• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canadian Gets Life for Driving Drunk

Shep Dawg said:
LOL... Wow, I'm impressed. Most people don't know that about second hand smoke. I was aware of it, but really didn't want to debate second hand smoke, so I just went with the status quo there. And I don't smoke cigarettes.
Click to expand...
I like to do my best to be educated! :tocktock2

OK, on the harshness of my position. Maybe we could agree for it on the 2nd offense?
Click to expand...
I would agree with you on the first offense if the person killed someone. If you use a car as a weapon to kill someone, your right to use a vehicle should be forfeited. If you make the poor choice of driving while intoxicated, but no one is injured, they should go about it as they already do. I

I still think the first offense should be more harsh than it currently is in most states. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...
See above post.
 
EgoffTib said:
I like to do my best to be educated! :tocktock2


I would agree with you on the first offense if the person killed someone. If you use a car as a weapon to kill someone, your right to use a vehicle should be forfeited. If you make the poor choice of driving while intoxicated, but no one is injured, they should go about it as they already do. I


See above post.
Click to expand...

fair enough.
 
I think a huge problem in this country is the lack of public transportation made available to those who drink. Yes, at the end of the day, it is the citizen who must make the decision to get behind the wheel, but I think as a government who has decided to make this particular intoxicant legal, it shares in some of the responsibilities of safe transport. I have lived in several large metropolitan cities where public transportation isn't available after early evening, far before all the incidents occur. It seems to me that a lot of the problem could be avoided by providing at least a basic form of transportation or at least come up with some program where it doesn't cost 25-50 dollars just to get home.

Another idea I have, which puts less strain on an infrastructure and instead restricts businesses slightly is to require that an establishment that serves alcohol must remain open for a period of time (I don't have a particular number in mind) after last call is given. In every bar I have ever been to at close, you are literally herded out the door, regardless of your intoxication level.

It's unfortunate, but based on the nature of the intoxicant, harsh punishments aren't necessarily the way to go. An intoxicated person doesn't weigh consequences as he/she walks out the door towards the car properly.

It all comes down to whether or not you think the burden of responsibility lies solely in the individual person or society (that chooses to allow this intoxicant) as a whole.
 
Them Canadians just can't hold their liquor. :lol:
 
Midwest Lib said:
I think a huge problem in this country is the lack of public transportation made available to those who drink. Yes, at the end of the day, it is the citizen who must make the decision to get behind the wheel, but I think as a government who has decided to make this particular intoxicant legal, it shares in some of the responsibilities of safe transport. I have lived in several large metropolitan cities where public transportation isn't available after early evening, far before all the incidents occur. It seems to me that a lot of the problem could be avoided by providing at least a basic form of transportation or at least come up with some program where it doesn't cost 25-50 dollars just to get home.

Another idea I have, which puts less strain on an infrastructure and instead restricts businesses slightly is to require that an establishment that serves alcohol must remain open for a period of time (I don't have a particular number in mind) after last call is given. In every bar I have ever been to at close, you are literally herded out the door, regardless of your intoxication level.

It's unfortunate, but based on the nature of the intoxicant, harsh punishments aren't necessarily the way to go. An intoxicated person doesn't weigh consequences as he/she walks out the door towards the car properly.

It all comes down to whether or not you think the burden of responsibility lies solely in the individual person or society (that chooses to allow this intoxicant) as a whole.
Click to expand...
no, no.

the drink isn't illegal, your conduct when you drink is subject to law. as it should be. drink at home, or get a bus. the burden lies does not lie with society, it lies with the individual. we know the rules, and this particular rule is sound.

now, it might be NICE if cheap transport was available, but it's not the gov't job to provide it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom