Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I feel like I am just beating a dead horse. We are ALL talking about guilty people, not innocent people, or people that are victems of malfunctioning equipment or overzealous cops. We aren't talking about someone that has had 1-2 drinks over the course of a meal or over several hours. 1-2 drinks will not cause someone to be over the legal limit unless 1) they inhale the drinks right after one another then immediately go drive; 2) are 100 lbs or 3) has not eaten anything all day and drink fast and immediately go drive. Edited to also add unless someones idea of one drink is half a bottle of wine. In either of those cases the alcohol would affect their judgement.
I still think this has nothing to do with being unconstitutional. Individual states have the rights to make individual laws. That is why there are states where you can't even buy alcohol on Sundays, completely dry counties, states were you can gamble, states where you cannot gamble, states where you can get your license at 15, states where you have to be 16, etc. There are a zillion individual laws and there will always be someone that thinks they are unfair but just because you do not like that law does not make them unconstitutional.
I for the record think a .08 blood alcohol limit is completely reasonable. There are numerous studies out there that clearly show the effects of 1 drink, 2 drinks, 3 drinks, etc.
Driving is not a right and that certainly means that drinking and driving is not a right. If a state wants to have zero tolerance for drinking and driving it is completely OK for that state to do so. Many people wouldn't be happy with that, but if that is what the people of that state want, then it is totally within the state's congress's right to make that kind of a bill.
I agree that .08 is reasonable. I have a problem with impaired to the slightest degree. If a state wants to have zero tolerance for drinking and driving and passes a billl to make it totally against the law that would be fine with me.
Drunk drivers, even those who have had "only a couple", are responsible for many injuries and deaths of and to a lot of perfectly innocent people.
Some here call the DUI laws some sort of "racket". Perhaps they are. But, if this "racket" gets those people who have had "only a couple" off the roads, and saves a few people - including their families, any misery, I say - so what!
To those who don't like this "racket" I say to them - don't drink, even a "couple", and drive. Take a cab. Have a designated driver - whatever.
Let's hear it for an expansion of the "RACKET"!
Yeah, expansion is good for lawyers like you, right?
I agree that .08 is reasonable. I have a problem with impaired to the slightest degree. If a state wants to have zero tolerance for drinking and driving and passes a billl to make it totally against the law that would be fine with me.
I don't care how you slice it. The US Constitution is the law of the land. States do have the right to make new laws and modify existing laws, but should never have the ability to make or modify laws that infringe on the life, liberty or property of the US Citizens. They are allowed to do it because people like you accept that it's ok.
I feel like I am just beating a dead horse. We are ALL talking about guilty people, not innocent people, or people that are victems of malfunctioning equipment or overzealous cops. We aren't talking about someone that has had 1-2 drinks over the course of a meal or over several hours. 1-2 drinks will not cause someone to be over the legal limit unless 1) they inhale the drinks right after one another then immediately go drive; 2) are 100 lbs or 3) has not eaten anything all day and drink fast and immediately go drive. Edited to also add unless someones idea of one drink is half a bottle of wine. In either of those cases the alcohol would affect their judgement.
I still think this has nothing to do with being unconstitutional. Individual states have the rights to make individual laws. That is why there are states where you can't even buy alcohol on Sundays, completely dry counties, states were you can gamble, states where you cannot gamble, states where you can get your license at 15, states where you have to be 16, etc. There are a zillion individual laws and there will always be someone that thinks they are unfair but just because you do not like that law does not make them unconstitutional.
I for the record think a .08 blood alcohol limit is completely reasonable. There are numerous studies out there that clearly show the effects of 1 drink, 2 drinks, 3 drinks, etc.
Driving is not a right and that certainly means that drinking and driving is not a right. If a state wants to have zero tolerance for drinking and driving it is completely OK for that state to do so. Many people wouldn't be happy with that, but if that is what the people of that state want, then it is totally within the state's congress's right to make that kind of a bill.
I don't care how you slice it. The US Constitution is the law of the land. States do have the right to make new laws and modify existing laws, but should never have the ability to make or modify laws that infringe on the life, liberty or property of the US Citizens. They are allowed to do it because people like you accept that it's ok.
A young man, riding a motorcycle and stopped at a stop light, was rear ended by a drunk driver. While the young man survived, his life is forever altered as he was left with devastating injuries.
OBTW - the drunk driver? A) He was not injured at all and B) it was his "first time" driving drunk.
I get what you're saying, but people must realize that accidents happen like this all the time with no alcohol involved. What will the system do to ensure that the first time drunk driver who caused this accident and repeat offenders don't cause anymore accidents? I don't think they have figured out a solution to this problem yet.
Drunk drivers obviously are the scum of the earth. Worse than child molesters, rapists, and murderers. We should have ZERO tolerance, and give them the death penalty. Then fine the existing family no less than $3,000,000. That will stop this reprehensible behavior!
In your opinion drunk drivers may be the scum of the earth, but worse than child molesters, rapists, and murderers, come on. Drunk driving is bad, especially when an accident is caused by a drunk driver and people are injured or killed. But you must realize that when a drunk driver causes an accident that kills someone it is not a premeditated act of murder, so good luck wishing they receive the death penalty.
Drunk drivers, even those who have had "only a couple", are responsible for many injuries and deaths of and to a lot of perfectly innocent people.
Some here call the DUI laws some sort of "racket". Perhaps they are. But, if this "racket" gets those people who have had "only a couple" off the roads, and saves a few people - including their families, any misery, I say - so what!
To those who don't like this "racket" I say to them - don't drink, even a "couple", and drive. Take a cab. Have a designated driver - whatever.
Let's hear it for an expansion of the "RACKET"!
Yep, they got me off the road after I had a couple and I was not a threat to anyone. Unfortunately they didn't get any money out of me though. Great try, but no cigar. So much for expansion of the racket.
I don't agree that we ALL are talking about guilty people. I have read through most of the posts, and there are many implying you are guilty of drunk driving if you drive after consuming any alcohol.
That's because they've been brainwashed to think that drinking and driving is against the law.
Drunk drivers obviously are the scum of the earth. Worse than child molesters, rapists, and murderers. We should have ZERO tolerance, and give them the death penalty. Then fine the existing family no less than $3,000,000. That will stop this reprehensible behavior!
So considering I have got 2 DUI's in my lifetime, but never hit anyone, I am worse than Ted Bundy? Are you serious? By the way, people with your mentality are FAR more dangerous than drunk drivers.
I get what you're saying, but people must realize that accidents happen like this all the time with no alcohol involved. What will the system do to ensure that the first time drunk driver who caused this accident and repeat offenders don't cause anymore accidents? I don't think they have figured out a solution to this problem yet.
Mandatory prison. In this case I would re-do the sentencing guidelines to mandate 15 to 20 years behind bars. No credits. No early outs.
Then, if there is a repeat - life w/o parole
No, I'm not kidding
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
