except that the potential to harm someone else is significantly higher. i suppose you are against reckless driving and speeding tickets too then?

8/3/2007 9:27:31 PM

Correct. No-harm crime is not crime.

I'm also against hate crime legislation, the criminalization of drugs, firearms regulation, anti-flag burning amendments, anti-gay marriage legislation, and just about anything that attempts to legislate morality. Drunk or not, hitting another person in you car should be considered a crime. I don't see how rear-ending someone while drunk is significantly different than doing it while sober. You should be held accountable for your actions, period.

Now, on the flip side, I'm in favor of much harsher punishment for when you do fuck up, but that's an entirely different topic of discussion.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : adf]

8/3/2007 9:56:25 PM

lets go a bit further into attempted murder then. where we gonna draw the line? you're really just playing a game of chance when you do some shit.

i launch a connon into the road. sure it doesnt kill anyone, but it very well could if someone were to drive by. the crimes are designed to punish blatant disregard for human life.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 10:35 PM. Reason : this isnt legistlating morality necessarily]

8/3/2007 10:34:40 PM

Hmm, interesting point. To me though, there's a difference between an act intended to cause harm or should reasonably be expected to cause harm and an act that could potentially cause harm. I'm adamantly opposed to telling someone that they can't have a gun, a grenade, or even a fucking tank, but I'm all for making it against the law to discharge one into a crowd. I'm not limiting crime to simply doing physical harm. Property damage and legitimate psychological/emotional trauma could be and probably should be punished as well.

I just find it very odd that we've decided that .08 is ok in some places, but illegal in others.

8/3/2007 10:48:53 PM

^WE didn't decide that, states' legislatures decided what was acceptable in thier states. Different people draw different lines. I'll admit that perhaps it's questionable at .08 or .06 BUT, you have to draw the line somewhere. (Same argument about sex with minors, is boning a 17 year old really that bad.... no, but you gotta draw the line somewhere)

8/4/2007 12:02:34 AM

I'd like to think that "we" are still in charge of our gov't (even though it's abundantly clear that we aren't). The essence of a representative democracy is that our elected officials enact the will of the people, hence my use of "we."

8/4/2007 12:38:43 AM

I just finished up my DWI and completed the ADETS and it is something you don't want to go through trust me. im up to date on current legislation, costs, etc. if you have any questions feel free to PM me.

8/4/2007 12:51:37 AM

No matter what the punishment for DWI is, if no one is hurt, the conviction should come off your record at some point--maybe ten years with no other DWIs. Some states have laws similar to what I am proposing--I think Massachusetts is one. If the DWI doesn't come off your record, it will haunt you like a ghost in employment, education, and so on for all the rest of your days, and that's just not fair.

8/4/2007 12:57:22 AM

ok i'm basically about to be the negative nancy of antidrunk drivers driver

so i've drove drunk prolly like 20 or 30 times ever...its no big deal...never gotten a dwi...dont even worry about it

8/4/2007 1:25:30 AM

Quote :

"how does a DWI differ under NC law then a DUI. Are the penalties are lot less harsh??"

In NC there's no difference in the law books as far as I know. Driving while impaired is all that is mentioned. The reason DUI came about in some states is Driving while intoxicated refers more to driving while alcohol is in the blood. Nowadays people drive with legal and illegal drugs in their system. they might blow 0.0 but they are too screwed up to drive so they are "under influence" of something. If I recall some states may actually have two different laws in their books and could possibly charge you with both?

NC definition of an impairing substance. Impairing Substance. – Alcohol, controlled substance under Chapter 90*drugs* of the General Statutes, any other drug or psychoactive substance capable of impairing a person's physical or mental faculties, or any combination of these substances.

8/4/2007 3:52:20 AM

to note Kurtis, I wasn't saying that some of these laws aren't bs, but I do understand why they exist.

that said, I'm with hooksaw. my problem is a combination of 2-3 of the points in this thread. a non-habitual drunk driver who makes a mistake and drives with a .09 in his system and doesnt even remotely hurt anyone (or himself) should NOT be punished so severely in my opinion. that neither shows a blatant disregard for human life, extremely poor decision making, or even that he was impaired much at all. with the stigma that there is nowadays (not to mention taking your license which could have long standing effect) it is just sillly to slam him for one night.



[Edited on August 4, 2007 at 11:25 AM. Reason : particularly since the line is not human readable, hard to judge, and arbitrary]

8/4/2007 11:23:44 AM

I am all for the drunk proof cars. I mean if they started making them mandatory in the next couple of years in about a decade we would probably see a huge drop in drunk driving deaths. I don't know what is "big brother" about it. I think "big brother" is being drug through the court system, losing your license, and having a criminal record from that point forward. The car cutting off cuz you are over .08 seems less invasive if you compare the two.....

I know a bunch of people with DWI convictions that still drive drunk. I also know a bunch of people who drive drunk all the time and have not gotten caught. If drunk driving is as bad as everyone says it is, then the steering wheel or shifter alcohol test should not be a concern. I mean really the only time you would notice it would be when driving drunk.

8/4/2007 11:33:39 AM

Quote :

"Drunk or not, hitting another person in you car should be considered a crime. I don't see how rear-ending someone while drunk is significantly different than doing it while sober. You should be held accountable for your actions, period. Now, on the flip side, I'm in favor of much harsher punishment for when you [are drunk]..."

agree

Quote :

"if they started making them mandatory......I don't know what is 'big brother' about it."

8/4/2007 11:42:04 AM

lolling at the stupidity of drunk proof cars

8/4/2007 12:03:28 PM

Quote :

"so i've drove drunk prolly like 20 or 30 times ever...its no big deal...never gotten a dwi...dont even worry about it"

didnt you hit like 4 cars in a parking lot and leave the scene?

8/4/2007 12:05:23 PM

ahahhahaha

8/4/2007 12:39:01 PM

Quote :

"Driving on other than designated roadway 55 "

I do this when Im sober

8/4/2007 6:08:09 PM

Quote :

" OPPAMA, Japan (Reuters) -- Beer-breaths beware. A new concept car with breathalyser-like detection systems may provide even greater traction for Japanese efforts to keep impaired drivers off the road. Nissan's alcohol-detection sensors check odor, sweat and driver awareness, issuing a voice alert from the navigation system and locking up the ignition if necessary. Odor sensors on the driver and passenger seats read alcohol levels, while a detector in the gear-shift knob measures the perspiration of the driver's palm when starting the car. Other carmakers with detection systems include Sweden's Volvo , which has developed technology in which drivers blow into a measuring unit in the seat belt before an engine can start. But Nissan's car includes a mounted camera that monitors alertness by eye scan, ringing bells and issuing a voice message in Japanese or English if a driver should pull over and rest. The car technology is still in development, but general manager Kazuhiro Doi says the combination of detection systems will ultimately keep an eye on who's behind the wheel. "We've placed odor detectors and a sweat sensor on the gear shift, but for example if the gear-shift sensor was bypassed by a passenger using it instead of the driver, the facial recognition system would be used," said Doi. Also keeping a short leash on drivers, car seat belts tighten if drowsiness is detected, while an on-road monitor checks if a car is keeping its lane properly. Japan's No. 3 carmaker has no specific timetable for marketing, but to half 1995 levels by 2015. Nissan's Doi says they still have to distil exactly what impairment means: "If you drink one beer, it's going to register, so we need to study what's the appropriate level for the system to activate."

8/6/2007 12:34:32 PM

Quote :

"I think anyone who's had a DUI should have their plates changed to flourescent pink for 2 years.... the embarrasment alone would do wonders"

i would seriously get a DUI just for that

8/6/2007 12:52:13 PM

"... is what I like to do. I like drunk driving wiiiittthh yooouuuu."

8/6/2007 1:38:09 PM