|
Jagchosis posted:What about legalizing cocaine and providing it at bars? It will help the drunk citizens sober up before their drive home. MDMA will also work! finally a political philosophy I can get behind
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Jagchosis posted:What about legalizing cocaine and providing it at bars? It will help the drunk citizens sober up before their drive home. MDMA will also work! Unironically this but not because of sobering up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
car culture is a beautiful thing and I think that driving is a birth right equivalent to having the right to walk around. with that being said I don't think anyone should be barred from driving permanently, after a few offenses give a 5 year ban or force the use of a breathalyzer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
This is going to be a shitshow of a thread. Try to tell people the difference between driving after 24 hours of work and two drinks. Without bringing local law enforcement's prejudices into question. I really like the idea that one can interact with the community at a bar and use public transportation. (please let this happen)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Multiple DUIs is probably the only time where asset forefeiture of the car would seem okay to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
anyone who has eaten meat or tasted the flesh of woman should not operate a motor vehicle beneath the eye of God
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Id say that two is pretty reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Don't drink and drive, you might spill your beer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:The sooner "car culture" dies a horrible death and we have public transportation worth a drat, the sooner we can talk about harsh DUI penalties that people might actually abide by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
This thread is insane and represents everything wrong with the American fixation on imposing maximum punishments and using heavy police enforcement in lieu of sound social policy. Also, the idea of status punishments that last "forever" and restrict basic civil rights is blatantly unethical and unconstitutional. And if someone pipes up with "driving is a privilege not a right" then I will stab them in the eye with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of my pocket constitution. That drivel is the "Evolution is just a Theory  " of constitutional law.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
We should fix what a DUI is first. You can get one by getting your sweater out of your car or by sleeping in your car as well, all while never touching the ignition in your car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:39
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:We should fix what a DUI is first. You can get one by getting your sweater out of your car or by sleeping in your car as well, all while never touching the ignition in your car. Completely agreed. The fact is that BAC testing is still pretty unreliable, and that cops have an extremely wide latitude for making subjective accusations of drunk driving that are extremely hard to defend against. Unsurprisingly, this is reflected by DUI demographic statistics that are exactly as biased as one would suspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
We need to fix the cops. By eliminating them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted:This thread is insane and represents everything wrong with the American fixation on imposing maximum punishments and using heavy police enforcement in lieu of sound social policy. Also, the idea of status punishments that last "forever" and restrict basic civil rights is blatantly unethical and unconstitutional. And if someone pipes up with "driving is a privilege not a right" then I will stab them in the eye with the Privileges and Immunities Clause of my pocket constitution. That drivel is the "Evolution is just a Theory In what sense does the Privileges and Immunities clause have any practical application if you are not Clarence Thomas? Do you want to overturn Slaughterhouse so you can DUI?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:In what sense does the Privileges and Immunities clause have any practical application if you are not Clarence Thomas? Do you want to overturn Slaughterhouse so you can DUI? Not only is the Freedom of Movement embodied in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but it also explicitly points out that "privileges" are extremely important and effectively synonymous with the citizen rights that were later detailed in the constitutional amendments. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms but if you commit a serious crime we take that right away. I don't see how a DUI is any different. Ideally yes everyone who wants to can drive where they want, when they want, but if you do so in a way that endangers others' lives, then no. Your right to free movement does not trump others' right to life. Cicero fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Here in Germany, after your license is suspended for DUIs, you need to pass a psychological/medical exam(commonly known as the "Idiot test") to get your license back. The physician is mainly trying to find out what the gently caress is wrong with you, why you are constantly drunk driving and if you have a chance of improving. How about something like that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms but if you commit a serious crime we take that right away. I don't see how a DUI is any different. Are you suggesting that the American government should start permanently restricting basic civil rights because someone causes endangerment? Because I've got to tell you: There's a whole lot of things in the world that endanger people's lives. The gimme answers are using a cellphone or other electronic device while driving, which is considered twice as distracting as a driver with a BAC of .08, or speeding, which is a factor in far more crashes than drunk driving. But realistically there's all sorts of things that "endanger other's lives", whether in a car or out of one, as I'm sure you can imagine. 50 million Americans get sick from contaminated food each year, killing 3,000 and hospitalizing more than 100,000, but I don't think that we'd be better off for banning unsafe cooks from ever using stoves again. Punishment needs to be appropriate, proportional, and limited. Otherwise it's cruel and unusual. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Not only is the Freedom of Movement embodied in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, but it also explicitly points out that "privileges" are extremely important and effectively synonymous with the citizen rights that were later detailed in the constitutional amendments. Do you need a driver's license for freedom of movement between the states? With enough gumption, saliva and suppression of gag reflexes you can travel anywhere in the country for free (unlike private ownership of a car). Also, I'm pretty sure the article iv privileges and immunities business only applies to interstate travel, not intrastate travel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Should be a single offense and you're done. Anyone can make a mistake and be involved in an accident, but if you drink and then choose to drive, well that's your own drat fault and your own conscious decision to endanger yourself and all those around you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Do you need a driver's license for freedom of movement between the states? With enough gumption, saliva and suppression of gag reflexes you can travel anywhere in the country for free (unlike private ownership of a car). Also, I'm pretty sure the article iv privileges and immunities business only applies to interstate travel, not intrastate travel. Ah yes, the famous, "Why are civil rights important when you can just prostitute yourself" legal argument of 1874.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Also, is there any research on why people drive drunk? I mean obviously some are addicts who can't control themselves or are simply drunk 24/7, but it seems like most drunk drivers are just assholes who don't give a poo poo about the risk of killing or maiming innocent people (and alcohol enhances poor decision-making). Alcoholics aren't going to respond to harsh punishments, but that latter group is if they think it might happen to them. No. Most drunk drivers are people who are in one place and need to be in a different place that is some significant distance away. They didn't get liquored up so they can have the chance to run over some old ladies for fun. They just need to be somewhere else and they also took too much of a drug that makes it hard to make rational decisions. This kind of bullshit thinking is why we don't have any effective methods at stopping drunk driving in most of the country. You want to assign some kind of forethought to the act, like a drunk driver, prior to his night out would stop and consider "You know what, I might have to rethink my night of careening down the street without a care in the world because I heard they're taking licenses away". No they're not, they're going to pop on out to the bar for a beer or two, nothing to worry about. Some of them end up having more than two, because again, those things make it hard to make rational decisions. By the end of the night it wouldn't matter if a DUI was a capital offense. In a drunk mind it's an easy money gamble because you're a great driver and what are the chances you'll even be pulled over. You haven't seen a cop in ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:No. Most drunk drivers are people who are in one place and need to be in a different place that is some significant distance away. They didn't get liquored up so they can have the chance to run over some old ladies for fun. They just need to be somewhere else and they also took too much of a drug that makes it hard to make rational decisions. This kind of bullshit thinking is why we don't have any effective methods at stopping drunk driving in most of the country. You want to assign some kind of forethought to the act, like a drunk driver, prior to his night out would stop and consider "You know what, I might have to rethink my night of careening down the street without a care in the world because I heard they're taking licenses away". No they're not, they're going to pop on out to the bar for a beer or two, nothing to worry about. Some of them end up having more than two, because again, those things make it hard to make rational decisions. By the end of the night it wouldn't matter if a DUI was a capital offense. In a drunk mind it's an easy money gamble because you're a great driver and what are the chances you'll even be pulled over. You haven't seen a cop in ages. Consuming a substance that is well documented to cause impaired judgement should under no circumstances excuse someone from the consequences of decisions made under the influence of said substance. If anything, it should make them even more accountable. If you're choosing to partake of altering substances like that, the burden is on you to not harm anyone else while under then influence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Ah yes, the famous, "Why are civil rights important when you can just prostitute yourself" legal argument of 1874. Well I was just citing the most pragmatic and cost effective means of travel, obviously