How so?
MURDERED and INJURED in Times Square by Car Ramming Pedestrians
- Thread starter CaseHardened
- Start date
Your first statement implied that you questioned legalizing marijuana due to the potential for incidents such as the one originally posted. I simply pointed out that since alcohol is involved in more DWIs than other substances it would make no sense to block the legalization of marijuana based on the potential for DWIs without also banning alcohol.
The wrath of alcohol deaths is quite evident, that is why I did not note it. But Weed is not yet legal but most people want it to be. It is against the law here in NY to talk on a cell phone and drive. But people support legal weed use. Pretty dumb idea if you ask me.
Why are you combining the two issues? I most certainly do not condone the use of any intoxicating substance while driving.
Marijuana is the same as alcohol in that it can be consumed while not driving. If you are against the legalization of marijuana for fear of it intoxicating drivers then you must also be for the banning of all intoxicating substances that can be consumed while driving. Any other argument is a straw man.
Personally I advocate for the lifetime revocation of all driving privileges for repeat DWI/DUI offenders, and long term imprisonment for those that would defy their revocations.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Fuck it. Give him all the weed and alcohol he wants, a Kenworth, and turn him loose in Raqqa.
Yes, and people support legal cellphone use too.
Just not when driving. Same with alcohol. Same with weed.
Where is the confusion?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Cell phone usage, drug and alcohol usage by drivers resulting in death already falls under negligent manslaughter.
It's no different with gun laws. Guns should be legal. The act of murder or negligence should be the only laws that pertain to guns.
I see no difference.
It's no different with gun laws. Guns should be legal. The act of murder or negligence should be the only laws that pertain to guns.
I see no difference.
Uninformed and Compliant
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Saw one interview with a homie, said he was celebrating with the perp for getting that car back from repossession, last night.
12 hours later...
Clearly, nobody needs a sidewalk that big.
12 hours later...
Clearly, nobody needs a sidewalk that big.
Well no, it's just that someone else (Spat) is still pushing the idea that his earlier DWI's were pointless to prosecute.
I agree 100% that you don't ban substances or items which may become factors in a crime. But Spat apparently does believe that DWI without a dead body is a victimless crime and should not be enforced.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
If I were king, drinking and smoking behind the wheel would be legal. Crashing would be illegal.
Drinking and smoking don't hurt people - crashing does!
Drinking and smoking don't hurt people - crashing does!
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Just curious. Why is this in politics and law?
This is the off topic political section.
Duh, because it was the Politicians that wrote and passed laws against DWI and murder.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I believe it is a victimless crime depending. Now hear me out.
Guy leaves Petrillo's Italian Restaurant with his wife. He had 2 glasses of wine with his dinner. He gets back in his car to drive home. He hits a checkpoint and is asked if he has had anything to drink tonight. He responds truthfully. He's ordered to blow and is arrested. Victimless Crime.
We've all been there. I can without a shadow of a doubt tell you that I can have 2 glasses of wine or 3 beers and drive a motor vehicle safely. I'll pop positive only because the threshold is set too low. Millions of people do that without I'll effect everyday. If you were to have a checkpoint outside of each restaurant, you'd get a million DWI's a day. Yet somehow, they all make it home safely. I's it pure luck that those millions make it home safely?
Me personally, I hate the term "Victimless Crime". We are a Nation of laws. Follow them!
There are exemptions, any law that inhibits a Natural Right, is not a lawful law.
You have no Right to Drink and drive, you have no Right to put me or others in harms way.
There are exemptions, any law that inhibits a Natural Right, is not a lawful law.
You have no Right to Drink and drive, you have no Right to put me or others in harms way.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If a guy has 2 glasses of wine at a restaurant he puts you in the same amount of danger as a guy open carrying at a fair who also has 2 beers. One is a crime and the other is not. One is a protected right and the other is not. I disagree on the protected rights argument.
It isn't a protected right to have an education either.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And what's gotten into you lately with this law thing. You weren't like that in the past? I hope the job isn't changing you. 
If they pass laws that you cannot drive if taking an aspirin will you follow those? Driving isn't a protected right after all. Right?
If they pass laws that you cannot drive if taking an aspirin will you follow those? Driving isn't a protected right after all. Right?
And what's gotten into you lately with this law thing. You weren't like that in the past? I hope the job isn't changing you.
If they pass laws that you cannot drive if taking an aspirin will you follow those? Driving isn't a protected right after all. Right?
Same as I have always been. Just really tired of this victimless crime bullshit. Yeah, no victim until there is one. The hell with it, we should not chase down the bad guys until they break a real freaken crime, don't bother investigating a person until an innocent (or many) become victims.
