Comments
1 - 20 of 21 Comments Last updated Mar 3, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Libertas

Henderson, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 16, 2009
 
The question of whether or not we ought to have draconian laws prohibiting drunk driving in this country hinges on another critical, yet all-too-often neglected question: Do drunk-driving laws actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving and thus make our roads and highways safer? If we answer this question in the affirmative, and determine to our satisfaction that drunk-driving laws do actually reduce drunk driving and make our roads safer, then we might be justified in thinking that the laws are useful and protect the public. If, on the other hand, we determine that drunk-driving laws do not actually reduce the incidence of drunk driving or make our roads safer, then we would do well to ask ourselves whether we need these laws at all. What would be the use, after all, of fining, imprisoning and terrorizing American drivers, if this ruthless police action does not have the effect of making our roads safer places?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli2...
upset and furious

Hanover, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You must have gotten arrested lately or know someone who has... Yes the laws are a wonderful thing! You may not think so until its your family member killed! I can't believe you won't question such a thing!
umm

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 17, 2009
 
DWI/DUI are a slap on the wrist. Everyone acts like it's a huge deal, but I know people who got DUI's and their insurance didn't go up, they went to a few classes, and were still driving. Great punishment. It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket and having to take a defensive driving course afterwards.
Crazy Man

Camillus, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Libertas,
Drunk drivers should all just go out and kill themselves before they take someone else down with them. They have no right to endanger anyone else. The stiff drunk driving laws have in fact made the roads safer. Maybe you weren't around in the fifties, sixties and seventies and compared them to today. It used to be a free for all out there.
hahahaha

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 17, 2009
 
yes, let's allow irresponsible drunk drivers kill every innocent person on the road because you're too stupid to realize how stupid that post sounds.
Follow the money

Ogdensburg, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 17, 2009
 
Crazy Man wrote:
The stiff drunk driving laws have in fact made the roads safer. Maybe you weren't around in the fifties, sixties and seventies and compared them to today. It used to be a free for all out there.
No doubt. That said, well-intentioned DWIs laws have created cottage industries in both the public & private sectors, and are more a matter of revenue generation that anything. If all the drinking drivers magically disappeared from NYS highways, the Empire State would be in bigger financial trouble than it's already in. The same can be said of cigarette smokers -- whose pockets would the State pick to make up the tax shortfall if everyone quit tomorrow? Despite the PSAs, the State NEEDS its citizenry to smoke & drink.
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 17, 2009
 
If you have a problem with it, write the author. I just happen to agree with what the author says. There are already laws on the books that will seriously punish those who injure or kill someone while driving a vehicle while intoxicated. If you kill someone while driving drunk, you should go to jail for a long time, yet there are many cases where drunk drivers who have done this get a fine, community service, and lose their license for a period of time. Obviously you're too stupid to understand the spirit of what the author was trying to say, if you truly read it.
hahahaha wrote:
yes, let's allow irresponsible drunk drivers kill every innocent person on the road because you're too stupid to realize how stupid that post sounds.
Euorgos

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 17, 2009
 
Obviously, you would never have to deal with any drunk driving laws if you simply didn't drink, then get behind the wheel. Drunks kill. There is no excuse for getting behind the wheel of a car after having had too much to drink.
Observer

Baldwinsville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 17, 2009
 
upset and furious wrote:
You must have gotten arrested lately or know someone who has... Yes the laws are a wonderful thing! You may not think so until its your family member killed! I can't believe you won't question such a thing!
All of you idiots immediately assume that if someone voices an opinion against a law, a lawyer, a cop or a judge, that person must be a criminal or must be closely related to one.

How about they are just more knowledgeable about the subject than you are, read more on the subject than you do, and are just smarter than you? This reason is much more likely.
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 17, 2009
 
Crazy Man, No one is saying drinking and driving is a good thing or should be condoned. No, I have never had a DUI. In fact, I very rarely drink alcohol. A glass of wine for dinner every once in a while is my limit. If you're going to make the statement that the 50's, 60's & 70's were a free for all, you need to back it up with reliable statistical data. No such "reliable data" exists, that I know of. I would be willing to say that since the enactment of drunk driving laws DUI fatalities have actually increased. The most widely accepted source of DUI fatality data is MADD. In fact, according to MADD President Wendy Hamilton, drunk driving fatalities in 1999 were 16, 572 compared to 2001 in which there were 17,448 deaths.

Prof. David J. Hanson, Ph.D. of SUNY Potsdam has written a very interesting and enlightening expose on MADD and their statistical data. It's surprising to note what they consider as DUI related deaths in their statistical data:

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/MADDtruth.html

Crazy Man wrote:
Libertas,
Drunk drivers should all just go out and kill themselves before they take someone else down with them. They have no right to endanger anyone else. The stiff drunk driving laws have in fact made the roads safer. Maybe you weren't around in the fifties, sixties and seventies and compared them to today. It used to be a free for all out there.
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 17, 2009
 
Wow! Someone who actually has intelligence and critical thinking skills. A very rare commodity indeed, especially in the Utica, NY area.