you can travel between states through rail, bus or air travel as well and that does not involve any prostitution at all. Have you ever DUI'd? You take this issue quite personally. EDIT: how about an additional service in Uber and the like, where not only can you get a ride home, but the Uber driver brings someone to drive a car back to your place of residence from a bar or house party or whatever. Obviously this would require some changes to car insurance and the regulation thereof, but it would make DUI much less tempting and thus even more morally culpable. Homura and Sickle fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Consuming a substance that is well documented to cause impaired judgement should under no circumstances excuse someone from the consequences of decisions made under the influence of said substance. If anything, it should make them even more accountable. If you're choosing to partake of altering substances like that, the burden is on you to not harm anyone else while under then influence. It would just be far too easy to blow over the limit if you decide to have two stiff drinks with dinner instead of one. Mistakes happen. After getting a DUI, I'd assume most people would be more careful about their drinking habits. Also, mass transit is a nice idea and all, but you'd need to demolish half the country and build it up from scratch to make it something you could realistically implement here in the States. And it's just not ever going to work in sparsely populated areas like you find in the middle of the country. Volcott fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Perhaps, as with teen pregnancy, preemptive education is better than punishment? Creating a culture where drunk driving is considered by your fellow patrons to be bad enough they stop you without the police getting involved at all seems the best course. What changes would need to be made to enable this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Perhaps, as with teen pregnancy, preemptive education is better than punishment? Creating a culture where drunk driving is considered by your fellow patrons to be bad enough they stop you without the police getting involved at all seems the best course. What changes would need to be made to enable this? We'd need to find a way to weaponize shame, basically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Volcott posted:It would just be far too easy to blow over the limit if you decide to have two stiff drinks with dinner instead of one. Mistakes happen. After getting a DUI, I'd assume most people would be more careful about their drinking habits. If you've had a stiff drink with dinner, you have no business behind the wheel of a car for a few hours. Let someone else drive. You can't just say "mistakes happen" when someone makes a knowing and willing choice to deliberately endanger others' lives while operating a multiton death machine while under the influence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Beep boop. I am a robot. People should only drink alone in their own homes. Beep boop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Millions of people have a drink with dinner, remain under the legal limit, and drive home without incident every day. A zero tolerance policy in this instance would be dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
I think if you blow over the legal limit (0.08 BAC) once, you lose your license for life. There is absolutely zero reason why anyone should be driving after drinking that much. You live in some shithole place outside of a city? Go to the liquor store, get your drinks, and invite your friends over. Live in a major city? Walk to your neighborhood bar and have a few there, and walk back home. Even in Atlanta, which is well known for it's absurdly lovely public transportation and urban sprawl, has bars within walking distance of everywhere that people live. I've lived in an Atlanta suburb (Alpharetta) as well, and even in a place with no sidewalks there was a bar 3/4 of a mile away and we walked on the side of the road to get there instead of driving. I live in Midtown Atlanta right now, and there are at the very least 6 or 7 bars or pubs within 1 mile of my apartment. If you can't be assed to walk 15 minutes to get your alcohol, then you shouldn't be allowed to endanger the lives of others by getting behind the wheel after having a good time at the bar. We're moving to Seattle soon, which is one of the most walkable cities in the nation. We choose to live in places that have high walkability because we like to go and pound a few after work or on the weekend with friends. If you live out in the countryside or in some lovely part of a city that is too unsafe to walk or unfeasible, then bring your drinks home from the store and invite your friends over you antisocial bastards. There's zero reason to ever drive impaired. I don't drive after having too little sleep because once, when I was 16 and just getting used to driving alone, I fell asleep at the wheel for a split second and just barely avoided hitting a tree and killing myself. I don't need to have another experience like that to know that driving impaired under any circumstance is one of the most needlessly dangerous things people can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
If someone is going to repeatedly ignore the law about drink-driving, why would they pay any attention to the law about driving without a license?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
