Smoking

[Swift]

Even if it was only a sip of beer?

My point is, you put yourself at risk EVERY SINGLE DAY, and there's nothing noone can do about it.

Of course. There is risk in virtually everything, pretty scary when you think about it. But why raise the level of risk, this is what I'm saying. I mean, you could live a near perfect life and STILL get cancer. But smoking is only going to make it that much more likely. You can be a driver with a perfect record(like me) and still get in an accident and killed. But why should I have to worry about joe smchoe that just had a few beers after work? That's just not cool. and yes, any alcohol is bad since you can't measure the direct effect from person to person.

 

[PS]

Ok, but if they're under the legal limit (0.04/0.4 or something?), it's within their rights to decide to drive home. The same goes for smoking, because there's only limits in certain areas. Anything else and it's just plain rude. But don't get me wrong, I'm completely against smoking.

 

[Swift]

Ok, but if they're under the legal limit (0.04/0.4 or something?), it's within their rights to decide to drive home. The same goes for smoking, because there's only limits in certain areas. Anything else and it's just plain rude. But don't get me wrong, I'm completely against smoking.

I'm all about rights. I really am, but I don't see how anyone can justify driving while intoxicated in anyway. Unless they just took some cough syrup or something. But if someone is drinking recreationally and then decides to drive, that's just irresponsible and dismissing other drivers rights to not have to worry about the guy on the wrong side of the road, with there headlights off, etc.

 

[PS]

I don't condone it either, it's just stupid, but rights are rights as laws are laws, and we can not violate them without just cause or punishment.

 

[Swift]

I don't condone it either, it's just stupid, but rights are rights as laws are laws, and we can not violate them without just cause or punishment.

What rights do drunk drivers have? As far as I'm concerned, they're forfiting all but their maranda rights when they decide to drive while intoxicated.

 

[a6m5]

Also, how about people throwing their cigarettes out of a moving car. That could very easily get caught in another car somehow and cause some major damage.

I hate it when people do this. Some guys(and gals) don't even look at where they are tossing them. I've been hit in the front windshield, twice. Both times by some idiot, going the opposite way. I get cigarette ashes in the front part of my car sometimes by the car in front of me, also.

Also, anybody here participate in street cleaning or adopt a street programs? Cigarette butts after cigarette butts, that's all you pick up(occasionally, you get broken glass bottles). It's like these people expect the cigarette butt fairy to pick up after them. If you are smoker, please don't litter the streets with those!

 

[PS]

What rights do drunk drivers have? As far as I'm concerned, they're forfiting all but their maranda rights when they decide to drive while intoxicated.

You're going to eat those words one day. You're going to go out with a couple buddies, have a couple beers, chill out, stuff like that. Then you realize you have to get up early the next day and rush to get home. Even though you've had 1 or 2 beers, you're technically under the influence of alcohol. Let's say now a deer jumps out in front of your car, you swerve+brake and end up sliding A) into the ditch B) around it, and leaving you in the middle of the road dazed, C) hit the deer or D) crash. Now, would you forfeit all of your rights?

 

[Swift]

You're going to eat those words one day. You're going to go out with a couple buddies, have a couple beers, chill out, stuff like that. Then you realize you have to get up early the next day and rush to get home. Even though you've had 1 or 2 beers, you're technically under the influence of alcohol. Let's say now a deer jumps out in front of your car, you swerve+brake and end up sliding A) into the ditch B) around it, and leaving you in the middle of the road dazed, C) hit the deer or D) crash. Now, would you forfeit all of your rights?

Wrong! I don't drink. So that situation isn't possible for me. Done, so now what?

 

[PS]

Wrong! I don't drink. So that situation isn't possible for me. Done, so now what?

It's not wrong. It was a perfectly reasonable and possible hypothetical situation. I would have expected a higher level of maturity from one such as yourself, but whatever floats your boat.

My point was that anyone can be caught in a bad situation where they forget about the couple beers they had and their main priority is to get home, or wherever they have to be quickly.

 

[Danoff]

And yes I DO have the right for someone else not to RAISE my level of risk. Thank you.

Every time someone gets on the road they raise your level of risk. Every time someone buys a knife there is one more sharp object in the world ready to hurt you. Every time someone opens a window they raise the chances that a mosquito carrying west nile virus might just land on your arm.

You have no right to prevent someone from raising your level of risk, only to prevent someone from actually harming you. The risk of breaking the law is theirs to take - there really isn't any other way to do it. If you have a right not to be risked, you'd restrict everyone else to such an extent that we'd all end up in straight jackets for fear that we might hurt someone.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Wrong! I don't drink. So that situation isn't possible for me. Done, so now what?