If people have the desire to engage in intelligent civil discourse it is always best to question everything. Especially if it comes from the government or a government bureaucrat. Then you should conduct your own due diligence, understanding both sides of the argument, backed up with reliable data, instead of emotion and conjecture.
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
All of you idiots immediately assume that if someone voices an opinion against a law, a lawyer, a cop or a judge, that person must be a criminal or must be closely related to one.
How about they are just more knowledgeable about the subject than you are, read more on the subject than you do, and are just smarter than you? This reason is much more likely.
Observer

Baldwinsville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 17, 2009
 
Oh, MADD doesn't have an agenda, does it?
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 17, 2009
 
Well, let's see...maybe more funding?
Observer wrote:
Oh, MADD doesn't have an agenda, does it?
Youre Not Telling Me Son

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 17, 2009
 
It's all about the money. Has law enforcement decreased in size? No! All we're led to believe is tougher this and that and why we need more man power? In no way am I condoning drunk driving which differs considerably in comparison to what is defined as the actual legal allowable limit. However, some of you won't be happy until everyone is required to have a chip implanted which monitors your every single every move. Incidentally, the acceptable legal limit has come down as a means not neccessarily to curtail drunk driving but rather to make such offenses more predicatble and profitable. If anything, incidents of drunk driving are on the rise because of lower allowable limits and less consumption. This is by design as a means to hire more law enforcement personnel. 2 beers and someone is now considered drunk. 1 glass of wine on an empty stomach and you're screwed. Try saying the alaphabet backwards on a good day. Impossible. It's a scam. Especially in NY. All the more reason NY sucks and has turned into a police state comprised of cops who lack any real measurable intellectual capacity.
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 17, 2009
 
Crazy Man, no one is saying that they have a right to endanger someone else. I agree with you. If someone makes the decision to drink and drive they are placing themselves and others at risk. If they get killed as a result of DUI, then we shouldn't feel sorry for them, they chose to take the risk, therefore by default should pay the consequences. However, no law no matter how well intentioned, could ever be concocted by any bureaucrat that would prevent people from making bad decisions. If more ridiculous laws have proven anything it's that it typically mean less freedom and liberties for law abiding people. Some of you people won't be happy until everyone is implanted with a behavior chip in which a government "Eagle Eye" computer can control your life and every decision you make.
Crazy Man wrote:
Libertas,
Drunk drivers should all just go out and kill themselves before they take someone else down with them. They have no right to endanger anyone else. The stiff drunk driving laws have in fact made the roads safer. Maybe you weren't around in the fifties, sixties and seventies and compared them to today. It used to be a free for all out there.
Libertas

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 17, 2009
 
In a perfect world you would be right. We all know that murdering someone will get you some serious jail time, perhaps a death sentence...murder still happens. Again, there is no law that any legislator can create that will prevent bad behavior. All we can do is enforce the punishment of the bad behavior after the fact, by enforcing laws already on the books. Unless of course, you believe in pre-crime vis--vi the Minority Report.
Euorgos wrote:
Obviously, you would never have to deal with any drunk driving laws if you simply didn't drink, then get behind the wheel. Drunks kill. There is no excuse for getting behind the wheel of a car after having had too much to drink.
you sound

Sayre, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 18, 2009
 
pathetic! the bs cases were a repeat offender merely gets a fine is simply a case of corruption and politics. if the offender wasn't connected, then the book would be thrown against him.
Sly Stallone

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 18, 2009
 
I always drive with a beer in my hand. It helps me relax. In fact, I drive even better when a have a good buzz on!(cept that time I went the wrong way on the Arterial)

“look up and laugh”

Level 9

Since: Jun 08

guess, where

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 2, 2013
 
if you are going to have more than one drink take a cab or get a designated driver

Level 4

Since: Feb 13

Clifton Park, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Mar 3, 2013
 
Libertas wrote:
Crazy Man, No one is saying drinking and driving is a good thing or should be condoned. No, I have never had a DUI. In fact, I very rarely drink alcohol. A glass of wine for dinner every once in a while is my limit. If you're going to make the statement that the 50's, 60's & 70's were a free for all, you need to back it up with reliable statistical data. No such "reliable data" exists, that I know of. I would be willing to say that since the enactment of drunk driving laws DUI fatalities have actually increased. The most widely accepted source of DUI fatality data is MADD. In fact, according to MADD President Wendy Hamilton, drunk driving fatalities in 1999 were 16, 572 compared to 2001 in which there were 17,448 deaths.
Prof. David J. Hanson, Ph.D. of SUNY Potsdam has written a very interesting and enlightening expose on MADD and their statistical data. It's surprising to note what they consider as DUI related deaths in their statistical data:
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/MADDtruth.html
<quoted text>
So if the DWI laws were done away with than DWI deaths would go to zero. Problem solved right?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

256 Users are viewing the Utica Forum right now

Search the Utica Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
WIBX Bill Keeler-Uh-Thon! 9 min Plate Death 30
If Cuomo steps down over Moreland then what for... 14 min Rich 44
Who is Elisa Rios? 31 min BobbyO1967 13
jaks in barneveld 35 min buttmuncher 13
Bruce Karam 35 min Jim 7
Bobby O's 4000 Facebook friends 42 min Bobby01967 6
us writes jews a big check 46 min bobby lies and riggies 4
riggie hates the life he has been dealt 49 min bobby lies and riggies 35
aau basketball 1 hr Heather knows 38
Irish Fest 1 hr Heather knows 28
The Tailor & the Cook 1 hr Heather knows 32
Wetlands permit for Marcy Nanocenter site OK'd 4 hr Mondays are Fundays 118
•••
•••
•••
•••

Utica Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Utica People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Utica News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Utica
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••