If you're unable to eat out without consuming alcohol you've got a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:If someone is going to repeatedly ignore the law about drink-driving, why would they pay any attention to the law about driving without a license? I agree why have laws about anything honestly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:If you're unable to eat out without consuming alcohol you've got a problem. If you're able to eat a meal at a good restaurant without thinking, "a great wine pairing would improve this meal," you have a problem, and that problem is called "being a moron." If I just want to throw something together, or have a pizza delivered, there's no need to drink with the meal. If I go out for dinner, it's going to be to a place of sufficient quality that the food will benefit from wine. This is an utter red herring when it comes to drunk driving, though. First of all, you can drink with dinner and then not drive! You have many options of how to get to and from the restaurant, including walking or taking public transit. The other option is you can limit your drinking. You can easily have two glasses of wine over the course of a leisurely dinner, have coffee and dessert afterward, and be under 0.05 (which is our new limit in Alberta). Still, the best way to prevent drunk driving is to make it easy for folks to avoid driving drunk. I never drive drunk (EDIT: or with any alcohol in my blood; on the odd occasion I drink somewhere and have to drive afterward, I'll wait two hours per standard drink before driving), and a large part of that is because I walk most places. If I'm going to somewhere further away, I either take transit, take a cab, or arrange to stay over (if I'm going to my parents' house for dinner, let's say). PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Here in Germany, after your license is suspended for DUIs, you need to pass a psychological/medical exam(commonly known as the "Idiot test") to get your license back. The physician is mainly trying to find out what the gently caress is wrong with you, why you are constantly drunk driving and if you have a chance of improving. I agree. Indiscriminately applying the same treatment to every case regardless of surrounding circumstances is a silly thing to do. It's evident that the already fairly devastating punishment most states have in place only has a limited potential as a deterrent. Interlocks help, therapy helps, rehab helps, providing free alternatives to driving helps a poo poo ton (think hourly night buses). Long-term revocation might be worth considering for people who can be considered repeat offenders, but I don't think irredeemable lifetime revocation can ever be seen as a good solution, even given the reckless endangerment DUI poses. quote:I think if you blow over the legal limit (0.08 BAC) once, you lose your license for life. There is absolutely zero reason why anyone should be driving after drinking that much. You live in some shithole place outside of a city? Go to the liquor store, get your drinks, and invite your friends over. Live in a major city? Walk to your neighborhood bar and have a few there, and walk back home. I think your understanding of the circumstances from which drunk driving occurs is overly simplistic, and your solutions equally so. If you think what you are suggesting will solve intoxicated driving without massive societal fallout you are severely deluded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
I try not to drink and drive. But when. I sleep in my car the cops get me for public intoxication. When I walk home the cops get me for public intoxication. When. I sleep at a bus stop the cops get me for public intoxication, and I don't have a bus stop in my entire town.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Charging thousands of dollars for DUIs works great. Keeps the drunks out of jail, on the road, and generating income for the state. It's the best system because they're going to do it anyway so you may as well tax them heavily for their lovely behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Are cops really harsh about PI in the States or something? I know a guy who's gotten a few here in Calgary, but that's because he gets really drunk and he tends to have a lovely attitude when drunk. I don't know anyone else that's ever received one here, and I know plenty of people that regularly walk home quite intoxicated (probably 0.15 or drunker). You basically have to be causing a scene of some sort before the cops will even consider giving you a ticket, and then you have to be a prick to them before they'll actually give you one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Are cops really harsh about PI in the States or something? I know a guy who's gotten a few here in Calgary, but that's because he gets really drunk and he tends to have a lovely attitude when drunk. I don't know anyone else that's ever received one here, and I know plenty of people that regularly walk home quite intoxicated (probably 0.15 or drunker). You basically have to be causing a scene of some sort before the cops will even consider giving you a ticket, and then you have to be a prick to them before they'll actually give you one. It depends on where you live, honestly. In my college town, the cops cracked down on public intoxication because they knew a lot of people were underage and wanted that sweet citation revenue from giving the 1-2 combo of public intoxication with minor in possession/minor under the influence so you had to be careful about when you left and the route you took home. In Atlanta, the cops literally don't give a poo poo and would rather you be walking home than driving, and will leave you alone (and in many cases offer to give you a lift back to your place) as long as you're not being an obnoxious rear end in a top hat. They sure as hell will throw you in the drunk tank though if you're so drunk you're stumbling off the sidewalk and into traffic, I've seen that happen myself while going out with friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:26
|
|