Smoking
- Thread starter Famine
- 688 comments
- 29,473 views
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in my entire life. Just ludicrous. Hence the justification for people to drive while drunk, because at the time they think they can drive well. Sorry bud, I know you said my philosophy had holes in it. But here's a huge one for yours.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
I think you're missing me here. What if I told you that my buddy can drive perfectly while totally drunk. What if I told you that my buddy was michael schumaker and that he was drunk when he won the last two races that he won...
Now, that's not true. But what if it was?
Think about it for a second...
Is it that the driver is drunk that's the problem?
or is it that the driver is driving badly?
If someone is drunk and drives perfectly fine, there's no problem. It's only when someone drives badly that a problem exists.
Hence, my original statement.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
Drunkeness causes problems with the fundamental skills of driving. Like BALANCE. I don't care if one out of every 1,000,000 people can drive fine while drunk. That's still not a justification to allow people to drive drunk until they do something. Infact, that'd be even worse then the system we have now.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
You've got it backward. You have to provide justfication to make someing illegal, not to make it legal.
You avoided the question. How about this? Separate the concept of car and driver for a moment.
You have two entities, a car and a driver. Which one do you really care about? The car. What do you care what the driver does in the car as long as the car does what it's supposed to? Why do you care if there even is a driver as long as the car does what it's supposed to? Perhaps there is a robot in the car driving it, or the person at the wheel has the ability to "sense" the road ahead and can blindfold himself. Perhaps the person in the car is able to drive well and talk on the phone or smoke or read a book.
Why do you care what the person is doing or what state the person was in as long as the car does what it's supposed to? You can take the mental state of the driver into account after an accident to determine if the driver knowingly decreased his own ability to control the car. But what you really care about is what the car does, not the driver.
- 3,052
danoff
The car cannot be doing the right thing because the car [usually] cannot do anything without the driver. Therefore, whatever the driver does, the car does. It is important what the driver does because the driver has complete control over his/her vehicle.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
Let's see. It's important. Extremely important. Let's look at it from the opposite end of the spectrum. Someone was hurt or mamed and you're trying to get them to the hospital. So you run a few lights and going to fast. You get pulled over, the officer sees that you're trying to get someone to the hospital and gives you an escort.
Now in that case the car was behaving recklessly but the driver was morally justified in what they were doing.
Was the officer correct to pull them over, absolutely!
Now, yes, it ultimately comes down to what the car is doing. But since the car is controled by the driver.... I think you see where this is going.
The major challenge is that the drunk state for everyone is different. So WHY take the chance? Oh, I might not be too drunk to drive....oopss, I was. I just killed somebody. Now I go to jail for 25 years(not a bad enough punishment). That could've been avoided if he was thinking I'm drinking so I shouldn't drive at all.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
You can't force people to think what you want them to. But he should think that if there is a steep penalty for doing anything wrong while driving drunk.
Are they? I don't think so. I don't think you're morally justified in driving recklessly just to get your buddy to the hospital. If you have a police escort that's a little different.
It comes down to what the car is doing. So how can you justify legislating what the driver is doing if the bottom line is what the car is doing? Just regulate what the car does, that's the only thing that really matters.
- 3,425
Just out of curiosity..why dont you think drunken driving is treated as an accident instead of as a crime after you hit something or someone ? What do you think about pre- meditated murder ? why do you think the penalty for that is greater than manslaughter ?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
The crime shows less regard for human rights and is therefore deserving of a greater punishment (or deterrant) if you can prove that it was committed with some knowledge of the outcome or with willing negligence.
For example,
If you were to shoot someone accidently, you've violated someone's rights but not intentionally. That's an accident and it deserves little punishment because it doesn't show disregard for human rights.
If you were to shoot someone in a jealous rage, you've violated someone's rights intentionally but under very emotional circumstances. You've shown some disregard for human rights, but not complete disregard.
If you were to shoot someone on purpose and had motive and planned it, you've violated someone's rights intentionally and have shown substantial disregard for human rights.
But one of the worst is if you shoot someone intentionally in order to get away with something else. There you had almost no motive whatsoever to kill the person, but you did it so that you wouldn't be punished for the lesser crime you were comitting (like robery). That shows serious disregard for basic human rights.
- 3,425
When you are driving drunk you have intentionally put every one at greater risk of injury or death and if you get into an accident you have caused it intentionaly by your pre meditated use of an intoxicant. Thats why the law looks at the way it does. There is ample precident in law proven against constitutionality that placing people at unneccesary risk violates thier rights to liberty.
