|
One. It is so dangerous and the consequences for innocent people can literally be death. The fact that it's tolerated at all is mind blowing. I'd rather pay for some drunk idiot to collect a welfare check because he can't drive than I would have said idiot on the road.
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
The argument against a strict policy seems to never acknowledge that you've made a choice to move a giant, thousand pound metal box at high enough speeds that you can kill someone, and that someone is often times someone who is innocent. If you can't make a choice to not drive after drinking, then you probably don't deserve a license. If a cab is too inconvenient for you, then don't drink. If you can't get DD, then don't drink. If you maim or kill someone because you choose to drink and drive, there is nothing you can do to make that right and the fact that the system currently allows you to roll those dice half a dozen times before anything meaningful happens (if you have enough money to make it go away) makes the system unbelievably flawed. You get one DUI, you lose your license, because you have clearly demonstrated an inability to make wise choices when the stakes are at their highest. That said, I think implementing a 'one and done' system would require some rebuilding of current laws. I'd not be inclined to rip away the license of someone who blew 0.08. I wouldn't call 0.08 universally drunk (and there really isn't a magic number). I would like to see the line for a 'one and done' system be way higher, somewhere in the realm of 0.15, where 'borderline' can't really be argued. The way I'd write the law is that if you get caught on an unrelated traffic violation (speeding, out of date tags, etc.) and you are between what the state's current legal limit and some higher number like 0.15, then you basically go through the current system for DUIs. If you get caught over the state's legal limit due to a violation related to drunkenness, like erratic behavior or an accident you are at fault for, then rip your license. Obviously 'sleeping in car' or 'riding bike drunk' shouldn't count. They'd have to catch you driving the car. I otherwise cannot rationalize in my head the thought process that has to go through your head if you think 'having fun' is more important than safety on the road. Canine Blues Arooo fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Everyone knows that's wrong, if someone is dumb enough to drive while knowingly that drunk nothing is going to stop them, the only hope is to catch them, yet they receive the disproportional amount of public awareness campaigning and the basis of laws is against them. That's an interesting idea. The best I could find is from the CDC that says 31% of traffic related deaths are from drunk driving (in 2012). I'd like to see what the other 69% are from, but I think if you could demonstrate that some other activity results in as many injuries/deaths, then punish the poo poo out of that too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 14:31
|
|