driving stiffend greatly. I feel that the minute a driver is deemed under the influence, his or her license should be revoked IMMEDIATELY, no questions asked, the car impounded (if it still can be) and the person under the influence should not be allowed to reapply for a license for a period up to 10 years. Might be a steep price to pay, but so is causing 4 car pile ups and killing people. Atleast this way, people will seriously think about the consequences if they consider driving after drinking.

[GS Abinash]

Penalties should be more strict. If you can get less prison time for vehicular manslaughter than regular manslaughter, something needs to change.

[Hulkein]

If they're going to be that strict then cars need to come equipped with breathalizers. Plenty of people can be over the 'limit' and not even be drunk.

I've never driven drunk and don't plan on it.

[Sean]

I feel the poll is a bit vague after reading your post. You use phrasings like greatly stiffened. I don't really support stiffening them to some obsene level. But I wouldn't object to some minor upgrades. So uh I guess I'll abstain from voting for the time being.

[Scott]

I agree. If you check back awhile in some posts, I was hit by a drunk driver on the highway and spun me out into a tree. This was last summer and it basically ruined my summer because wearing a seat belt messed me up pretty bad. (Can't win either way, don't wear one you get thrown out of the car, wear won and you get ripped up.)

When you come to my parties at my house, you don't drive home unless you have a DD. Drinking and driving is SO easy to avoid, yet some many people do it. CALL SOMEONE! I hope you have some friends that would go out of there way to help you if you need it.

You should lose your license for A HELL OF A LOT longer when you get caught for drunk driving. Plus SERIOUS penelties for those who cause accidents.

[Snapp]

Your changes sound right on Weedie. I'm in total agreement. You drive under the influence? No license. Period. I'm tired of shit brains driving drunk and getting slaps on the wrist. Even if there was no accident, or no one was injured.. they greatly increased the risk, voluntarily!

edit to add:

I don't really support stiffening them to some obsene level.

I do. There's NO reason to drive drunk, ever. If there's enough threat of punishment, maybe they'll get the hint.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Snapp]

[Ravenstorm]

Agreed.

And the exact effects of driving impaired should be taught in all driving schools and high schools that offer driver's ed. I just saw on the news there are these goggles you wear and it distorts your vision to simulate the effects of being drunk or even just impaired. Then then have the person drive around a course and they get to see exactly how badly they did.

Hell, I'd be tempted to recommend anyone learning to drive actually get drunk and have an instructor take you out so you can feel what it's like too. Not that that would ever fly.

Raven

[Sean]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Agreed.

And the exact effects of driving impaired should be taught in all driving schools and high schools that offer driver's ed. I just saw on the news there are these goggles you wear and it distorts your vision to simulate the effects of being drunk or even just impaired. Then then have the person drive around a course and they get to see exactly how badly they did.

Hell, I'd be tempted to recommend anyone learning to drive actually get drunk and have an instructor take you out so you can feel what it's like too. Not that that would ever fly.

Raven

The goggles are no where near accurate. I also think they are bad teaching tools because they are really fun to mess around with unless you're trying to glorify the fun you can have when trashed.

[Weedmage Princess]

The limit set is determined by law officials to govern how much alcohol is unsafe to operate a vehicle. Since it would be ridiculous to set different limits for everyone, they pick a happy medium so to speak, and go with that. Another thing is some people don't realize just how impaired they might be. They will tell you they're fine, because they honestly "feel" fine...however they are struggling to walk a straight line. I'm sure anyone who's been to a party or a bar more than twice in their life can attest to that.

Like Snapp said, there's really no reason to drink and drive. Driving is a priveledge, and with it comes responsibility. There's too many issues and potential dangers that come with driving as it is to throw impaired drivers into the mix. If you can't put the booze down, you don't need to be picking up keys to the car, that's the bottom line.

[Shari]

Seven years ago my dad was driving his Tahoe and was broadsided by a train. He was driving drunk, and he survived.

To this day, my dad still drives drunk. Unfortunately he has a great lawyer and has gotten out of serving jail time with his 3 (that I know of) DUI's. I cannot tell you how much this INFURIATES ME. He should have spent a month in jail for his third offense and he got off scott-free.

I mean how FUCKING hard is it really to call a god-damned taxi? Most offer free services for those who are too intoxicated to come home.

If you drive drunk and are caught, I believe you should have your license suspended for 3 months and then have a breathalizer installed in your car.

But GUESS WHAT...even with my dad having his license suspended for a year he was still on the fucking road driving! I'm sure even within that time he even did so drunk. Makes me want to rip my hair out and then to beat him with a stick.

Even license suspension does not deter those who have commited said offense. So in all honesty, I don't know would be a suggestion to keep fucking idiots from drinking and driving. Perhaps instill a way to have your license scanned in your car in order to start it, who knows.

And then there are those who kill others (INNOCENT PEOPLE) in car accidents. The law should be changed to charge those people guilty of murder. The whole "accidental manslauter" is utter bullshit. A person makes the CHOICE to drink, a CHOICE to drive, and then ends up killing someone. You should be tried as a murderer and that is that.

My father and I have a pretty good relationship going now, but we make sure to wrestle the keys out of his hand when he is too drunk, and if he ends up slipping out of the house while intoxicated, I make sure to call the police and give them his license number. :whistle:

[Sean]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
Personally, I'd like to see the penalties for drunk driving stiffend greatly. I feel that the minute a driver is deemed under the influence, his or her license should be revoked IMMEDIATELY, no questions asked, the car impounded (if it still can be) and the person under the influence should not be allowed to reapply for a license for a period up to 10 years. Might be a steep price to pay, but so is causing 4 car pile ups and killing people. Atleast this way, people will seriously think about the consequences if they consider driving after drinking.

Question... Considering the person most likely injured him/herself in the process, has had his/her license revoked, and possibly faces something along the lines of vehicular manslaugher charges based on his/her actions. What makes you think the threat of 10 years will make them think anymore than what they face now? My process might be wrong I don't pretend to be a laywer and I don't drive drunk so i've never had a reason to look up the procedure. But my point is really if they don't care about the penalties now what makes you think stiffening them will make them think about them anymore than they do now?

[Kurili]

I used to live in a kind of rural community in Florida where the jokes were that anyone in our town who had a valid license had a CDL. Was a joke, but there were just so darn many who'd had their (normal) licenses pulled for DUI, and just merely had someone else put insurance on the vehicle for em and kept driving.

There were a good number who had more than 5 DUI's, and even with serious injury to innocents. One guy hit and killed a young girl on Halloween about 8years ago. It was not only his 7th DUI, IT WAS HIS SECOND DEATH!

In my opinion, since there seems to be no way to keep people like this from driving, lock em up.

If I drink, I do it at home, or make sure I take a cab or someone in the party is a DD. And like Scott, no one left our parties drinking and driving.

Everyone makes mistakes, but mistakes that can kill just arent good ones to make.

Kurili

[Weedmage Princess]

Common sense. Most people I think would agree that having a car and being able to drive is a great convenience. In some cases, it's a necessity. Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule and people who bend the bar of logic but I'd think you'd see the instances of drunk driving drop quite a bit if the threat of losing your ability to drive for ten years was the consequence to being caught driving drunk.

Repeat offenders on the other hand would lose their licenses for an even longer period of time, do time in jail (if they caused an accident..whether or not anyone was hurt) ..and if they had say 5+ instances of driving drunk, license permanently revoked. I think laws like this would make most people think twice.

one of the cars, an SUV, ejected the driver from his vehicle.

It is without a doubt, that the driver of the SUV has not been informed of the new seat belt regulations. With that being said, as long as there are drunk ass holes behind the wheel, it is absolutely imperitive that we increase our safety standards to compensate these morons. At the same time, I feel that it is also neccesary to "buckle down" on the regulations surrounding those who are behind the wheel intoxicated.
Perhaps one of the greatest things about this country is our propensity to overlook facts in the world surrounding us, even those deemed as sophisticated. It is my own personal belief that if we were to initiate a DUI offensive similar to those of countries such as Japan (one DUI = suspended license for a verrry long time) that maybe the message could be drilled through the skulls of those intoxicated or not.

[Kurili]

ELECT WEEDIE!!

[Sean]

How can you use common sense as an arguement after citing a drunk person who thinks they can drive at a party as an example? If that person doesn't have enough "common sense" to realize they can't drive. How come you think another drunk person will have enough common sense to say hey I might lose my license for 10 years if I do this. Or for that matter care that they might in a drunken state?

[Kurili]

In the case of the people in the town I lived in, their normal state of being was drunk as a skunk, and they deemed driving a right, not a privelege.

Not much you can do with that lack of common sense.

Kurili

[Anebriated]

Europe has good laws about it. I think first offense is a 6 month removal of the license and second is loss of license. someone might want to correct me because i know the numbers are wrong. It does give a good idea of the harshness.

[Sean]

I guess I should also take this moment to tie up some loose ends before things spiral out of control. I'm not advocating people driving drunk. I'm also not saying we should have more relaxed laws either. I am however saying I personally have concluded that people are going to drive drunk no matter what the consequence may be. I feel increasing license suspensions or revoking licenses isn't the answer, I mean hey if your breaking 1 law and driving drunk in the first place why not break another and do it with no license. So I feel you'd either have to goto the extreme, kurili's suggestion of locking them up, or focus your energy on something more preventitive like safety methods and education. Thats why I'm not a cheerleader for increasing fines and penalties from their current state not because I think people should be allowed to drive drunk, just because I accept that they will no matter what.

