Alright, lets discuss it...

So it is OK to cause an accident if you are talking on phone (depends on state), texting (depending on state), eating a big mac, breast feeding your child, hitting your child, changing the radio station, being sleepy, and/or reading a book. But, on the other hand, even if you drive safely and get pulled over for a broken tail light and found to be over the limit you can lose your liscence for a year or more.

Here in the US there really aren't sufficient means of public transportation, so taking away someones liscence is essentially taking away their ability to provide for themselves and their families. If someone is teetering on the verge of alcholism, is ruining their life going to make the situation better or worse?

Once people get their liscence taken away, is there anything that really prevents them from driving anyways? Yeah, they can take away your car if your driving without a liscence, but you can just buy another $500 car. Chances are, you won't be getting insurance if you're driving illegally, so is it better or worse?

It really just comes down to money and politics as the driving factor behind these laws. Some enraged mother lobbied congress because she had a kid killed by a drunk driver. Republicans jumped on board because it appealed to their morality claim. Democrats jumped on board because it would make us safer. The government makes lots of money and gets to claim that they reduced accidents. Businesses that supply meters or run conseling programs make a ton of money through government rackets mandating their existence. The religious zealots get to feel good that people are forced into religion via AA, which was started by a church and requires members to "turn themselves over to a higher power". The insurance companies make oodles because they can double or triple insurance rates, but still don't have to pay for anything if you cause an accident under the influence (which begs the question of how they can justify raising your insurance).

All I am saying is that any accident has a cause. Either you weren't paying attention, your car needed new tires, or your too old to be driving and your reflexes are what they used to be. Shouldn't we punish based on the harm instead of the cause? This makes it into a matter of personal responsibility, and would improve driving across the board.

The next big push will be in the area of phones/computers and driving. This is when people will get outraged by the audacity of the laws and start to change from a cause based punishment to a harm based punishment system. I studied roadway engineering, and the National Highway Transporation Safety Institute was created/funded to improve highway safety and reduce fatalities/accidents. They are required to show that rates decrease every year, or risk losing funding. Is it any wonder that we continously adopt stricter and stricter requirements for roads, cars, and drivers?

"god forbid some one loses a freedom, but a life is ok. [said sarcastically]"

I sure hope this isn't the mindset for the future. If it weren't for standing up for freedoms, the US would still have slaves and be under British Rule. Tell that to the people of Egypt and Tunisia, I doubt you'd receive a positive response. If China invades tommorrow, would you say the same thing, or is freedom sometimes worth fighting/dying for?

the difference between distracted driving and drunk driving is in pretense.distracted driving is so beyond common place, it doesnt take any great leaps to conclude it can be done (more often than not actualy) without resulting in any negative consiquences, no less lethal ones.it is still a matter of irresponsability, but on a level minor enough we all engage in it, even the most responsible among us.
drinking and driving on the other hand, has a far greater mortality rate, and is a form of gross neglagence.being that no one equates eating a big mac with the possibility of death and still chooses to do it, while drunk driving is well known as a lethal act and people still do it.making that decision making process, one of a level of selfishness that is a threat to the public good.

the fact that one loses a liscense for a year or more is a liberal punishment as far as im concerned.with no hyperbole i can say i am for drunk drivers being charged with attempted murder.and if not for it being a human rights violation, im totaly for anyone pulled over who drank and drove being shot in the foot as an immediate punishment.i shit you not, i would vote for that.

ones decision making process as a responsible human being, demands they take into account the result of the criminal act before they do it.if not that is thier bad and sucks to be them.drunk drive and ya cant get to work now cuz you lack public transportation? should have thought of that before you decided to drink and drive huh?do the crime do the time.

any punishment has ways to negotiate.you fail to see the beauty of that in our legal system.some people when having thier liscence taken away will not give a fuck and keep breaking the law, and others who made one little mistake will learn from it and not make that problem worse.the beauty is in the willingfull atonement.you got your punishment, and if you endure it, you are good.if you do not submit to it, wich you are free to do, you build more crimes to be guilty of.and eventualy, when the public trust has been exploited enough, you are removed from society.chance,after chance,after chance, so you know when you are rotting in a cell, you fucking deserve it by the choices you,and you alone made.

