Quote:
|
Originally Posted by websiex
I like this thread a lot, and I'll agree with you somewhat on your comment about my statement. The truth is, DUI is a very complicated subject. Some people might want to just say, "Drink and Drive, pay the price!" and others might want to take a different approach.
I think the "Drink and Drive, pay the price!" approach is harsh. That is my position on it. I don't drive drunk, but I probably have driven over the legal limit. There really is a difference between totally sloppy drunk and "legal limit drunk".
I don't want to make this another huge post.. but I will to try to get my point across more clear.
The tests they used to make the .08 limit tested peoples reaction times when driving. They figured that .08 was unsafe to drive at, so they set the standard there. Now, of course you might be impaired at this level, but what I am asking is, does it really require a misdemeanor charge?
I think the answer to that is no. I bet if they did the same test with people driving while talking on cell phones; the results would probably, in my honest opinion, worse than .08 driving. This can probably be applied to eating and driving too and end up with the same results.
Eating and driving and cellphoning and driving both aren't misdemeanor charges. Neither of them can land you in jail and both are probably just as dangerous or even more dangerous than driving at .08. I'm not saying drunk driving is OK, I never said that. I am saying it shouldn't be a misdemeanor. I hope you understand my position and think about it.
PS: I can probably drive more safe at .08 then while talking on a cell phone or eating a Big Mac, truthfully.
|
Things that come to mind:
The law of .08 was more targetted at intimidating those that are irresponsible IMO. In other words, what you can function at is irrelevant. IF that makes sense.
I agree with your cell-phone synopsis, and I think new laws are falling into place. The way I see D-D is that much of the law is democratically imposed, if you will. Public pressure on legislation has pushed the laws to these extreme levels.
I do agree with them, I also think that I "could" drive at .08, however I will not because I don't trust others making the same decisions. Most people that say they are .08 are buzzed never seem to be in my eyes. I also think holding one law hostage because another law isn't suffice is dangerous...if that makes sense?
In other words, it is a slippery slope to say "murder should be ok because war justifies killing..." You catch my drift on my bad example....