[Weedmage Princess]

Well, Tijay, I'm going on the theory that people who feel they aren't too impaired to drive might decide that even if they feel they can drive fine, they don't want to take the chance of failing a breathilizer test and losing their license for ten plus years.

Getting a summons to appear in court and a fine is one thing. Not being able to drive for ten years is another.

Again, I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are just totally daft and will push the envelope anyway. Those are the ones that get their license revoked for good. You make examples out of them, to target who I feel is the majority of people who might take that chance and drive drunk. They might not be using common sense initially but will decide the threat of losing their license for ten years isn't worth their driving after drinking.

..and yeah, I know you aren't saying you condone drunk driving or anything of the like. You're playing Devil's Advocate again!!! :grr: :P

[Ravenstorm]

A big sign on the roof of the car...

CONVICTED OF DUI

might help too.

Raven

[Weedmage Princess]

Heh, yeah...

Or make a National "Drunk Driver" car. Anyone convicted of drunk driving can only drive this sort of car. Bright yellow with a huge rubber bumper that sort of goes around the perimiter of the vehicle. And it can't exceed 40 MPH.

[Blazing247]

New Jersey just upped the penalties and lowered the "legal limit" from .10 to .08.

First offense is up to $500 fine, up to 30 days in jail, and loss of license for up to a year (typically 6 months). If this occurs near a school zone/crossing, double everything.

Second offense is up to $1000 fine, up to 90 days in jail, and loss of license for 2 years with a lock placed on your car after that time.

You cannot refuse a breathalizer, or you do lose your license on the spot for 2 years, and your car will be impounded.

My outlook on this is that it is the law, and we must uphold it. Personally, I know that .08 is very low for certain people, but soon the entire country will be mandated to lower their limit to .08.

I try not to drink and drive. There have been maybe one or two situations in the last 6 years where I chose to in questionable circumstances, but I have a very high tolerance and I exhibited no signs of impairment (trust me, I do this for a living I know when people are impaired).

The sad thing is, no amount of legislation in the world will stop the true kings of DWI. They will drink and drive, no matter what the penalty may be. I have seen them beat the system more than I care to remember. What this legislation does is make it more difficult for the casual drinker to have a few beers at a party. The key is stopping the repeat offenders. Look to CA and the 3 Strikes law. It just makes sense.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Blazing247
You cannot refuse a breathalizer, or you do lose your license on the spot for 2 years, and your car will be impounded.


You sure can refuse a breathalizer. Which most people who have been drinking will do. You can ask for a blood test, in which case you have to drive down the nearest hospital, wait till someone is ready to deal with you, then get your blood taken, then actually tested. That takes a good amount of time, which sometimes can be the difference between passing and failing.

[Galleazzo]

No, yer right, Tijay. Folks drive drunk, fuck the law, so nothing else'll work.

So they ought to do a zero-tolerance law. First offense, you do 3 months time. Second offense, you do 3 YEARS time. Third offense, 30 years. No probation, no suspended sentence, nothing.

Right now they got losers selling a few ounces of pot getting 10 years, and bigger losers killing kids on the road who get 5 years suspended. That is fucked up.

Maybe Weedie'll survive 128 that way. That's a messed up road as it is, I hate driving it.

:ban:

[SpunGirl]

I don't think increasing the penalties would act as a deterrent, either, but I'm in favor of increasing them all the same. Simply put, I like harsh laws that punish assholes.

Supposedly Arizona has some of the harshest DUI laws in the country. It's been a few years since they lowered the legal limit to .08 there, as well. I don't know about Nevada, I haven't heard anything about it.

People take DUI way too lightly. My band teacher in HS got a DUI, and his name was printed in the paper. It's a small town, and everyone was aware that he was the Flagstaff High band teacher. It was embarassing for him, yes, but I don't see why they should let people like that continue to teach. And it wasn't DUI to the slightest degree, either, it was EXTREME DUI.

It seems like it's OK, or at least tolerable, until they maim or kill someone. I'm glad lots of people here are as irritated with it as I am, though.

-K

[Wezas]

I think the penalties should be more stiff, though I'm not sure the limit needs to be dropped any further. I don't think we need to get to the point where 2 light beers should be "over the limit" for an average sized man. The penalties, however, should be more stiff. I hear about people all the time "He had two prior DWI's and three prior DUI's". How??? Suspend their liscense for more then 3 months if they're a repeat offender. If they drive on a suspended liscense, take their car!

My dad is a drinker. I wouldn't call him an alcoholic, but he's been doing it for a while. He only drinks on weekends and holidays (when other people are around). He will occasionally come back from the store with a 5-pack of Michelob Light. Yes, a 5-pack. I know one light beer won't do anything to him, but I hope he doesn't get pulled over for some other reason and they see the open container.

If you can't drink smartly, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. 1st DWI should be manditory 6 month suspended liscense. Give them the option of having a restricted liscense (Home -> Work -> Pick up Kids -> Back Home). Make them get special plates or some kind of sticker that shows the hours that they're allowed on the road.

[Weedmage Princess]

Yeah I agree there, Wezas--about lowering the limit. I think .10 in most cases is fine. I'm on more about what happens once you are over the limit...the punishments. I also agree with locking them up too however the jails are overcrowded as it is..or so I hear...so that might not fly. But a punishment severe enough that will make people say "Damn." ...that's what I'd like to see.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't think the limit should be lowered, it's .08 here.... but the penalties need to mean something. Hell in the Marines you get a DUI/DWI you're not driving on base for a year, probably going to lose rank, lose pay, restriction and epd. I'd like to see that in the civilian world. You do something that can potentially kill so many people you should be fined out the ass for it. Cab rides aren't that costly and there is always someone to come get you.

I don't care how shit faced or piss drunk you get you can remember to hit a speed dial on the cell phone. When I go out to drink I go out to get hammered and I remember to call someone so I can't see it as being that tough.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm curious how we'd finance Drunk drivers in jail if we make stiffer penalties? Hell, we don't have room for the criminals now. I'd rather see massive fines, community service, required coursework and alcohol awareness classes.

Throwing folks in jail won't stop the issue, because we don't have the jails to do so, and judges will suspend the sentence. Hit them in the pocketbook, their free time and take away their license... that'll put a hurting on them.

Not being able to get a drivers license blows. First offense should be immediate suspension for at least year at most two (more than that and you are getting into really hurting a persons ability to survive in the workforce I think). Second offense should be forever. People can make a mistake that way, and learn from it. Repeat the mistake, and you are just stupid.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
Cab rides aren't that costly and there is always someone to come get you.


In a lot of places, if you call and tell them you're at a bar and in no condition to drive home, they'll bring you home for free. No price better than "no price."

[Wezas]

[i]Originally posted by Weedmage
In a lot of places, if you call and tell them you're at a bar and in no condition to drive home, they'll bring you home for free. No price better than "no price."

Happens alot on (drinking)holidays here. RideHome or something like that.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'm curious how we'd finance Drunk drivers in jail if we make stiffer penalties? Hell, we don't have room for the criminals now. I'd rather see massive fines, community service, required coursework and alcohol awareness classes.

Throwing folks in jail won't stop the issue, because we don't have the jails to do so, and judges will suspend the sentence. Hit them in the pocketbook, their free time and take away their license... that'll put a hurting on them.
The jails are over-crowded. I believe in cases where a loss of life occurs jail should definitely be a penatly. In the cases of drivers getting caught driving while drunk I agree with SHM's suggestions on penalities and increased fines above. Too many people drink and know consciously they are not in the mindset to drive, most know their limit but still get hehind the wheel.

[Wezas]

And to add to the above, anyone who is drinking and driving UNDERAGE (either underage drinking or both) should not be able to get a liscense (or theirs back) until they're 21.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Wezas
And to add to the above, anyone who is drinking and driving UNDERAGE (either underage drinking or both) should not be able to get a liscense (or theirs back) until they're 21.

Isn't this already the case in a lot of states?

[Blazing247]

<You sure can refuse a breathalizer. Which most people who have been drinking will do. You can ask for a blood test, in which case you have to drive down the nearest hospital, wait till someone is ready to deal with you, then get your blood taken, then actually tested. That takes a good amount of time, which sometimes can be the difference between passing and failing.>

Uh...no. You CANNOT refuse a roadside breathalyzer. If you do, it is mandatory loss of license for six months. There is no question about it, I am sorry you were misinformed (maybe it differs in Pennsyltucky?). You CAN refuse to take the official breathalyzer at the station until your laywer arrives, but once you refuse the roadside one you are done. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me. :D

[Latrinsorm]

The amount of penalty isn't the real problem. The problem is it's far too easy to obtain a driver's license. I know of maybe 3-5 kids in my high school class (of 200+) that I felt comfortable about when I thought of them driving. All 200+ were more than qualified to get a driver's license under this stupid system.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
A big sign on the roof of the car...

CONVICTED OF DUI

might help too.

No, tattooed on their forehead. Thereafter, any bartender or liquor store that serves them risks losing their license.

And jail time should be mandatory right off the bat. No, jail time might not deter someone from drinking and driving but if they get caught it will keep them off the road for the duration of their sentence.

Everyone realize you can also call in a suspected drunk driver? Call 911 if you spot an erratic driver. Highway patrol might just be in the area.