are thier gains to be made by third party interests.yes, wich is the case for anything.its not like we are gunna pretend we have all that our military has because we demand they have it for our safety.we know full well it is a matter of big business just as much if not more than a matter of national security.but regardless it is still, regardless of how much, a matter of national security.that fact doesnt change or deminish by profitiering or politicizing.drunk drivers being prevented from comitting that crime is in the public interest, regardless of wich third party benefits from it, at what ever level.that fact does not change.

the issue isnt as simple as you see it.im sure by your perspective it is, and that is fine.but our legal process isnt soley based on result, but also intent.hence being sent to jail for attempted murder, not only successfull murder and so on.a huge difference exists between the woman going to work, putting on makeup, while running late and a drunk driver.factors that have to be taken into account in order to legislate in a manor that can function on broad levels.the woman is going to work, so she is irresponably attempting to fullfill a social responsability.while the drunk driver is soley engaged in a self serving recreational activity.both didnt wake up that day saying "today i could accept that i kill someone", but in action only one behaives in that fashion, as distracted driving can result in death, drunk driving has a much,much,much greater instance.

getting behind the wheel and trying to negotiate a situation is very different than straight up abandonment of the situation.distracted driving is a partial neglect of responsibility in driving, but drunk driving is abandonment, as it is total imparement.

ya know how when ya hear older folks talking about how the younger among us are letting us go to shit?as if we dont get it and they did?your last paragraph is symptomatic of that truth, that we dont get it.

freedom is a right, because each generation (at varying levels) fights for it, and sheppards it to the next.the right of freedom as a citizen of the united states of america, doesnt usurp or negate the inherent nature of freedom, wich is responsability.as we are human beings and flawed as such, we dont have the knowledge of perfection, and cannot be expected to function as if we do.freedom allows each of us, to negotiate how it is to be used, as opposed to some one telling us how we are to function with our free will.but this takes into account that we accept the responsability of freedom, and our ability, in all things, to do the worng thing.

when that wrong thing,flaw,error has been made, freedom allows us to deal with it on our own terms, as opposed to being beheaded for eating pork.we get to learn lessons at our own pace according to our desires, until ones learning process availed by freedom has interfeared with another of us.

when we use our freedoms in a manor that is contrary to the public good on an individual basis, we have to deal with them in kind.make amends to those we effected, rectify the problem we have caused and so on.but on a social level it is accumulative, and a level of social disorder can be reached if it were to not be negated or stiffled.that would be the true death of freedom.a socail order that has no appuratus to garuntee it, but hopes that it will just work.

those who have not done thier part,(at lets admit it,we dont ask a lot) have the ability to damage and ruin it for the collective.those elements of our society that do not adhere to the public good, in order to secure and shepperd a life of liberty to the next generation, have failed.those who function in a manor in opposition to the public good (drunk driving,organized crime,prostitution,ect) are knowingly or not fighting against the very freedon they are exploiting.as if drunk driving were permissible, and our roads became so dangerous every drive was a lethal risk, do you imagine we would be able to enjoy freedom?"i could go to my girlfriends house(or get a job), but the tavern is having twofers, so the roads are too dangerous to navigate"."i used to have a nice view from my house, but i had to put in that barrier wall after the third car drove through my living room"."i was gunna send my kid to school, but she is safer being taught by video games in my basement, than taking a daily trip on the public roads".not really how we succeed as a functioning free society.

we are a democracy, and majority rules.the majority's freedoms are more important than the individual.as the individual can have his/her liberty via securing that of everyone, but functioning in favor of individual freedoms over a collective is impossible as some one would have to submit thiers in favor of another individual.that is what you are advocating for when defending drunk driving, or looking for permissiblity.

I understand what you're getting at; albeit in a very scatterbrained/rambling way. I do beleive that you believe yourself to be in the right here, and there is no doubt that the majority are in agreement with you. On the other hand, there are times that the majority should not be given the right to take others' freedoms away, which is why we don't force the christian religion on everyone despite the majority beleiving that it is correct.

I despise the fact that you think people should be "shot in the foot for driving drunk", but I think many people have a similarly hardline stance. I appreciate your candor in this argument, as it goes to further my point that you react based on a emotion rather than logic. You mention the fact that attempted murder is a crime, but fail to see the obvious. In order to be convicted of attempted murder, you must attempt murder and cause harm to an individual (i.e. shooting someone above the waist, etc.). This differs from our drunk driving laws, which treat one as though they've committed a heinous crime regardless of whether anyone or anything was hurt or damaged. The way our drunk driving laws are currently, it is analogous to charging someone with attempted murder because they said something mean-hearted about a person and happen to also own a gun. Just because you have the potential to harm that does not imply that you intend to harm.