Great way to run a society.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
@GOPerfect
me and my bud and his wife are heading to the range at 11am ( for real ) .. my truck now has a 223 a 270 savage a 12ga over under ,20 ga single shot , a mosin , a mini14 , i have the keys for the gun club and the skeet houses ..
you pull me over for a tail light out .. and i just took pain meds for my back ..... they have no effect on my driving or shooting ..but my eyes look glassy .. ooops my tail light croked now what ?? ..
me and my bud and his wife are heading to the range at 11am ( for real ) .. my truck now has a 223 a 270 savage a 12ga over under ,20 ga single shot , a mosin , a mini14 , i have the keys for the gun club and the skeet houses ..
you pull me over for a tail light out .. and i just took pain meds for my back ..... they have no effect on my driving or shooting ..but my eyes look glassy .. ooops my tail light croked now what ?? ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That's how it's supposed to work. Yes. You shouldn't chase bad guys until a crime is committed. No victims until there is one. Otherwise you need to ban old people from driving. You need to ban people from hunting too. There could be an innocent victim by accident. You need to ban night driving in rural roads. You could hit a deer and swerve into about car.
Life is about chances. You can't ban everything.
Last edited:
I'm all about being anti nanny state, overly intrusive government. I believe if people want to smoke pot or drink, it's their body their choice to do so not the government's to allow them to or not.
My concern which I don't think is mutually exclusive from allowing individuals freedom to make personal choices is that by choosing to drive while intoxicated/distracted/sleep deprived they put others on the roads (or sidewalks) at risk because of their decision to drive. Driving is a privilege not a right. Other drivers or pedestrians should not be at risk because someone wants to make a selfish decision. I don't want myself, family wife kids to maybe or maybe not get killed or permanently injured because someone has a few too many drinks or whatever.
I think the problem in why this isn't universally agreed upon is substances affect people differently. Some people are basically normal at .08 while others might be hammered. And most people are somewhere in between. The laws and enforcing them seem inconsistent and arbitrary at best.
I'm sure there are studies or real life personal experience where either being sleep deprived and driving (which to my knowledge is perfectly legal) is more of a public hazard than a guy who could get stopped for Driving impaired.
I have kids. Don't even get me started how distracting kids in the car are either. And no one is banning kids from cars.
So I don't know. I don't think there is an easy one size fits all solution for this issue
.08 or .0-whatever might not be the best way to do it, but it is likely the most "fair" considering it is a measure that affects everyone the same across the board. A much better indicator would be the field tests that some police departments do which when combined with proper training, show whether a person actually has the capacity to drive. BUT, some people can even master those while drunk but still not have full capacity to make the important decisions that may come up while driving (or not pass out in another 2 min, further down the road). So we're back to an arbitrary number being the best and most fair way to do it. It's generally agreed by millions upon millions of people that this system is best and does work, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.
If there's one crime that is worth stopping before there is a dead, maimed, directly affected victim, it's drunk/impaired driving. Can't get any clearer than that and I'm in no way ashamed to say it.
If there's one crime that is worth stopping before there is a dead, maimed, directly affected victim, it's drunk/impaired driving. Can't get any clearer than that and I'm in no way ashamed to say it.
From what you described, it sounds like you may get pulled over and issued a fix-it ticket or a friendly warning to repair the light. As for the glossy eyes, I may not even notice.
On/off subject...
The Police get an informed tip that a student at the local school is talking about doing something bad at school. So far, off the tip, no crime has been committed, there are no victims yet. Should the Police investigate and maybe bring the kid in for questioning prior to something happening? I mean, there is no victim, just talk. Or do they wait until he unleashes hell on the school and piles up the victims?
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. They can investigate. They can't charge him however if no crime is committed. My issue with the DWI is that the level is set to low and hundreds are arrested each day while millions with the same BAC drive home without incident or impairment.
If you look at the statistics those millions with 2 beers in their system with no incident compared to those few with 2 beers in their system with incident, the results will be so low to be a non issue.
We all know that if you and I met up in your area at a bar, had 2 and introduced ourselves we will both be good to go to drive home.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Run the dude over multiple times like he did those innocent people.
18-year-old Alyssa Elsman was killed in Times Square today. She was visiting New York City from Michigan and was with her younger sister at the time of the tragic crash. Please keep Alyssa and her family in your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.
18-year-old Alyssa Elsman was killed in Times Square today. She was visiting New York City from Michigan and was with her younger sister at the time of the tragic crash. Please keep Alyssa and her family in your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.
I get what you are saying. I have a buddy who can drink non stop, he can put the beer down and no one would ever know. He functions perfectly.