Now that's what I like to hear!

It's not wrong.

It is wrong, because he doesn't drink. 👍

It was a perfectly reasonable and possible hypothetical situation.

Not if he doesn't drink...

I would have expected a higher level of maturity from one such as yourself, but whatever floats your boat.

What's that suppose to mean? How is what he said any "less" mature than the statement you made in the Drugs thread?

My point was that anyone can be caught in a bad situation where they forget about the couple beers they had and their main priority is to get home, or wherever they have to be quickly.

That may be true, but it doesn't apply to HIM. You should have rephrased it.

 

[PS]

Now that's what I like to hear!



It is wrong, because he doesn't drink. 👍



Not if he doesn't drink...



What's that suppose to mean? How is what he said any "less" mature than the statement you made in the Drugs thread?



That may be true, but it doesn't apply to HIM. You should have rephrased it.

He doesn't drink because he's underage. Any hypothetical situation is possible. Hence the term hypothetical.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

He doesn't drink because he's underage. Any hypothetical situation is possible. Hence the term hypothetical.

Who Anthony [Swift]? Underage?

Every time someone gets on the road they raise your level of risk. Every time someone buys a knife there is one more sharp object in the world ready to hurt you. Every time someone opens a window they raise the chances that a mosquito carrying west nile virus might just land on your arm.

You have no right to prevent someone from raising your level of risk, only to prevent someone from actually harming you. The risk of breaking the law is theirs to take - there really isn't any other way to do it. If you have a right not to be risked, you'd restrict everyone else to such an extent that we'd all end up in straight jackets for fear that we might hurt someone.

It's not the ACTION -- IT IS THE INTENT. If I'm driving next to someone, as long as they stay in their lane, I don't have a problem. If someone is driving next to me and then cuts me off because my lane is moving faster is annoying. Same situation -- different circumstances. Buying a knife to use as a tool is one thing. Buying a knife to stab someone is different. Same situation -- different circumstances. Drinking a few beers is not the problem (although that should be banned)-- getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking a few beers is the problem. Again, same situation -- different circumstances.

 

[Swift]

Who Anthony [Swift]? Underage?

Yes, I found that quite humerous myself. Guess he didn't check the profile.

Anyway, it's like this. If you don't prevent the things that do kill, hurt, mame, mentally abuse people, why would people NOT do it? The punishment"? Well then they'd have to get caught and convicted. I don't know, it just seems to me that this way of thinking for an entire society has far to many wholes. I'm sure the current one does as well, but from what you're telling me, I like this system better.

 

[PS]

Yes, I found that quite humerous myself. Guess he didn't check the profile.

I read someone saying that you turn 18 this year...

 

[Swift]

I read someone saying that you turn 18 this year...

Uh...well they were lying or confused. I'm 28, turning 29 this year. So I guess it was a misscommunication.

 

[ledhed]

Every time someone gets on the road they raise your level of risk. Every time someone buys a knife there is one more sharp object in the world ready to hurt you. Every time someone opens a window they raise the chances that a mosquito carrying west nile virus might just land on your arm.

You have no right to prevent someone from raising your level of risk, only to prevent someone from actually harming you. The risk of breaking the law is theirs to take - there really isn't any other way to do it. If you have a right not to be risked, you'd restrict everyone else to such an extent that we'd all end up in straight jackets for fear that we might hurt someone.

The law is very plain and easy to understand . If you drink and exceed the legal limit for intoxication / imparement . you are deliberatly putting others at risk to unreasonable harm by your actions. by deliberate impairment of your ability to drive you become a hazard of your own making. Why is that so hard to understand ? The action of drinking is not illegal . The fact that you have knowingly impared your ability before taking to the road at put everyone on those PUBLIC highways at risk because of your irresponsibility is . There is risk and there is unreasonable and unacceptable risk. You have no right what so ever to drive impared. You have no right to drive period ! Driving is considered a privilage and is regulated because of its inherant risks . Otherwise why bother to get a licsence ? and you DO have a right not to be put at unacceptable risk..there are thousands of examples of laws and regulations just for that reason . Why not just build an explosives plant next to a day care otherwise ? I dont understand the thought that went behind the above quoted statement . Why bother to require air brakes on trains ? Why bother with seat belts ? Why not have a 90 mph limit or no limit at school crossings ? why bother with street signals at all ?

 

[Danoff]

Why not have a 90 mph limit or no limit at school crossings ? why bother with street signals at all ?

What you do with your car is not the same thing as how you do it.

Why bother with seat belts ?

I'm against mandatory seat belt laws (there's a thread for that already).

Why bother to require air brakes on trains ?

They shouldn't be required.

Why not just build an explosives plant next to a day care otherwise ?

So we're talking about zoning laws now?

and you DO have a right not to be put at unacceptable risk..there are thousands of examples of laws and regulations just for that reason .

I'd like to see some of these examples. What is an unacceptable risk?

You have no right what so ever to drive impared. You have no right to drive period ! Driving is considered a privilage and is regulated because of its inherant risks

I understand that driving on public roads is not a right.

The law is very plain and easy to understand . If you drink and exceed the legal limit for intoxication / imparement . you are deliberatly putting others at risk to unreasonable harm by your actions. by deliberate impairment of your ability to drive you become a hazard of your own making.

It's a reason to prescribe a harsher punishment because the crime was reckless rather than negligent. But I maintain that you have no right not to be put at risk.

 

[Swift]

What you do with your car is not the same thing as how you do it.

Tell that to the mother of the child that was just killed by drunk or negligent driving.

It's a reason to prescribe a harsher punishment because the crime was reckless rather than negligent. But I maintain that you have no right not to be put at risk.

Yeah, so let them be negligent, but don't punish it unless it actually hurts someone. That's as retard as letting 3 people die at a particular intersection before a traffic light is put up. I know it's not like that everywhere, but it is in Maryland. 👎

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, so let them be negligent, but don't punish it unless it actually hurts someone. That's as retard as letting 3 people die at a particular intersection before a traffic light is put up. I know it's not like that everywhere, but it is in Maryland.

You're mischaracterizing my argument. I mentioned earlier that reckless driving should be (and is) sufficient to get you pulled over and possibly taken off the road.

Tell that to the mother of the child that was just killed by drunk or negligent driving.

I would tell them that they are the victim of a crime that will be punished. Look, people get killed by drunk driving NOW. I've explained in great detail how what I propose would actually REDUCE drunk driving injuries - but even further than that - what I propose makes more sense and is easier to police than current laws.

If you're going to use the same counter arguments ("tell that to the relatives of the dead guy") then I'm going to use the same counter counter arguments ("it makes more sense / it would work much better if...").

 

[Swift]

You're mischaracterizing my argument. I mentioned earlier that reckless driving should be (and is) sufficient to get you pulled over and possibly taken off the road.




I would tell them that they are the victim of a crime that will be punished. Look, people get killed by drunk driving NOW. I've explained in great detail how what I propose would actually REDUCE drunk driving injuries - but even further than that - what I propose makes more sense and is easier to police than current laws.

If you're going to use the same counter arguments ("tell that to the relatives of the dead guy") then I'm going to use the same counter counter arguments ("it makes more sense / it would work much better if...").

Ok, now, how does it work better to let people drive drunk and only stop them if they are driving recklessly?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, now, how does it work better to let people drive drunk and only stop them if they are driving recklessly?

I already explained it earlier. It's easier to police, it's a real infraction rather than a false one, and by the time you're driving recklessly you've commited a real traffic violation which means people won't get so squeemish about slapping you with a real (deterring) penalty.

 

[Swift]

I already explained it earlier. It's easier to police, it's a real infraction rather than a false one, and by the time you're driving recklessly you've commited a real traffic violation which means people won't get so squeemish about slapping you with a real (deterring) penalty.

LOL, that is so dumb. Not you, but your view right here. Let's say a guy is drunk, but NOT driving erradically. Just going through stop signs and traffic lights. Unless a cop sees them doing one of those things it looks like they are driving. So he calmly at the speed limit goes sailing through a light and crashes into someone or something. But since it was LEGAL for him to drive, the only thing he did wrong was run the red light. Man, come on!

The sheer fact that you forget things, loose coordination and judgement is impared by alcohol negates the whole, "wait till they do something to me" Give me a break.

 

[Danoff]

LOL, that is so dumb. Not you, but your view right here. Let's say a guy is drunk, but NOT driving erradically. Just going through stop signs and traffic lights. Unless a cop sees them doing one of those things it looks like they are driving. So he calmly at the speed limit goes sailing through a light and crashes into someone or something. But since it was LEGAL for him to drive, the only thing he did wrong was run the red light. Man, come on!

The sheer fact that you forget things, loose coordination and judgement is impared by alcohol negates the whole, "wait till they do something to me" Give me a break.

You're right. Cops don't see people driving erratically very often. In fact lots of traffic laws get violated all the time and cops don't catch the people who do it.

So what's to stop people form doing it? The penalty. If the penalty for getting in an accident while drunk is high enough almost nobody will do it.

Now consider this. Take your scenario above. How do laws against drunk driving prevent that from happening (aside from your checkpoint things which are just horrible)? The fact of the matter is that your scenario isn't accounted for any better with the laws as they are now than the laws as I propose them.

 

[Zrow]

I already explained it earlier. It's easier to police, it's a real infraction rather than a false one, and by the time you're driving recklessly you've commited a real traffic violation which means people won't get so squeemish about slapping you with a real (deterring) penalty.

I tend to disagree here; I'd say it's better to eliminate the potential for serious accidents or damage to occur. Not to say that the current system does eliminate the problem, but at least its a deterrant. You can't trust people to gauge themselves about weather they should be driving or not, much less expect them all to not drive if they shouldn't. In this case, it's not even about protecting the driver - it's about protecting others on the road.

If you have a right not to be risked, you'd restrict everyone else to such an extent that we'd all end up in straight jackets for fear that we might hurt someone.

I agree with you fundamentally, but driving intoxicated is proven to be deadly to other drivers who are not drunk. The risk is sufficiently high to warrent the illegality of driving drunk, period. Why can't you bring a gun into the courthouse or school or whathaveyou? Even though you have not actually shot someone, the risk is high enough to warrent the prohibition of one. I'd say the same applies here.

 

[Swift]

Now consider this. Take your scenario above. How do laws against drunk driving prevent that from happening (aside from your checkpoint things which are just horrible)? The fact of the matter is that your scenario isn't accounted for any better with the laws as they are now than the laws as I propose them.

Very simple, in your view. It's FINE for a drunk person to get behind the wheel. Therefore raising the risk of accidents and killing someone. I mean come on, do you really think that a drunk guy that believes they are capable to drive with think that they won't get in an accident? What kind of twisted logic is that?

Driving drunk is fine, but get in an accident and you're in more trouble then you would be if you weren't drunk. Hmm...I don't think that'll stop anyone from driving drunk. Unless of couse the penalty is death or something extreme like that.

 

[Danoff]

Since this is now the drunk driving thread (I admit much of the fault)...

Driving drunk is fine, but get in an accident and you're in more trouble then you would be if you weren't drunk. Hmm...I don't think that'll stop anyone from driving drunk. Unless of couse the penalty is death or something extreme like that.

How about 10-12 years in prison - for an accident in which someone was hurt (not killed, hurt). How about 1 year minimum in prison for running a stop sign or reckless driving while drunk (or under the influence of any substance that should be legal like cocaine or heroin)?

That would certainly cut down on drunk driving. You have to understand I throw this in the same category as driving while under the influence of any substantially mind altering substance that I would advocate should be legal - like LSD for example.

Yes, I think it should be legal to drive while under the influence of LSD - yes hallucinating on the road. But the threat of a year in prison for missing a stopsign would deter better than the threat of losing your license for a few weeks.

 

[194GVan]

So what's to stop people form doing it? The penalty. If the penalty for getting in an accident while drunk is high enough almost nobody will do it.

How about losing your license and going straight to jail when you are caught for a DUI? thats how it is now in Virginia, and we also regularly have checkpoints.

Now before you go and say something like "well taking their license away doesnt necessarily mean they are going to stop driving..." I will openly admit you are right. There are ALWAYS going to be people that are going to disregard laws and not care because the ratio of police officers to people will never be 1:1. That doesnt mean that its pointless to have such laws just because they are hard to enforce.

 

[Danoff]

How about losing your license and going straight to jail when you are caught for a DUI?

(When do you get out of jail? Very shortly.)

Just change it to DRUI (driving recklessly under the influence) and I'll be ok.

What would that really change? When people get pulled over now for "drunk driving" they're really getting pulled over for reckless drunk driving.

However, it would eliminate checkpoints - which I hate the idea of.

 

[Swift]

Since this is now the drunk driving thread (I admit much of the fault)...



How about 10-12 years in prison - for an accident in which someone was hurt (not killed, hurt). How about 1 year minimum in prison for running a stop sign or reckless driving while drunk (or under the influence of any substance that should be legal like cocaine or heroin)?

That would certainly cut down on drunk driving. You have to understand I throw this in the same category as driving while under the influence of any substantially mind altering substance that I would advocate should be legal - like LSD for example.

Yes, I think it should be legal to drive while under the influence of LSD - yes hallucinating on the road. But the threat of a year in prison for missing a stopsign would deter better than the threat of losing your license for a few weeks.

That's still trying to patch a dam after it's already broken. How can you give people freedoms but then punish them for exercising those freedoms? Yeah, I know, it hurt someone else. But you're giving them the gun to go shoot somebody by saying it's OK to drive drunk. Pure and simple. I refuse to risk mine or anyone elses life like that. Just dumb.

194GVan, good points.