BTW locating an explosives factory or storing explosives in a residential area is not a zoning problem..its considered a crime . The risk to the people around you is considered too great . EVEN IF IT DONT BLOW UP.
BTW locating an explosives factory or storing explosives in a residential area is not a zoning problem..its considered a crime . The risk to the people around you is considered too great . EVEN IF IT DONT BLOW UP.
- 2,760
Not true, PS. While their original intention may have been simply to have a good time and pound back a few, as soon as they get behind the wheel their intentions change.
- 3,425
By LAW the second you sit in your car and turn on the ignition when you are drunk you have commited a crime . The law allows for a drink before leaving recognizing that its possibile to drink responsibly but sets a treshold for what they consider impared (.08 bac in most states) . The fact remains when they intentionaly decided to party they should have also intentionaly decided to grab a cab or a ride afterwards . knowing you are subject to arrest and still getting behind the wheel to drive is the definition of intent to be stupid.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
This is what I'm talking about. How stupid is that law?
I intentionally put people at greater risk when I get on the road in the first place. Or when I serve them fatty foods, or give them a knife.
Define unnecesary. Almost every risk is unnecesary from a certain point of view - and from another point of view almost every risk is necessary. This idea could be used to restrict freedom to a great extent.
Yea, it becomes a problem when you start dealing with large scale weapons. Consider an atomic bomb for example. If you were allowed to have one of those you could cause an amount of damage that is simply unnacceptible. At a certain point it starts to become more of a military matter than a civil one. The explosives factory starts to get into that situation.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
danoff
Man, your examples go from extreme to almost not being relavant.
Ok, now you're looking for maximum freedom. Freedom isn't free. Infact, none of us paid for the freedoms that we enjoy now. It's absolutely ludicrous for a person to be able to drive drunk and not get penalized. How about a doctor that works while drunk? Should he not be penalized even if nothing happens? He should be simply because he knowingly put others at higher risk of injury and sickness.
You asked what is unnacceptable risk. It's unnacceptable for another person to have disregard for everyone else by believing they can adequately control their car while drunk. You say, oh there are people that can do it. So what! That's the exception not the rule. And I for one refuse to have my rights violated by some drunk idiot because 1 out of 10,000 people can drive just fine while drunk. That's just dumb.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Your rights might be violated by some drunk idiot tomorrow under the current system. You can't prevent that.
Legal action? No. But he may have violated his contract with his employer and may be subject to dismissal or even a lawsuit by the employer or patient depending on the outcome.
Ok read this
-----------------------------------------------------
What I am proposing would make little difference to the law. I submit that a huge percentage of the drunk driving arrests are made because reckless driving was occuring. What I propose would not change that. It would have almost no effect on the number of people pulled over or arrested for drunk driving.
Police would still be pulling them over, the reason would just be a little different. It would be reckless drunk driving instead of drunk driving (spotted because it was reckless).
Ok? I don't get what all the fuss is about here.
-----------------------------------------------------
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
Well this seems like the right place for this....
Massachusetts further limits personal liberties...
Towns allowed to ban smoking in private clubs
Can we ban non-smokers in private clubs, then, as well?
Massachusetts further limits personal liberties...
Towns allowed to ban smoking in private clubs
Can we ban non-smokers in private clubs, then, as well?
- 845
in the usa laws are being passed and people are starting to crack down on smokers...
but my personal opinion is that you just need to quit...its a disgusting habit, it smells, you smell, your breath is horrible, and well you age quicker...
QUIT SMOKING!! YOU'LL BENIFIT US ALL!!!
but my personal opinion is that you just need to quit...its a disgusting habit, it smells, you smell, your breath is horrible, and well you age quicker...
QUIT SMOKING!! YOU'LL BENIFIT US ALL!!!
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Man, I really can't stand the gov't telling me that they know better then me. They don't, they ARE me. They were elected by me. So they aren't higher or lower then me.
Now, I'm all for no smoking in gov't funded buildings as they are public property. But the gov't has no business telling a private company that you can't have smoking because it's bad for your employees. The insurance company can say that, but not the gov't.
As much as I hate smoking, I hate liberalism even more.
Now, I'm all for no smoking in gov't funded buildings as they are public property. But the gov't has no business telling a private company that you can't have smoking because it's bad for your employees. The insurance company can say that, but not the gov't.
As much as I hate smoking, I hate liberalism even more.
- 845
danoff
i know but this is the opinion section and thats how i feel
trust me, i know that considering my dad quit smoking not after my sister and i tried but after he got double pnemonia and almost died.
smokers will not quit for you...only for themselves.
but we can try
Similar threads
