Jump to content


Photo

It should be legal to drive with any BAC.

water yeast malt hops drinking

  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#1 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:38 PM

Had a brief discussion over some beers regarding why it's illegal to drive with booze in your blood. So I ask the PH. Why is it illegal? It seems like any and all the negative results of drinking and driving are already illegal: reckless driving, speeding, running stop signs/red lights, vehicular manslaughter, etc. So what do we gain by making it also illegal to do those things after a few beers?The only argument I've heard is that DUI laws prevent people from killing or injuring people (which may or may not be true), but it's already illegal to kill or injure someone with your car.The way I see it, it's making it a crime to increase your likelihood of committing a crime, which seems stupid and unconstitutional. Kinda like making it illegal to have a gun because you might shoot someone. It seems very Minority Report-ish to convict people of a pre-crime like DUI.I'd be fine for increasing penalties for committing a crime/traffic offense if you are also drunk, but it shouldnt be illegal to drive after drinking if you havent committed any other crimes. If you're not swerving, hitting things, or otherwise driving shittily, what harm are you causing yourself or others?What say teh drunkies?
  • 0

#2 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 65270 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:40 PM

Had a brief discussion over some beers regarding why it's illegal to drive with booze in your blood. So I ask the PH. Why is it illegal? It seems like any and all the negative results of drinking and driving are already illegal: reckless driving, speeding, running stop signs/red lights, vehicular manslaughter, etc. So what do we gain by making it illegal to do those things after a few beers?The only argument I've heard is that DUI laws prevent people from killing or injuring people (which may or may not be true), but it's already illegal to kill or injure someone with your car.The way I see it, it's making it a crime to increase your likelihood of committing a crime, which seems stupid and unconstitutional. Kinda like making it illegal to have a gun because you might shoot someone. It seems very Minority Report-ish to convict people of a pre-crime like DUI.I'd be fine for increasing penalties for committing a crime/traffic offense if you are also drunk, but it shouldnt be illegal to drive after drinking if you havent committed any other crimes. If you're not swerving, hitting things, or otherwise driving shittily, what harm are you causing yourself or others?What say teh drunkies?

you have no constitutional right to drive
  • 0

#3 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:42 PM

you have no constitutional right to drive

Thats fine. But I also have a constitutional right to not be convicted of a crime I did not yet commit or plan to commit.
  • 0

#4 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46760 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:42 PM

What say teh drunkies?

deaths related to drunk driving would increase b/c people would be more willing to "risk it".
  • 0

#5 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89205 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:44 PM

Thats fine. But I also have a constitutional right to not be convicted of a crime I did not yet commit or plan to commit.

Ad you haven't been convicted of anything. It's just that having BAC under a certain level while driving is a condition you agree to by possessing a license. It's like a contract.
  • 0

#6 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:44 PM

deaths related to drunk driving would increase b/c people would be more willing to "risk it".

Meh. That's speculation.It's pretty clear when you're driving and you spot a car that's a danger to others. Cops should nab that person whether they're drunk or not. If they did a better job of enforcing reckless driving laws, fewer people would die.
  • 0

#7 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 65270 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:45 PM

Thats fine. But I also have a constitutional right to not be convicted of a crime I did not yet commit or plan to commit.

you can drive a vehicle with whatever BaC your body can stand on your own property, just don't do it on a public road where your actions endanger anyone but yourself
  • 0

#8 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22136 posts
  • LocationBoulder, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:45 PM

That general is my thought but society has deemed it to be in its benefit for some preventative measures since judgement is impaired when folks drink. I can respect that. I however am not a fan of the ever decreasing BAC levels and charges when below BAC at officer disgression with the charge then being OWI, etc. If the officer witnesses reckless driving, etc. then that should be the charge, not a drinking charge based on their opinion.
  • 0

#9 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:47 PM

Ad you haven't been convicted of anything. It's just that having BAC under a certain level while driving is a condition you agree to by possessing a license. It's like a contract.

DUI penalties are severe, even if your were caught at a checkpoint and did not violate any traffic laws (other than the one I'm claiming to be a sham). Much more severe than violating a contract.That's besides the point. I'm not saying that anyone should be above the law or "contract". I'm saying that clause in the contract shouldn't exist.
  • 0

#10 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89205 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:52 PM

That's besides the point. I'm not saying that anyone should be above the law or "contract". I'm saying that clause in the contract shouldn't exist.

Meh.DUI checkpoints I do have a problem with. I think that if you drive from point A to point B without getting pulled over because you haven't violated any laws, that's one thing. You shouldn't get "pulled over" just because you happened to drive by a place where the cops decided to set up a checkpoint. But if the cops pull you over for, say, weaving, and you're also drunk, I have no problem with you getting a ticket for weaving AND one for being DUI.
  • 0

#11 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 65270 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:54 PM

Meh.DUI checkpoints I do have a problem with. I think that if you drive from point A to point B without getting pulled over because you haven't violated any laws, that's one thing. You shouldn't get "pulled over" just because you happened to drive by a place where the cops decided to set up a checkpoint. But if the cops pull you over for, say, weaving, and you're also drunk, I have no problem with you getting a ticket for weaving AND one for being DUI.

I can agree with this
  • 0

#12 Genesee Ted

Genesee Ted

    yabba dabba doob

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41478 posts
  • LocationRochester, NY

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:25 PM

One time I got pulled over because I drove past a cop who was sitting in a parking lot and then proceeded to take my next right on my way home from work. He asked me if I knew why I was pulled over and I said no. I hadn't been speeding, so I had no clue. He asked me if I had been drinking. I told him I had a glass of wine after work, which was a fib, but anyway... He told me he pulled me over because he thought it was suspicious that I took a right there. I told him that is how I get to my house, and then he made me give directions. Easy. He let me go. But in reality, he only pulled me over to see if I had been drinking. Right hand turns on green are not illegal..... :stabby:

#13 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:31 PM

But if the cops pull you over for, say, weaving, and you're also drunk, I have no problem with you getting a ticket for weaving AND one for being DUI.

That's definitely less offensive than the checkpoints, for sure, but why is a reckless driving charge not enough for someone that was recklessly driving?I kinda see it the same as texting while driving laws. It may be a cause for bad driving, but the problem is the bad driving, not the texting. Ticket the bad driving regardless of what causes it.

One time I got pulled over because I drove past a cop who was sitting in a parking lot and then proceeded to take my next right on my way home from work. He asked me if I knew why I was pulled over and I said no. I hadn't been speeding, so I had no clue. He asked me if I had been drinking. I told him I had a glass of wine after work, which was a fib, but anyway... He told me he pulled me over because he thought it was suspicious that I took a right there. I told him that is how I get to my house, and then he made me give directions. Easy. He let me go. But in reality, he only pulled me over to see if I had been drinking. Right hand turns on green are not illegal..... :stabby:

That's the kinda BS I'm talking about. I'd be so pissed. If you're not driving badly, you shouldnt get pulled over!
  • 0

#14 toonces

toonces

    Methuselah

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26387 posts
  • Locationthe atomic city

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:21 PM

Thats fine. But I also have a constitutional right to not be convicted of a crime I did not yet commit or plan to commit.

depending on the crime, conspiracy to commit the act it a crime.
  • 0

#15 bierboy

bierboy

    Comptroller of Temporary Pancakes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14285 posts
  • LocationThe Firey Pits of Liberal Hell

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:27 PM

DUI penalties are severe, even if your were caught at a checkpoint and did not violate any traffic laws (other than the one I'm claiming to be a sham). Much more severe than violating a contract.That's besides the point. I'm not saying that anyone should be above the law or "contract". I'm saying that clause in the contract shouldn't exist.

Driving is a priviledge as such the state can put on whatever restrictions is deems appropriate.
  • 1

#16 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:33 PM

Driving is a priviledge as such the state can put on whatever restrictions is deems appropriate.

and can throw you in jail and take away your property if you don't follow the agreed upon terms?
  • 0

#17 bierboy

bierboy

    Comptroller of Temporary Pancakes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14285 posts
  • LocationThe Firey Pits of Liberal Hell

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:38 PM

and can throw you in jail and take away your property if you don't follow the agreed upon terms?

When you get your drivers license you are agreeing to allow them to give you a drunkie test whenever they feel it is needed.
  • 0

#18 zymot

zymot

    Comptroller of Small Amounts of Money

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23085 posts
  • LocationMortville

Posted 08 January 2012 - 11:37 PM

There are a few types of laws.Crimes of commission. You get convicted of murder, burglary, etc, you get penalized.Crimes of pre-commission. It is illegal to seriously plot or plan to commit a murder, burglary, etc. Nobody has to get actually killed or a house broken into to be convicted of these crimes. Crimes that are defined to prevent situations that inherently have so much potential for disaster, we make the threat a crime. Operating a car in an impaired state is an obvious example. We do not want to wait for the bad thing to happen, we want to prevent it in the first place.[sidebar: IMO, this is the root motivation for most new gun control laws]So how much preventative pre-commission laws designed to prevent undesired results do we want to have?Hard to be against a law that tries to keep an alcoholic with a BAC of 0.20 driving through a school zone at 3:00 PM Wednesday.

Driving is a priviledge as such the state can put on whatever restrictions is deems appropriate.

When you get your drivers license you are agreeing to allow them to give you a drunkie test whenever they feel it is needed.

I really hate the "driving is a privilege." stuff. The reason they label as such so they can revoke your privilege without due process. Get too many parking tickets? Send out a letter and revoke your privilege. If driving was a right, they would have to provide you due process to revoke a right.Is walking down the street a privilege? Is swimming in a lake a privilege? How about riding a horse? Yes, you sign the agreement, because if you do not, they won't grant you the "privilege." If it was a right, you could it at will, like free speech, assemble, etc.
  • 0

#19 Mando

Mando

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46760 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:01 AM

Meh. That's speculation.It's pretty clear when you're driving and you spot a car that's a danger to others. Cops should nab that person whether they're drunk or not. If they did a better job of enforcing reckless driving laws, fewer people would die.

I can tell you I'd be a lot more willing to drive after a few drinks - who wouldn't?
  • 0

#20 BlackBeerd

BlackBeerd

    Comptroller of Stain's Junk Posting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17912 posts
  • LocationA Drunken Stupor

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:00 AM

Driving with a high BAC is no different than driving a car with headlights that don't work, or wipers. Or a hood that is held down with a piece of rope. It's no different than other traffic violations like speeding or running a stop sign. You can drive around with a lot of those things, and do it for a while, but it greatly increases the potential to injure someone else or their property. And like everything else in life, there are limits that society needs to set when your personal activity becomes a danger to the general public.
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: water, yeast, malt, hops, drinking

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users