There is no question that certain people are not capable of driving properly under the influence, but there is also no question that certain people are not capable of driving well sober. As a civil engineer by backround, I've taken highway design courses. Every equation for roadway design is based on perception-reaction time (i.e. the amount of time it takes you to notice a problem, determine the proper course of action, and then carry out that action). This time is conservitively taken as being about 2.5 seconds, although most people can react within 1 to 1.5 seconds (hence the standard "2 second following distance" rule). Seeing as this is what determines whether you get in an accident or not, I would be inclined to argue that we should be testing people's reaction times instead of their blood alcohol concentration. I think that would be a more accurate and direct way to categorize the risk, and would prevent people from arguing that they "were fine to drive". I beleive our current laws are based on the fact that 80% of alcohol related accidents were caused by people with a BAC of .08 or greater, hence that arbitrary limit. While this fact may justify the limit in some people's minds, it doesn't take into account the fact that people regularly drive over the limit, without ever getting in an accident.

Finally, I'd like to discuss your paranoid beleif that the roads will be complete chaos without these laws. First, lets look back in time. Drinking used to be a much more socially acceptable behavior, and based on movies I've seen from the 50's, 60's, and 70's; everybody had a bottle of scotch in their office to unwind after a hard days work. I've heard many stories from older folks explaining how a cop used to just "follow you home or just give you a ride home". Our last president and vice president both had dui convictions, but didn't have their licenses taken away. I was watching an episode of COPS the other day, and the scene started out that they were following a guy swerving across 3 lanes. They pulled him over and assumed he was rally drunk, but came to find out he was in a diabetic stupor and needed some candy. Of course they didn't arrest him and take away his license. Do you feel safe knowing that a diabetic could pass out and start siezuring any minute while in the lane next to you doing 75 mph? Should we automatically revoke the license of a person diagnosed with diabetes because this guy forgot to bring candy in his car that day? I also like it how you mention that a girl putting on makeup who gets in a accident is less of a problem because she is going to work instead of fulfilling her own "selfish desires". You forget the fact that she is just putting on makeup, and that is just a selfish desire that could wait until she gets to work. Would it make you more supportive if you know that a drunk driver had to go into work the next morning and therefore would not have time to go pick up their car in the morning when they are sober? That seems like a much bigger inconvience than waiting until you get to work to put on your makeup, but according to you the makeup accident is forgiveable while just getting caught driving over the limit justifies getting shot in the foot.

At anyrate, we'll probably never agree on these points. Me because I know what I'm capable of, and you because your scared of what others are capable of (or perhaps uncapable depending on how you look at it). I appreciate the discussion though, as it is the only way we can learn from each other and see every side.

sorry, i was high when i posted that, and before i knew it i had issued a redundant novel.

i understand your passion for liberty, as i think we all share it.but you are only seeing one side of this, as taking freedoms away from one person is better than the majority losing freedoms as a result of that individual.like the freedom to exist above ground and breathe.wich are what freedoms the drunk driver does not avail the rest of us.

forget the religious overtones in how you view its intent, and look at it cold.regardless of what ever value system a culture has, allowing the irresponsible to run rough shot insures social collapse.check out russia as an example of this in regards to alcohol abuse.

i know full well the shot in the foot bit will never be accepted, but as i understand the concept of justice it fits perfectly.because when one gets behind the wheel whilst drunk, it is an act of attempted murder as far as im concerned.we all know full well that a vehicle can kill.we have established this with the distracted driving stuff, as well as safety features being ever present, as well as no one in this day and age gets a liscence with out having the knowledge that driving drunk results in death quite often.so if a person has the knowledge that this behavior can cause loss of life, and they still choose to proceed, it is, in action, showing that the person in question values his/her own convinience and comfort over the lives of all others.as they are willing to risk all of our lives in the interest of driving thier vehicle when drunk.i have absolutely no pity for what ever horrific suffering is unleashed on some one who would selfishly sacrifice myself or my loved ones.that is the reality of it, and i am a petty vengefull man so that is why i advocate the shooting in the foot.kind of a "see how you like it" type deal, wich serves as a painfull reminder with every future excelleration.

wether or not one person can actualy manuver a vehicle while drunk and another cannot is irrelevant.as the person who can negotiate the vegicle when drunk, doesnt have that ability in perpetuity.just as we have begun making seniors prove they can see in order to drive, and alcoholic who can function well while drunk, at some point wont.it isnt a theory, it is what happens.why tolerate a blood alcohol level that doesnt kill today, when knowing full well it will tomorrow?plus that person driving drunk clearly shows they arent taking that as seriously as we expect or demand.

yes historicaly drunk driving was common place.and just as we look longingly at the 50's, it isnt what it has been made out to be(just ask any jew,black,or basicaly any non wasp).if it wasnt such a big deal, no drunk driving laws would exist period.it is the rediculous amount of lives lost that create the need for the legislation, with all those killed before serving as the proof of neccesity.using yesterdays policies to validate arguments against todays policies, is like saying we should abandon railroad crossings, cuz we used to do just fine with out them.but we all know many died from lack of r.r. crossing arms, and fewer have been killed since implimentation.

as far as my make up wearing girl goes, it was a smug example, but still valid.yes she is irresponsible too, but the point was that her irresponsability is fleeting and momentary, while a drunk drivers is total.it isnt like a drunk driver is only drunk at stop lights, but the rest of the time sober.the make up application is momentary, thus less irresponsible despite the potential outcome.as well as the purpose that person serves in the bigger picture.a drunk driver may be a pillar of the community, but no pillar of the community type event comes with drunk driving as part of it.even the most responsible among us run late for work at some point and have things we must do despite not having the time.it would be great if tardiness was tolerated more but it isnt, and that person is attempting to do thier part for the social collective.going to work.a drunk driver is serving absolutely no other purpose than his/her own.arrival at home in thier own car has no greater good for all of us, just them.the risk verses reward ratio is massively different.

as far as medical conditions go, yes, i dont want anyone who has no control over a vehicle at any point to be operating one.just as epileptics,severe panic attack sufferers,people who have black outs,narcaleptics and so on arent allowed to drive, niether should anyone who doesnt have the fundamental requirements to operate a vehicle safely.it isnt a matter of screwing them.it is just basic common sense.asthmatics shouldnt be deep sea divers, parkinsons sufferers shouldnt preform surgery, and anyone who is incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely, for what ever reason, should not be allowed to do so.

your position seems to have a heavy emphasis on ease and convinience aside from the libertarian freedom perspective.

food for thought:
1-how does a free society not suffer the pit falls of anarchy, as anarchy is freedom personified?

2-what inconvinience is great enough to warrent death? what inconvinience at any level is appropriate to avoid, when doing so can (and most often does) result in loss of life?

yes the guy who has to get his car from the bar is in a bad position in regards to making it to work.far greater a flaw for him and for all, is him killing another(or himself) in order to avoid that inconvinience.the drunk driver can choose to drink at home, like my antisocial ass.the drunk driver can choose to order a taxi thier and back.the drunk driver has a myriad of choices (freedom) by wich they can negotiate any situation appropriately.the act of drunk driving is just an abandonment of all of them in favor of thier personal desires.selfishness at its greatest manifestation.

and yes i have lost loved ones to drunk drivers.with the irony being they were alcoholics who never drove drunk, and were killed by an off duty cop who thought he could drive just fine.including the designated driver who was behind the wheel.the designated driver that they had planned in advance to have so that they wouldnt kill anyone.all dead just the same, and i will never get to see them again, and have to live with that hole in my life.and for what?
so some jackass could avoid having to be inconvinienced the next day in retrieving his car?

literaly think of those you love being dead for that reason, and tell me its acceptable.that your loved ones lives are less important than some one elses drinking agenda?

EXACTLY, Thank you, beat me to it. Thumbs down on this idea

absolutely nothing.but statisticaly those who drink and drive dont utilize fore thought and wont have a sober friend planned for.
thus deminishing a nice percentage of drunk driving as it is an act based in irresponsability and lack of fore thought.

In New York, the law is if you are convicted of a DWI you have to get one of these put in your car, even if it's a first offense ... they come with cameras that take a picture when you are blowing into them to confirm that it is you.