[Edaarin]

While we're at it, let's ban women and old people from driving as well. That would make it almost 100% safe.

Weedie, I guess that means you'd have a negative license.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

This always happens, a few bad seeds ruin things for us responsible drunk drivers.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Edaarin
While we're at it, let's ban women and old people from driving as well. That would make it almost 100% safe.


<riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>
Because asian people are the best drivers.
</riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>

[Kurili]

Edaarin, Edaarin-

I'm female. Not young. And licensed to drive an 18-wheeler.

Sort of gives you nightmares, huh?


Kurili

[Mint]

Originally posted by Wezas
[quote][/i]
<riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>
Because asian people are the best drivers.
</riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>

Ahem....

<----------- ASIAN AND FEMALE BUT HELLUVA DRIVER

What's that rule...something about not telling someone to die or something? Is that it Wezas? Cause well, I don't want to break any rules or anything.

[Kurili]

"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."

hehehehehe! That was a good one!

Kurili

[Delirium]

Where i live i think its mandotory six month suspension and i think the car your in has to get a lisence plate with a W i think as the first letter so the cops know who to look out for. I never was a big drinker as every alcoholic drink ive ever had tasted crappy to me so this was never a problem for me. I however dont think the answer is to make them lose their lisences for longer periods as it doesnt stop them from driving anyway,as Tijay i think pointed out. I think hitting them in the wallet with big ass fines is the way to go. Try to get tax money that way like they do with smokers for everything. If someone dies though i agree it should be a murder charge and none of that manslaughter crap.

I guess ive never been friends with someone who has lost someone to a drunk driver. I know several people who have gotten DUI's though and most of them were under the age of 21 so maybe doing something about underage drinking would help more. Make them take 100 hours of classes of the evils of drunk driving and then another 100 hours after that doing community service when caught. Although ive committed tons of crimes and never once before hand did i think about what kind of sentence i would be serving,just that i didnt want to be caught. Even now that im older when i break a law i dont think of the exact consequences ill be looking at,i doubt many people do or there would be less crime.

[Faent]

>>New Jersey just upped the penalties and lowered the "legal limit" from .10 to .08.

See, this is such bullshit. Some people drive PERFECTLY sanely at a BAC of .08.... others can't drive straight with a BAC of .03. It's absolute bullshit to convict someone who is driving sanely with a BAC of .08 of a DUI. This is why the laws aren't as strict as some of you are calling for. Where do you set the limit? Are you going to risk fucking sober people over? Or are you going to be so lenient that more folks get killed? And if you try to be reasonable, are you going to write the law so that the people who don't deserve the severe penalties get their lives fucked for the sake of the other people who might get their lives fucked by wasted drivers? Unfortunately, the situation is not nearly as simple as some of you seem to think it is.

-Scott

-Scott

[Mint]

Originally posted by Faent
Where do you set the limit? Are you going to risk fucking sober people over?

If they do not pass the sobriety test they are not legally sober. Period. So throw them in jail.

[Delirium]

Why would you get pulled over and suspected of a DUI if you were driving perfectly sanely with a BAC of .08? I suppose some of the ones that do drive sanely with that BAC get stopped at roadside checks but thats not how most people get DUI's.

One other thing, i drove for about a year and a half with no license and no car insurance and was never stopped once. As long as you dont drive like an idiot you really dont get stopped all that often,or at least i dont.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Delirium]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Wezas
<riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>
Because asian people are the best drivers.
</riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight>

Ahem....

<----------- ASIAN AND FEMALE BUT HELLUVA DRIVER

What's that rule...something about not telling someone to die or something? Is that it Wezas? Cause well, I don't want to break any rules or anything.

I was responding to one (or two) stereotypes with a different stereotype. I'm not saying any of them are correct.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Faent
Where do you set the limit? Are you going to risk fucking sober people over?

If they do not pass the sobriety test they are not legally sober. Period. So throw them in jail.

Hence him asking .. where do you set the limit. Currently it is set at .08 which to some is a lot and to other isn't really enough to have any real effects. Whose to say if they change all the rules this wont change either to .06, .05, .04, etc. where do you draw the line.

[Blazing247]

<Why would you get pulled over and suspected of a DUI if you were driving perfectly sanely with a BAC of .08? I suppose some of the ones that do drive sanely with that BAC get stopped at roadside checks but thats not how most people get DUI's.>

A half mile down the road from the club I work at, at a circle, cops do nightly DWI stops. They get a handful every night. Do I have a problem with this? Nope. Don't drink and drive, period. But Faent does have a point- alcohol tolerance varies from person to person.

A 175 pound man can consume 4 beers in an hour and blow .08%. I have two friends at that weight, at nearly the same height, and four beers in an hour will affect them very differently. One will be slurring his words, stumbling, and have diminished motor skills, while the other could walk a tightrope with his eyes closed. Under the law, they are both DWI's. Ah well, no system is perfect.

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Delirium
One other thing, i drove for about a year and a half with no license and no car insurance and was never stopped once. As long as you dont drive like an idiot you really dont get stopped all that often,or at least i dont.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Delirium]

They might not stop you... but they will run your plates. You're just lucky I guess, driving without insurance.

[Delirium]

Definately alcohol affects people differently. Im not arguing that at all. Im a pretty tall guy and im not reed thin but i can feel a buzz on two beers easily. While my friends who im much taller than cant get buzzed until six or so.

I guess i dont hang out at bars to know cops hang around them and randomly pull people over to check. I didnt think they could do that legally.

[Sean]

I don't know if its random persay but if they see you leaving a bar tipsy and driving I'd say its reasonable for them to target you. Then again they also sometimes set up check points in some places especially around holidays were they stop everyone.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Faent
Where do you set the limit? Are you going to risk fucking sober people over?

If they do not pass the sobriety test they are not legally sober. Period. So throw them in jail.

Hence him asking .. where do you set the limit. Currently it is set at .08 which to some is a lot and to other isn't really enough to have any real effects. Whose to say if they change all the rules this wont change either to .06, .05, .04, etc. where do you draw the line.

If it were up to me the line would be crossed if you drank one alcoholic beverage and drove a vehicle. Yes, one. I couldnt give a rats ass how big you are and how you can handle booze. If you drink enough to be legally over the limit WHATEVER the limit is set at you should go to jail. My opinion. If you don't like it there is a simple and effective solution: drink and take a cab, ride the bus, or walk.

Disclaimer: all uses of the word 'you' in my post are aimed at the general public, not any particular individual in this thread.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Who would pay for all the drunk drivers in jail Mint? I can't say I'm opposed to stiffer penalties and repercussions, but lets be realistic. Fill the jails with drunk drivers, let the mass murderers go free, or the rapists, or the pedophiles or the child abusers or the... well you probably get my point.

Jail ain't free, and thanks to all the rights activists, jail is actually pretty nice alternative for some folks. What'll it be... 60% taxes?

[Mint]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Who would pay for all the drunk drivers in jail Mint? I can't say I'm opposed to stiffer penalties and repercussions, but lets be realistic.
As others have pointed out, do you really think a drunk driver is deterred by repercussions? At least if they are in jail they are not able to drive drunk for the duration of their sentence.


Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Fill the jails with drunk drivers, let the mass murderers go free, or the rapists, or the pedophiles or the child abusers or the... well you probably get my point.
Uh, no I do not get your point. How did 'throw drunk drivers in jail' equate in your mind with 'let rapists and murderers and pedophiles go'?


Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Jail ain't free, and thanks to all the rights activists, jail is actually pretty nice alternative for some folks. What'll it be... 60% taxes?
Personally, I think we need to bring back the chain gang...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My point is fellons go free everyday because of overfilled prisons. So if we throw drunk drivers in, it has to be paid for somehow. Someone has to pay for it, so who?

[CrystalTears]

I'll gladly pay more if it meant to have more prisons to house more idiot law breakers. Unfortunately we need more than myself to do so. :D

[Parkbandit]

:wtf:

That's the problem with the Right. They have all these grandiose ideas and zero care on how it effects the common American.

Next thing you know.. we will want to try to abolish alcohol in this country again... because it worked out SO well the first try.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'll gladly pay more if it meant to have more prisons to house more idiot law breakers. Unfortunately we need more than myself to do so. :D

Anyone can pay more currently. Open up the checkbook and start writing checks. I'm certain the Jail system would appreciate it.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
My point is fellons go free everyday because of overfilled prisons. So if we throw drunk drivers in, it has to be paid for somehow. Someone has to pay for it, so who?

Still not sure what your point is. That drunk drivers are not 'really' criminals? So our poor overfilled prisons shouldn't have to deal with them?

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2000 America experienced the largest percentage increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. 17,380 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,945 total traffic fatalities.

In 2001, 17,400 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes.(New Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, NHTSA 2002)

In 2002, 17,419 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,815 people killed in all traffic crashes, according to NHTSA data

I think it's interesting that, according to the FBI the total number of murder victims in the US for 2002 was 14054 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Mint

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
My point is fellons go free everyday because of overfilled prisons. So if we throw drunk drivers in, it has to be paid for somehow. Someone has to pay for it, so who?

Still not sure what your point is. That drunk drivers are not 'really' criminals? So our poor overfilled prisons shouldn't have to deal with them?


The point he is making was that your "If you drink one drink and drive, you should be arrested" makes no sense in the real world. I can drive my car with zero degradation in my ability after 1 drink. Zero. And you would have me sent to jail for this? My ability isn't impaired... so what would be the charge? Driving while having one drink?

If your hairbrained idea were to become some law... you would need to build about 10,000 new jails, hire about 1,000,000 new guards/employees and it would have to be fully financed through our tax system.

I'm not willing to pay the Government to put away these hardened "One drink" felons away.

Personally, I think you should revoke the licenses of women and Asians. THAT would make the highways safer. We all KNOW they can't drive. :smug:

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Parkbandit]

[Weedmage Princess]

You're assuming though everyone who gets caught drinking and driving, then loses their license will CONTINUE to drink and drive. I don't believe that will be the case. Will there be some? Sure. But every single one of them? Highly unlikely. Everyone makes mistakes, the truly stupid keep repeating them.

If someone (and there will be some) continue to drink and drive after already losing their licenses...that's when they get either A) Jail time or B) hefty, hefty fines. Not just a $500 or $1000 slap on the wrist, I mean weekly/monthly whatever payments for a period of X amount of years. Which the government can garnish (sp?) from your paycheck if you fail to pay. Kind of like child support.

About the whole "women" garbage... :fu:

Say what you will, but it's young men who pay the higher insurance rates. Believe me, if women were truly the offenders, the cut throat insurance companies wouldn't think twice about making their rates higher. Studies and research don't lie. Chew on that for a while, you anti-women fuckers. :smug:

[Mint]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

The point he is making was that your "If you drink one drink and drive, you should be arrested" makes no sense in the real world. I can drive my car with zero degradation in my ability after 1 drink. Zero. And you would have me sent to jail for this? My ability isn't impaired... so what would be the charge? Driving while having one drink?

If your hairbrained idea were to become some law... you would need to build about 10,000 new jails, hire about 1,000,000 new guards/employees and it would have to be fully financed through our tax system.

I'm not willing to pay the Government to put away these hardened "One drink" felons away.

Just a little refresher about what I actually said...


Originally posted by Mint
[quote]
If it were up to me the line would be crossed if you drank one alcoholic beverage and drove a vehicle.

If you drink enough to be legally over the limit WHATEVER the limit is set at you should go to jail. My opinion. If you don't like it there is a simple and effective solution: drink and take a cab, ride the bus, or walk.

Seriously, do you really think I am going to be a lawmaker anytime soon?

Something I found interesting: CDL holders in the state of Washington, on their own time, in their own vehicles cannot blow more than a .04 or they are over the limit. At least that was the law a few years ago and I think still is.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Mint
Just a little refresher about what I actually said...


Seriously, do you really think I am going to be a lawmaker anytime soon?



I never said you were going to be a lawmaker.. heaven help us all. You brought forth an idea.. it was shot it full of holes. Your defense on your position of "I'm not a lawmaker" is laughable.

[CrystalTears]

Sorry guy, if you have one beer and you get stopped by the cops because of your driving, then you're not zero impaired.

If you're not wreckless, then you don't have anything to worry about, right?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
About the whole "women" garbage... :fu:

Say what you will, but it's young men who pay the higher insurance rates. Believe me, if women were truly the offenders, the cut throat insurance companies wouldn't think twice about making their rates higher. Studies and research don't lie. Chew on that for a while, you anti-women fuckers. :smug:

And I am NOT AN ANTI-WOMAN FUCKER!! That, I believe, would make me homosexual. :)

And I could have said OLD Ladies.. :P

[DeV]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
About the whole "women" garbage... :fu:

Say what you will, but it's young men who pay the higher insurance rates. Believe me, if women were truly the offenders, the cut throat insurance companies wouldn't think twice about making their rates higher. Studies and research don't lie. Chew on that for a while, you anti-women fuckers. :smug: :clap:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Sorry guy, if you have one beer and you get stopped by the cops because of your driving, then you're not zero impaired.

If you're not wreckless, then you don't have anything to worry about, right?

At a svelte 200 pounds, I can perform the exact same driving skill with one beer in my system than I can with 0 beers in my system.

Zero degradation in my skill. Zero.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
[quote]
I never said you were going to be a lawmaker.. heaven help us all. You brought forth an idea.. it was shot it full of holes. Your defense on your position of "I'm not a lawmaker" is laughable.

In your itsy bitsy, teeny tiny mind maybe :lol:

[CrystalTears]

That's what I'm saying though. If one beer doesn't impair your driving in the least, what do you care what laws are set in place? You're safe, no? It's once you get stopped and have to test, and if you had to get stopped, then something was wrong. That was my point.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Park summed up my point, that someone has to pay for the incarcerated, and I'd rather not pay 60% taxes for it. I'm more a proponent (as I stated earlier) of a first offense being massive fines, community service and educational courses (paid for by the offender), second time offenses could be jail time (jails paid for by first offenders massive fines).

You've got to think of the financials of a jail system, otherwise law abiding citizens like we all are, will pay for it heavily.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
That's what I'm saying though. If one beer doesn't impair your driving in the least, what do you care what laws are set in place? You're safe, no? It's once you get stopped and have to test, and if you had to get stopped, then something was wrong. That was my point.

People get stopped all the time for different reasons than driving irradically. There is speeding, rear light out, expired tags, etc...

[Trinitis]

Damn you rear lights! ::waves fist::

[CrystalTears]

I wouldn't jail first time offenders though. Maybe not even second time offenders. The minute they cause any type of bodily harm to anyone because of it, then I think that they need to slam their ass behind bars.

And Park, I suggest you utilize a car without problems if you plan on drinking and driving. :P

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
People get stopped all the time for different reasons than driving irradically. There is speeding, rear light out, expired tags, etc...

People who do have something to drink then get behind a wheel having expired tags, driving with a rear light out, or any other condition that would make a cop pull them over ANYWAY deserve whatever they get. To quote the Great Bobmuhthol "Boo fucking Hoo, why don't you cry about it?" <flees>

OH and Parkbandit...you're over 28 if I remember correctly that makes you, just like Grandpa Sintik, older than me! :P

[CrystalTears]

By the way, ever since I saw the story about the Spanish girl who has been disfigured because of the accident she got into with a drunk driver and was swallowed by flames and lived, I've just been dead against drinking and driving. I'm a bit traumatized now.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You've got to think of the financials of a jail system, otherwise law abiding citizens like we all are, will pay for it heavily. And were paying for it now already. I have to agree that major fines should help deter the problem. If the law's are not already helping to deter then obviously there is a flaw in the system. Stiffer fines and penalities might be the best case scenerio. The jails are severly over-crowded as it is and tax paying citizens would have to pick up more of the slack just to house these people. Alternative solutions are needed, not JUST jail, but getting hit in the pocketbook as well.

[Artha]

Drinking and driving = :down:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
By the way, ever since I saw the story about the Spanish girl who has been disfigured because of the accident she got into with a drunk driver and was swallowed by flames and lived, I've just been dead against drinking and driving. I'm a bit traumatized now.

I've never claimed to be FOR drinking and driving. I'm 100% against anyone getting behind the wheel with their ability impaired. If I've had 3 or 4 beers.. it's a call to the Wife and she comes and gets me. I think I've made that call 4 times in the past 12 years (including one late night pickup at the local nude bar.. but that's another topic :) My wife rules.)

I don't drive while my ability is impaired and those that do should have the book thrown at them for being stupid.

I AM against the far fetched idea that anyone that gets behind the wheel after one drink should be arrested and thrown in jail.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess

Originally posted by Parkbandit
People get stopped all the time for different reasons than driving irradically. There is speeding, rear light out, expired tags, etc...

OH and Parkbandit...you're over 28 if I remember correctly that makes you, just like Grandpa Sintik, older than me! :P

Shit. Me being older than Grandma makes me sad.. and feel old. :(

[Weedmage Princess]

:drunk:

Anyway...I don't want to speak for anyone else..but I wasn't saying the BAC limit needed to be changed, I just said the penalty for those not obeying the laws need to be stiffened. The way it is now is ridiculous.

Kurili eluded to this earlier, and I'm going to say it again. Driving is not a "right" folks. It's a priveledge, and with that priveledge comes responsibility. The Department/Registry of Motor Vehicles and Law Enforcement set the "rules of the road" and if we're going to drive, we need to obey them. That's pretty much the bottom line.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Parkbandit I don't drive while my ability is impaired and those that do should have the book thrown at them for being stupid.

Originally posted by Mint If they do not pass the sobriety test they are not legally sober. Period. So throw them in jail.

You repeated my exact stance. Glad we are in agreement.


Originally posted by Parkbandit I AM against the far fetched idea that anyone that gets behind the wheel after one drink should be arrested and thrown in jail.

Maybe far fetched but I am as entitled to an occasional rant as anyone.

[Skirmisher]

Ah well Mint, men are just so used to women being perfect, the idea that one could make an error is kind of world shattering to them.

Give them a break.

[Artha]

men are just so used to women being perfect, the idea that one could make an error is kind of world shattering to them.

Sure. :smug:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
But Faent does have a point- alcohol tolerance varies from person to person.I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice Faent's enjoyment if it saves peoples' lives.

[AnticorRifling]

Anyone that causes harm to someone else in any degree via drunk driving should be forced to roll around in barbed wire with Magic Johnson.

Instead of having to pay millions of taxdollars to rehabilitate DUI fellons, wouldn't it make more sense to stop the initial problem from beginning to prevent this measure? Authorities should just rename "vehicular manslaughter" to mansalughter period, they both have the same end result.
Simply put, most of the general populous will most likely believe that they are much less likely to commit murder, for whatever reasons, in a brawl as opposed to taking life while behind the wheel. With this being said, I think people should have the same sort of emotional distancing towards drunk driving that they do towards most other murder situation. I'm definately not saying to turn a blind eye to the issue, but am definately implying that there needs to be a system implemented which will nip drunk driving in the bud, whether it be any sick glorification derived from it, or even a simple sense of permissabileness.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
Anyone that causes harm to someone else in any degree via drunk driving should be forced to roll around in barbed wire with Magic Johnson.

That's just... wrong. :(

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Why don't they get you drunk when you go to renew your license, and perform tests to personally see what BAC level you can still safely operate a vehicle at. They can even print it on your licence for when a police officer stops you.

[CrystalTears]

Maybe because then people would go and get their license "renewed" every month for a free toast. :D

[Weedmage Princess]

Why waste all money and other resources it would take to do that when you can just say "Hey, if you want to drink, make sure you don't drive?" Friggin...I pay enough in taxes, I don't feel like shelling out any more of my money because some people are so contrary they can't find a designated driver or shell out a couple of bucks for a cab ride. (in some cases they don't even have to pay for the cab ride.) The law is the law, and it's fine as it is.

[Xinister]

If you get pulled over for drunk driving, you should get dragged into the streets and shot. Then, the cops can loot your body. Similar to killing a kobold in GS. :saint:

This alleviates any future issues: over-populated jail, future offenses, and receive money from dead victim. ;)

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Sorry guy, if you have one beer and you get stopped by the cops because of your driving, then you're not zero impaired.

If you're not reckless, then you don't have anything to worry about, right? No shit.

Way I think, why do they lock up sex offenders. SO THEY DON'T RAPE LITTLE KIDS.

That's why they ought to lock up drunk drivers. SO THEY DON'T KILL LITTLE KIDS.

The first bunch got no self control, the second bunch got no self control. Fuck 'em all.

[AnticorRifling]

Fuck the little kids I'm worried about me.

[Weedmage Princess]

And the 2004 Child Sensitivity Award goes to....ANTICOR <applause>

[Faent]

>>If they do not pass the sobriety test they are not legally sober. Period. So throw them in jail.

You're a brilliant kid, aren't you? Suppose the law said that you weren't legally sober if your BAC was .01 (one drink). How many people would you want to throw in jail? Do you worship the law?

-Scott

[Faent]

>>If it were up to me the line would be crossed if you drank one alcoholic beverage and drove a vehicle.

Oh, so you're a Nazi. I understand where you're coming from now. Idiotland.

-Scott

[Faent]

>>I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice Faent's enjoyment if it saves peoples' lives.

This is what you sound like: "Wait, let's just get rid of cars! That'd save even more lives. And since I'm an idiot who is willing to do anything if it will save people's lives.... "

>>Sorry guy, if you have one beer and you get stopped by the cops because of your driving, then you're not zero impaired. -CT

Whatever. Please return to the real world where some people like to use their brains. You don't think any sober folks ever get stopped for their driving?

>>If you're not reckless, then you don't have anything to worry about, right?
>>No shit.

Right. They shouldn't worry about getting pulled over for a taillight being out, the cop smelling alcholol from one drink on their breath, and then being thrown in jail thanks to some fucking fool like Mint's cockamamie nonsense.

I can't believe some of you people.

-Scott

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Faent
>>If it were up to me the line would be crossed if you drank one alcoholic beverage and drove a vehicle.

Oh, so you're a Nazi. I understand where you're coming from now. Idiotland.

-Scott

Way to be constructive!

:loser:

I've heard somewhere that if an officer determines if you are drunk in public, they can throw you in a holding cell for 24 hours without administering a breathalizer test. So why not have the law excercise their authority for a good cause and arrest those who are not only drunk and driving, but frail enough to get trashed off one beer... (in all seriousness, without drug syngerism, is that actually possible?)

edited for my own personal satisfaction

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Stanley Burrell]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I'm guilty of driving drunk. I've also been in a car with a drunk friend driving. Out of all the times we've done this, we've been pulled over twice.

Once, I was alone. I had a bottle of wine at a friend's house. The cop pulled me over because he's seen my car parked around the area a lot (IL plates in Missouri), and he just wanted to see who it belonged to. No reckless driving, no ticket, no nothing. There's one example of a drunk driver being pulled over for something other than being reckless.

The second, my friend was driving and a third guy was in the back. We stopped at White Castle after a bar, made a U-turn out of the parking lot (there's no other option to get out of there, it's a stupid set up), and we were pulled over. We were all drunk, it was around 2 in the morning. The guy driving has even had two DUIs already. Once again, they did nothing. Just asked a few questions and let us go.

A lot of people drive idiotically when they're drunk. I think police officers can easily tell when someone is too intoxicated to drive as soon as they have a few words with the person. That's when action should be taken. This whole, "One drink, and you should be locked up for life if you drive" is pretty ridiculous.

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by ThisOtherKingdom]

[Mint]

Originally posted by Faent Oh, so you're a Nazi. I understand where you're coming from now. Idiotland.


Originally posted by Faent Right. They shouldn't worry about getting pulled over for a taillight being out, the cop smelling alcholol from one drink on their breath, and then being thrown in jail thanks to some fucking fool like Mint's cockamamie nonsense.

You must have a truly pathetic life if you get so worked up over some stranger’s opinions on a message board. Pathetic but entertaining to watch :popcorn: How sad for you that you cannot disagree without flinging names around though. Keep an eye out on that blood pressure. Oh and sticks and stones and all that crap.

I can't believe some of you people.
Right back atcha.

And once more....I was simply ranting. I see drunks on the road ALL the time. Gets real old.

[Weedmage Princess]

Wow. That's all I can say...wow.

[Blazing247]

It's interesting to note how easily some of you are willing to give up your rights, which our ancestors fought so hard to hand down to us. I'm not saying it's a right to drive. Furthermore, it's definitely not a right to drive drunk. However, I would like to believe that in this country we are guilty until proven innocent. This isn't Minority Report, and we don't have pre-crime.

While you may dislike the notion that I have a beer and drive, you will not ever put me in jail for such a thing so long as I am living and breathing. Surely it would prevent a lot of crime if they arrested people for dressing up in all black and lurking around rich neighborhoods, but hey...they aren't a criminal until they've broken into a house. Let us commit the crime before we face the punishment, eh Mint?

[Mint]

Originally posted by Blazing247
It's interesting to note how easily some of you are willing to give up your rights, which our ancestors fought so hard to hand down to us. I'm not saying it's a right to drive. Furthermore, it's definitely not a right to drive drunk. However, I would like to believe that in this country we are guilty until proven innocent. This isn't Minority Report, and we don't have pre-crime.

While you may dislike the notion that I have a beer and drive, you will not ever put me in jail for such a thing so long as I am living and breathing. Surely it would prevent a lot of crime if they arrested people for dressing up in all black and lurking around rich neighborhoods, but hey...they aren't a criminal until they've broken into a house. Let us commit the crime before we face the punishment, eh Mint?

Not a word in your post I disagree with. Yeah, I'm disappointed too...

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Faent
This is what you sound like: "Wait, let's just get rid of cars! That'd save even more lives. And since I'm an idiot who is willing to do anything if it will save people's lives.... "I do want to get rid of cars (among many, many other things). But I've never said I was an idiot (recently).
Originally posted by Blazing247
It's interesting to note how easily some of you are willing to give up your rights, which our ancestors fought so hard to hand down to us. Funny, I doubt those framing fellows would support an activity that went against the right of Life. They seemed to be pretty high on the whole Life bit.

As for your pre-crime bit, I suppose you've never heard of reckless endangerment? Watch some Law and Order, geez. A car's a hell of a lot more lethal than a .22, and I can't go around firing off a .22 while blindfolded just because I get a buzz from it.

[Blazing247]

Latrine, your ability to take snippets in a post wholly out of context and use them for your own device never ceases to amaze. Do you mull over your babble before you hit "post", or do you merely enjoy seeing your name on top of a post regardless of the nonsense contained therein?

<I do want to get rid of cars (among many, many other things).>

But then...what would I run your ass over with should I ever have the misfortune of meeting you in person?

[CrystalTears]

Mint, ignore him. He does this crap on the official boards and ridicules anyone who doesn't agree with him. He's not popular there either.

And yes, smartass, I live in the real world. And in the real world, if some jackass can't handle one stupid beer and is driving like an imbecile enough to cause a cop to take notice and stop them, I want him off the road. I don't think it should be immediate jail time, but I do think he needs a swift kick in the ass.

[Ravenstorm]

Note: this is directed to the generic 'you' so if anyone feels it's talking about them specifically, check your guilty conscience at the door. Thank you.

"I can drive just fine after a beer." (Substitute two, three, or a thousand depending on your capacity for self delusion.)

NO YOU CAN'T. Really. You might not be drunk. You might not be driving idiotically. You might be obeying every single law of the road. But you can NOT drive just as well with alcohol in your system as you can without it.

Alcohol will slow your reaction time. Even one drink will have some effect. Often, drinking occurs in the evening and at night when you are not at your freshest or most awake. Alcohol on top of being tired is a double whammy. You will not be quite as alert. You will not react quite as quickly. Should you be arrested? No. But if you have had anything to drink and get in an accident, whether you caused it or not, you are most likely partially to blame. Would you have been able to avoid that accident if you didn't have a drink? No one will ever know. But shit happens. It's your responsibility to try to minimize the effects of it: especially when you're in control of a weapon that weighs a ton or more.

/sermon

Rav

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Faent
You're a brilliant kid, aren't you? Suppose the law said that you weren't legally sober if your BAC was .01 (one drink). How many people would you want to throw in jail? Do you worship the law?

-Scott

Every time I just about decide you might have some semblance of an active brain cell or two, you go and prove me wrong with some off-the-wall analogy like the above.

DOES the law say that you are legally drunk if your BAC is .01? No, it does not. Do I believe our legislators would inact a law that said such a thing? No, I do not.

To put it succinctly, that was incredibly stupid, Scott. :rolleyes:

HarmNone, trying to decide whether to :lol: or :barf:

[Sean]

The act of driving is a skill. The act of driving legally is a priviledge. If I'm lame enough to drive while intoxicated I really don't see the need to follow the rest of the laws that say I need things like a license or insurance to do so, and yes I think its fair if people are going to make the "I don't think people..." arguement for me to do so as well. Changing laws, in my opinion, will just effect the few who will claim "I made a mistake" but still leave the habitual, and probably more dangerous, drunk drivers on the road. I'm going to hop on the SHM and PB bandwagon here and take the stance that drunk drivers should take responsibilty for paying for themselves. Uping fines is very acceptable to me and would, I feel, be beneficial to the system. Jail time and more severe suspensions for licenses and such are in my opinion more taxing on the system than beneficial. But hey I could be wrong, they are afterall just my opinions.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Tijay]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Tijay
If I'm lame enough to drink while intoxicated...

Consider me lame, I can't of one time where I wasn't drinking while intoxicated.

[Sean]

Cute. I'll fix it.

[HarmNone]

Heh. We knew what you meant to say, Tijay. Anyhow, prudent thought would have one stop drinking when intoxicated. ;)

HarmNone, who does not always follow prudent thought....

[Kurili]

And again, for those who get out of jail and immediately get some fool to provide them with a legal car, even though they can not legally drive, something tougher needs to be done. Perhaps one of those leg things that wont let them out of the house unless it's to an approved place, and not driving. That might be cheaper than incarcerating these drunken accidents looking for a place to happen.

Kurili

[Back]

Originally posted by Tijay
Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

One of the all-time best movies ever made.

"its a male mtyh about feminists that we do not like sex." - Maude

[Sean]

Apparently it's not the drunk drivers we need to hunt down. It's the illegal hair braiders.

PS. I agree backlash, one of the best movies ever.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Tijay]

[AnticorRifling]

There is a difference when talking about drinking and driving, and drinking, being stupid and driving. I've had a bowl of loud mouth soup and then driven home, more times than I can count. I have not, however, gotten shit faced and then driven home. People need to know the difference.

[Back]

Breathalizers are available on the internet. I have one. It may not be accurate to the gram, but it sure as hell is a good indicator.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Faent
I can't believe some of you people.And I can't believe you. What kind of dumbass do you have to be to come up with "if the law says you're drunk with .01 BAC what then?" Fucking A, guy, that's like saying "what if the law says possession of rubber bands is punishable by death by torture?" If you're that messed in the head you have to come up with things like that, who needs you?


It's interesting to note how easily some of you are willing to give up your rights, which our ancestors fought so hard to hand down to us. I'm not saying it's a right to drive. Furthermore, it's definitely not a right to drive drunk. However, I would like to believe that in this country we are guilty until proven innocent. This isn't Minority Report, and we don't have pre-crime.
Yeah, no shit, now why doncha run off and get shitfaced again.

Your rights stop where our kids' lives start. I don't want my Dori on the same road as you if you don't give a shit how much you drink when you drive.

:grr:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tijay
Apparently it's not the drunk drivers we need to hunt down. It's the illegal hair braiders.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Tijay]

I thought I was going to fall out of my chair when the blonde woman kept hacking...

I've got to wonder though, do those people they interview know they are getting made fun of like that?

[Wezas]

If the limit was lowered to 0.01, I wonder how many Listerine lawsuits there would be....

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by Wezas
If the limit was lowered to 0.01, I wonder how many Listerine lawsuits there would be....

Heh, I'm not sure what the limit is, but at my job our drug/alcohol testing is THAT strict. And random. So if you work a 3rd shift, go into the bathroom to brush your teeth and use mouthwash in the morning then get pulled for a random, you WILL fail it and get pulled out of service.

[Blazing247]

<Yeah, no shit, now why doncha run off and get shitfaced again.

Your rights stop where our kids' lives start. I don't want my Dori on the same road as you if you don't give a shit how much you drink when you drive.>

Oh, I'm sorry...please quote the part where I said you should be able to get shitfaced and drive. Right...you fucking moron...cause I didn't say that. Welcome to 1st grade reading comprehension. My post was in response to the "1 beer and jail" idea. Please try again.

[Faent]

>>Every time I just about decide you might have some semblance of an active brain cell or two, you go and prove me wrong with some off-the-wall analogy like the above. -Harmnone

Apparently you didn't grasp the point.

>>DOES the law say that you are legally drunk if your BAC is .01? No, it does not. Do I believe our legislators would inact a law that said such a thing? No, I do not.

I'm thrilled that you place such faith in politicians. And the point was not that lawmakers might set the limit at .01 or .000001. Why don't you try using your brain cells a bit? The point was that maybe, just maybe, whatever the legislators do set the limit at is going to necessarily be somewhat arbitrary and screw *some* folks over. And if that's the case, applying exceedingly strict penalties to *anyone* who breaks the law will likewise screw some folks over.

Now I'm well aware that some of you, since you don't think you'll be affected by such laws, are quite willing to sacrifice other people's freedoms in this regard. Ah well, what goes around comes around. When you get fucked by the legal system, blame yourself.

-Scott

[CrystalTears]

Screw who over? The people who are.. um.. drinking and driving? If they tell you NOT to drink and drive, I don't see why some should get off scott free and others be taken away when it shouldn't be done AT ALL. I really don't see who's getting screwed over here except those who don't want to follow the law.

[HarmNone]

My brain cells are working just fine, Faent. When I have something to say, I say it. I don't come up with some extreme, and ignorant, analogy to prove a point that cannot be proven to be anything other than stupid. Of course, my brain cells are not pickled.:moon:

As CT said, nobody who is drinking and driving is being screwed over. They are the ones doing the screwing over.

HarmNone

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Screw who over? The people who are.. um.. drinking and driving? If they tell you NOT to drink and drive, I don't see why some should get off scott free and others be taken away when it shouldn't be done AT ALL. I really don't see who's getting screwed over here except those who don't want to follow the law.

:clap:

By this logic, then, if I sneak up behind you in an alley, put a gun to your head and mug you...I shouldn't be penalized for it as long as I don't pull the trigger...even though theft is against the law, I'm gonna bitch and cry about it cause hey I didn't hurt you!!!

The law is the law. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Otherwise, :stfu:

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I think they're still just sticking by the "some people can drive drunk better than others." Which is true, but that doesn't mean we should change the law, or have a different BAC level for every individual. The fact is, as someone pointed out, no matter how well you can hold your booze, your reaction times are still slowed.

I used to drive drunk a LOT, and I know how stupid it was. I was living out of state, and the only friends I had were the ones I was getting drunk with, so there really was no one I could call. I always set my cruise control to the speed limit, sat up straight, had the radio off. I like to think I was pretty safe, but it was only luck. None of that really matters, it's still a risk that shouldn't be taken.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Blazing247 Welcome to 1st grade reading comprehension. My post was in response to the "1 beer and jail" idea. Please try again.

You are a fine one to lecture ANYone about reading comprehension...

Oh and nice way to totally slam Latrin's post earlier while completely ignoring his very valid points.




[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Mint]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This "debate" still going on...

its going to drive me to drinking.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
By this logic, then, if I sneak up behind you in an alley, put a gun to your head and mug you...I shouldn't be penalized for it as long as I don't pull the trigger...even though theft is against the law, I'm gonna bitch and cry about it cause hey I didn't hurt you!!!

The law is the law. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime. Otherwise, :stfu:

This is going to turn into semantics but generally thats what happens when people start using comparisons. You did hurt me by mugging me. Maybe not physically but I'm defintily not in the same position I was in pre mugging.

In other words. It's not the same.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Tijay]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Screw who over? The people who are.. um.. drinking and driving? If they tell you NOT to drink and drive, I don't see why some should get off scott free and others be taken away when it shouldn't be done AT ALL. I really don't see who's getting screwed over here except those who don't want to follow the law.

Careful Crystal or else he'll might put you on his website to make fun of you. :lol:

[DeV]

The law allows a person to drink and drive legally by setting allowable limits. If there were no limits then zero tolerance would be in effect. Since this is not the case....

At this point in the debate Im not sure if those against drinking and driving are against it as a whole, meaning zero tolerance. Or, only those who drive while legally/obviously drunk. Everyone being lumped together or just the lawbreakers?

[Hulkein]

I had a dream I was driving drunk last night, swerved onto grass while making a left turn and a cop saw me and I got pulled over. I woke up as he was getting out of his car.

My only thought in the dream - 'my mom is going to kill me', hahaha.

True story.

[Skirmisher]

My take is....to make the first time caught extremely painful...financially and otherwise.

I would make a huge fine. I mean really big to the point that people will actually be afraid to get caught and also suspend the license.

Second time...they lose the license for a looong time and another fine.

And if anyone was hurt either time they automatically lose their license along with jail time.

I've been in an accident with someone who had been drinking personally, had someone end up ten feet from my front window on my lawn who was only stopped because of some very old large bushes and had someone wrap their car around a tree in front of my house, ALL because of people drinking and driving.

You want to drink...hell I dont care...drink till you pass out.

You want to drive....go silly...rent time at a track and smoke all your buddies in the quarter mile.

My patience for people who insist on being able to do both at the same time is no longer existent.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Latrine, your ability to take snippets in a post wholly out of context and use them for your own device never ceases to amaze.It never ceases to amaze me how whenever I feel I've made a particularly strong point, I'm told I took something out of context. :(
Do you mull over your babble before you hit "post",Not a big muller, no.
or do you merely enjoy seeing your name on top of a post regardless of the nonsense contained therein?You're going to laugh, but there have been (too many) times where I read a post, think the guy's a jackass, look at the poster name, and see "Latrinsorm". Then I get the giggles. Then I read one of SHM's AWFUL PUNS and that sobers me up a little. Then I <3 Mint.

(just for you, Blazing, I looked over this post and took out 5 racial slurs, 3 pointless analogies, and 7 meandering anectdotes. Kisses!)

[Blazing247]

<You are a fine one to lecture ANYone about reading comprehension...>

Shouldn't the ... be the part where you explain why? What post have I failed to comprehend? Or did you just feel like saying that for the hell of it?

Latrine- ironically, you and I agree on this topic. You took a post I made in response to Mother Theresa and applied a response that didn't make any sense.

I never once stated drinking and driving is okay. I never once stated that it isn't dangerous. I said...and I'll be really clear this time...you cannot go around arresting people for having a beer and driving. I agree drinking and driving IMPAIRED is a horrible thing, very dangerous, and the people should be punished severely. I don't want those people driving on the streets with my friends and family out there, either.

However, the answer isn't to arrest those who have done no wrong. If I can have two beers and drive unimpaired, I don't want people like Mother Theresa over here to throw the book at me. That goes against everything this country stands for.

Do you see now how your response to my post makes no sense?

[Weedmage Princess]

Touche Tijay...however:

A drunk driver on the road (when I say drunk, I mean they're swerving all over the place, braking erratically, etc etc.) could also harm me mentally as well. Come to think of it, had I saw a drunk driver on the road driving recklessly last year when I was still out of sorts from my accident, it would have more than likely triggered a panic attack. So I can make that same argument.

And DEV, while I certainly wouldn't object to a zero tolerance policy, I also don't mind if there isn't one. My whole beef is people who are "DRUNK" as in can't walk a straight line, can't see straight, all that jazz..and get behind the wheel, not people who have a beer or a sip of wine and are perfectly fine.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Careful Crystal or else he'll might put you on his website to make fun of you. :lol:

It has a website? Oh, that must be one fascinating place to visit. Not. :rolleyes:

HarmNone, who remembers she must floss her cat

[Sean]

Your talking about comparing the ACT of mugging with the POTENTIAL to do harm. A more on target comparison, in my mind anyway, is that if I'm walking around with a knife theres a potential I might do something to harm you mentally or physically. Just like if I'm driving drunk I could potentially harm you mentally or physically. If I'm mugged it's no longer a potential situation. Thats why I think it's really not a good comparison.

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Tijay]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<One of the all-time best movies ever made.

"its a male mtyh about feminists that we do not like sex." - Maude>>

It don't matter to Jesus!

[Sean]

I knew bob was a "pederass"

[Blazing247]

It's not Jesus...it's THE Jesus. I thought I was the only person who liked this movie...when I call someone a pederass I get really odd looks.

"I was gonna fuck you in the ass Saturday! I fuck you in the ass on Wednesday instead!

[Bobmuhthol]

Dear Blazing247,

QUINTANA
What is this bullshit, man? I don't
fucking care! It don't matter to
Jesus! But you're not fooling me!
You might fool the fucks in the league
office, but you don't fool Jesus!
It's bush league psych-out stuff!
Laughable, man! I would've fucked
you in the ass Saturday, I'll fuck
you in the ass next Wednesday instead!

[Sean]

I'm fairly sure thats misquoted and it's The Jesus also. When I'm done burning this dvd I'll put it in and check.

[Blazing247]

I've watched that movie more times than any other movie I own. Other than making me a loser, this also makes me certain that it's "The Jesus". Of course, his accent makes it difficult to ascertain the "the".

[Kurili]

How do you manage to hold your cat for flossing, HarmNone?


Kurili

[HarmNone]

Very, very carefully, Kurili. Also, depending on how boring is that which drove me to cat-flossing in the first place, it can take days! ;)

HarmNone starts with the biggest cat first because it has the fewest teeth...

[Kurili]

Cat-herding is another challenging activity for slow days. Lots of excersize too!

Did you know cats can snicker?


Kurili :yes:

[Mint]

Originally posted by Blazing247
<You are a fine one to lecture ANYone about reading comprehension...>
Shouldn't the ... be the part where you explain why? What post have I failed to comprehend? Or did you just feel like saying that for the hell of it?

Latrine- ironically, you and I agree on this topic. You took a post I made in response to Mother Theresa and applied a response that didn't make any sense.

This would be a prime example of your failure to comprehend what you read. You should go back and read Latrinsorm's posts in this thread. Another instance of your lack of reading comprehension, and one that I was actually referring to by that post, would be the fact that I have twice stated that my comment was simply a rant. To read your posts regarding it would lead one to believe I am running for congress on a zero tolerance policy.


I never once stated drinking and driving is okay. I never once stated that it isn't dangerous. I said...and I'll be really clear this time...you cannot go around arresting people for having a beer and driving.
And I'll be really clear as well...I dislike the idea that anyone drinks even one alcoholic beverage and then gets behind the wheel of a car. It frightens me that there are people that cannot distinguish when they are impaired regardless of how many drinks they have imbibed. That's all, it frightens me.

If I can have two beers and drive unimpaired, I don't want people like Mother Theresa over here to throw the book at me. That goes against everything this country stands for.

Let's not to completely disregard the fact that there ARE people that can become impaired on one or two drinks. And as someone more eloquently stated earlier, you are not completely unaffected by just one drink.


Do you see now how your response to my post makes no sense?

I see that you seem to think, ignorantly I might add, that calling me Mother Theresa is an insult. All I can say is...thank you. You really should read up on her life and works. It is inspiring.

[Blazing247]

<This would be a prime example of your failure to comprehend what you read. You should go back and read Latrinsorm's posts in this thread. Another instance of your lack of reading comprehension, and one that I was actually referring to by that post, would be the fact that I have twice stated that my comment was simply a rant. To read your posts regarding it would lead one to believe I am running for congress on a zero tolerance policy. >

You make a post stating "anyone who has one drink and drives should be arrested and thrown in jail" (paraphrased). I responded to that post. You were pretty serious. That is not lack of comprehension on my side.

<Let's not to completely disregard the fact that there ARE people that can become impaired on one or two drinks. And as someone more eloquently stated earlier, you are not completely unaffected by just one drink. >

Are you shitting me? You know what...turning on the radio IMPAIRS your ability to drive. Putting on makeup, talking on the cell phone, hell SMOKING A CIGARETTE impairs your ability to drive, yet these are all fully legal (cell phone is on the way out tho). I've had a lipper (a pinch of Rooster if you don't know), and been twice as buzzed as I have off of five beers.

With that said, go play in nuclear waste...I tire of talking to you lonely lady.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Blazing247
<This would be a prime example of your failure to comprehend what you read. You should go back and read Latrinsorm's posts in this thread. Another instance of your lack of reading comprehension, and one that I was actually referring to by that post, would be the fact that I have twice stated that my comment was simply a rant. To read your posts regarding it would lead one to believe I am running for congress on a zero tolerance policy. >

You make a post stating "anyone who has one drink and drives should be arrested and thrown in jail" (paraphrased). I responded to that post. You were pretty serious. That is not lack of comprehension on my side.

Once again a perfect example of your lack of reading comprehension, or rather perhaps it is just selective reading on your part. You stop when it suits you.


With that said, go play in nuclear waste...I tire of talking to you lonely lady.

I find this amusing coming from someone with so much hostility and bitterness pent up inside. You must make those you come across so very happy :rolleyes:

[TheEschaton]

I think people who fucking drink are idiots anyways. My friends, EVEN when I'm completely sober, don't want me to ever drive, even if they're so far in their cups they can't see a foot in front of them. Since they're all bigger than me, I have to make a point of getting the keys at the beginning of the night and not giving them up for anything.

I hate alcohol, and I hate the whole bar scene. But I go anyways to make sure my fucking idiot friends (who still drive drunk if I'm not there despite knowing a girl friend of mine died when she was hit by a drunk driver) don't kill anyone. At the end of the night, I almost don't care if they hurt themselves - but I don't want them hurting anyone else. I'm always the DD since they don't know what temperance is, but I'd rather have that than a bunch of dead friends.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

The seriousness came from others here freaking out and going nuclear on Mint for stating her opinion.

God forbid hers be different from yours.

[Blazing247]

What's that saying...the company one keeps says much about that person? If you think your friends are idiots, why are they your friends? The E, believe it or not, not everyone drinks to get fucked up. Personally, I rather enjoy the taste of a good Guinness, and I find an ale or two is very relaxing. To each their own, right?

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Faent
I'm thrilled that you place such faith in politicians. And the point was not that lawmakers might set the limit at .01 or .000001. Why don't you try using your brain cells a bit? The point was that maybe, just maybe, whatever the legislators do set the limit at is going to necessarily be somewhat arbitrary and screw *some* folks over. And if that's the case, applying exceedingly strict penalties to *anyone* who breaks the law will likewise screw some folks over.
Use your own brain cells a bit, sport. Ain't nowhere in the country the laws are that strict. Ain't nowhere they're even close. We're not even at the frigging point where drunk drivers serve jail time guaranteed, never mind that Nazi cops are putting the boots to someone who had half of a O'Doul's. Your point is stupid and it sucks.

But if they did? It's easy. IF YOU DRINK, DON'T GET IN THE FUCKING CAR. Drink at a bar in walking distance. Get blasted at home. Have a friend drive.

Or maybe (gasp!) USE SOME FUCKING SELF CONTROL.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It isn't that frigging hard.

:wtf:

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Blazing247
However, the answer isn't to arrest those who have done no wrong. If I can have two beers and drive unimpaired, I don't want people like Mother Theresa over here to throw the book at me. That goes against everything this country stands for. I like how you figure what America stands for is for you to do whatever the fuck you want.

Lots of guys think they can handle fireworks too. Lord liftin' Jesus, lots of guys say they can handle machine guns, powertools without safety shields or eyegoggles, smoking around oxygen tanks, driving 90 miles an hour, deerhunting in suburban neighborhoods, toss jello shots, all sorts of shit like that.

Some of them are right. And a lot of them are wrong, and they get others killed because they're stupid assholes. Now sometimes I have a few beers myself. I do it with the boys at the corner bar. It's 5 minutes walk from my place. I park my wheels at home and I walk there, and I walk back.

And with the drivers who work for me, if I find out they had 1 beer, just 1, and they get behind the wheel of one of my trucks, they are out on their asses for good.

Now STFU already.

:stfu:

[TheEschaton]

If you think your friends are idiots, why are they your friends?

Because I've known my friends since the age of 5, and I know they're essentially good guys, even if they're idiots?

Being an idiot doesn't automatically make you a bad person. It simply means they have no fucking common sense because they think they're immortal, when they're drunk.

And Blazing, your argument is superbly fallacious. My friends have driven and do drive after 15 beers, claiming "they're alright to drive". There's a few points to this: A) after drinking, you're in no position whether to claim whether you have the ability to drive right or not, B) people's tolerance levels are all different, and, while my 335 pound friend might be able to drink 8 beers and drive home fine, it's not the same for everyone....and thus, the lowest common denominator has to be used....IE, .008, like here in NYS. That's two or three drinks in an hour, for me.....maybe like 5 for my friend? I dunno....but he does that no problem.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Do you see now how your response to my post makes no sense? A little. I suppose I don't feel like giving folks like you (those that believe a few beers don't impair them) the benefit of the doubt. The same way I wouldn't let a guy blindfold himself and shoot at me. Sure, he might not hit me, but why take the chance? I don't think I'd be for arresting, but let's take away the blindfold (alcohol) or the gun (car). Isn't that what government is for?

[Blazing247]

<I don't think I'd be for arresting, but let's take away the blindfold (alcohol) or the gun (car). Isn't that what government is for?>

Not in my eyes. If we can't assume that people are inherently responsible, all is lost and we might as well slit our wrists. If we're just gonna go around and baby-proof the world, what the fuck is the point?

[Blazing247]

<A) after drinking, you're in no position whether to claim whether you have the ability to drive right or not, B) people's tolerance levels are all different>

How is my argument fallacious? I made an entire post about people's tolerance levels being different, which you just backed. After drinking, depending on the person, you are in a position to claim whether or not you have the ability to drive unimpaired. After 4 beers in an hour, I don't even consider the option of driving. Anything less than that is a judgement call on my part. Hell, I just had 2 beers and a shot of Jaeger and drove home, and I was more than coherent enough to make that decision.

[Weedmage Princess]

I applaud Galleazzo's no tolerance policy for his employees. That's just downright irresponsible. I don't care WHAT the situation is, how big you are, how much alcohol you figure you can handle, if your job entails you driving and you're drinking while on the cloak, you should be fired IMMEDIATELY.

[Jazuela]

Do y'all have any idea how many people with suspended licenses are driving the roads these days? It's nuts. The fact is, people who drive drunk, knowing that they're drunk, aren't going to stop driving just because they lack that piece of plastic in their pockets.

Instead of losing their license - which doesn't stop them from driving - put a boot on the wheel of their car. Make it physically impossible for them to drive the car.

Now - driving drunk doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna get into an accident. Just like being 80 years old doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna get into an accident.

But if you DO get into an accident - the penalties should be dependent on the level of intoxication, combined with the damage done. Drive over an embankment on the side of the road and ruin your transmission and a patch of grass? Let the insurance company refuse to pay for the damage to your car, and let the state charge you for the repair of the grass.

Ram your car into another car and cause someone's death? Manslaughter I - no chance for a lesser charge, penalties as appropriate. Cause someone to be hospitalized, but they live? Attempted Manslaughter I, reckless endangerment, DUI, etc. etc. etc.

The only reason it isn't "Murder" is because that phrase requires intent to kill. People don't drive drunk because they want to kill people, so there's no intent. So make "Attempted Manslaughter" an actual charge, where you don't intend to kill, but you do intend to do something that can result in someone else's death. Currently I'm not sure if that's an actual chargeable crime. If it is, the law enforcement agencies need to make use of it more. If it isn't, it should be.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Not in my eyes. If we can't assume that people are inherently responsible, all is lost and we might as well slit our wrists. If we're just gonna go around and baby-proof the world, what the fuck is the point? If we were assuming all people were inherently responsible, why would we have a police force, or a judicial system? "Baby-proof" is an odd term to describe preventing people from drinking and driving, as an aside.

[Back]

A word of warning to those who enjoy a few drinks...

Always always always eat before, during and after you drink. No joke.

I partied last night without eating dinner. Haven't eaten yet today. Its noon and I checked my breathalizer. Blew a .07! Thats just totally sick.

Needless to say, don't drink and drive. Even if you don't give a shit about yourself, there are other people out there on the roads to consider.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Backlash
A word of warning to those who enjoy a few drinks...

Always always always eat before, during and after you drink. No joke.

I partied last night without eating dinner. Haven't eaten yet today. Its noon and I checked my breathalizer. Blew a .07! Thats just totally sick.

Needless to say, don't drink and drive. Even if you don't give a shit about yourself, there are other people out there on the roads to consider.

You own a breathalizer? I bet you're the life of the party!

If I'm going to drink, I make sure I'm not driving, and if I see people I'm with drinking, I won't drink. I figure, if there's one sober person, stupid things are less likely to happen. I can't tell you how many times people have thanked me for staying sober and taking care of business when it's 3 AM and everyone is shitfaced and there's nowhere to crash.

Also, drunk people will give you good money to drive them home. I made 300 bucks one night, driving 5 people home, they just kept handing me money. :lol:

[TheEschaton]

I think we should all also take a lesson from "I know what you did last summer" and not carry open bottles of vodka either, to convienantly spill on the only sober person to make it seem like he was drinking.


-TheE-

[Blazing247]

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. See how one word, three letters long, added into a sentence can change the entire meaning?

I said, "If we can't assume that people are inherently responsible..."

To which you replied, "If we were assuming all people were inherently responsible..."

I never said I assume ALL people are inherently responsible. However, I DO believe that MOST people are. We have a police force and judicial system to deal with the MINORITY. After all, if it were the MAJORITY of people that commited crimes, it would be an anarchy and the police force and judicial system would cease to exist.

You talk about getting rid of alcohol and cars (which I assume is at least half-facetiously said). This is what I consider "baby proofing the world". Everything and anything is dangerous in the hands of someone with the will to do harm. Taking away something from the majority of law-abiding citizens based on the actions of a few criminals is a trend this country (and Gemstone on an ironic tangent) needs to stop.

Please, in the future...if you are going to quote me, do not add words where they do not belong, nor take them away from where they do. It greatly changes the meaning of the sentence and is a common practice of politicians when putting "spin" on issues.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. See how one word, three letters long, added into a sentence can change the entire meaning?I dunno, I thought you meant all people. I can see your original statement being interpreted both ways.

I'm not for getting rid of alcohol or getting rid of cars (there's more work to be done before that stage), I'm for getting rid of the mix.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
I applaud Galleazzo's no tolerance policy for his employees. That's just downright irresponsible. I don't care WHAT the situation is, how big you are, how much alcohol you figure you can handle, if your job entails you driving and you're drinking while on the cloak, you should be fired IMMEDIATELY.
Hey, Weedie, thanks.

Ya got to figure, of course, that I'm freaking liable. Someone gets wrecked up driving my truck, my ass is in a crack.

But worst of all, if one of my guys got trashed and killed someone, earning MY money, driving MY truck, wearing MY colors, I'd feel like shit the rest of my life. Ain't going to let that happen, no how, no way.