• 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!

Montana Republican Senator Bashes DWI Laws

danarhea said:
Are you talking about Massachusetts? In Texas you don't.
Click to expand...
No what I am saying is this is, what I would like to see is what I stated . Ma. laws are basically the same as Texas. Putting people like yourself through the financial ringer along with a record I am strongly opposed to, this is all about money and financing the judicial machine this country has created.
 
Laws against drunk driving are necessary, but they can be taken too far. In most of the country, I'd say they have been.
 
deltabtry said:
No what I am saying is this is, what I would like to see is what I stated . Ma. laws are basically the same as Texas. Putting people like yourself through the financial ringer along with a record I am strongly opposed to, this is all about money and financing the judicial machine this country has created.
Click to expand...

Oh, gotcha. Damn, am I dense today..... Oops, can I get an infraction for personally attacking myself? LOL.
 
There is nothing illegal or dangerous about going to a tavern, having one or two beers with your buds, and then driving home. What is illegal is drinking to excess, then getting behind the wheel. It is the alcoholics who can't have one or two then quit, and those alcoholics shouldn't be drinking at all.



None of us wants to share the road with drunks, do we?
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is nothing illegal or dangerous about going to a tavern, having one or two beers with your buds, and then driving home. What is illegal is drinking to excess, then getting behind the wheel. It is the alcoholics who can't have one or two then quit, and those alcoholics shouldn't be drinking at all.



None of us wants to share the road with drunks, do we?
Click to expand...
Exactly but taking a wrecking ball to their personal lives will not cure the problem and then marking them for life isn't right either. What I see is a system more interested in the taking of money under guise of so called justice, yet it is those who pay taxes and are law abiding who pay in the long run. Although I do agree in regards to the habitual drinker but I am sure there is another path opposed to punishing all for the acts of a few.
 
deltabtry said:
Exactly but taking a wrecking ball to their personal lives will not cure the problem and then marking them for life isn't right either. What I see is a system more interested in the taking of money under guise of so called justice, yet it is those who pay taxes and are law abiding who pay in the long run. Although I do agree in regards to the habitual drinker but I am sure there is another path opposed to punishing all for the acts of a few.
Click to expand...

It's called deterrence, and in a lot of cases it can be very effective.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's called deterrence, and in a lot of cases it can be very effective.
Click to expand...
Deterrence usually only works when one is in sound mind and body and alcoholics seem to lack both.
 
deltabtry said:
Deterrence usually only works when one is in sound mind and body and alcoholics seem to lack both.
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself to be an alcoholic. I have never kept alcohol in the home, and the only time I have ever drank anything was during gigs, which was a mistake. I can tell you first hand that deterrence has worked with me. I will never again get behind the wheel of a car after drinking beer. Want to know what else? I almost got myself killed the night I was arrested, and could have killed someone else. I needed to be arrested and taken off the road. And I betcha dollars to donuts that anyone else who has learned his or her lesson on DWI will tell you the same thing - The laws are there to protect the public from menaces like ourselves.
 
Last edited:
deltabtry said:
Deterrence usually only works when one is in sound mind and body and alcoholics seem to lack both.
Click to expand...

Depends. Often it is something like a DWI or the threat of another DWI that can get an alcoholic in treatment. Further, lots of folks that DWI laws affect are not alcoholics. Deterrence can be very effective for those folks.
 
deltabtry said:
Exactly but taking a wrecking ball to their personal lives will not cure the problem and then marking them for life isn't right either. What I see is a system more interested in the taking of money under guise of so called justice, yet it is those who pay taxes and are law abiding who pay in the long run. Although I do agree in regards to the habitual drinker but I am sure there is another path opposed to punishing all for the acts of a few.
Click to expand...

DWI laws don't punish all, but only those who choose to drive intoxicated. Drunk drivers are the ones who punish the innocent by involving them in their traffic accidents.
 
Dittohead not! said:
DWI laws don't punish all, but only those who choose to drive intoxicated. Drunk drivers are the ones who punish the innocent by involving them in their traffic accidents.
Click to expand...
Well I can see I am in this fight alone oh well here goes...
I do think we all pay and as a taxpayer we pick up the tab, while those involved in the legthy process that will ensue will enrich themselves. The law enforcement, judicial and correction business has become a multibillion dollar business and as a result we need to drag down the people accused or convicted through this unnecessary wrecking ball of a process. The process not only cost billions to the tax payer but lays down a punishment that will follow the accused for years and again the taxpayer usually ends up with the bill. What I advocate is what I stated, and very expensive fine or punishment and the accused gets to walk without a criminal record, he would still be eligible for gainful employment.
 
danarhea said:
I don't consider myself to be an alcoholic. I have never kept alcohol in the home, and the only time I have ever drank anything was during gigs, which was a mistake. I can tell you first hand that deterrence has worked with me. I will never again get behind the wheel of a car after drinking beer. Want to know what else? I almost got myself killed the night I was arrested, and could have killed someone else. I needed to be arrested and taken off the road. And I betcha dollars to donuts that anyone else who has learned his or her lesson on DWI will tell you the same thing - The laws are there to protect the public from menaces like ourselves.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider you a alcoholic either judging from what you have posted, you made a mistake and i do think that the process you were dragged through also was unnecessary. Then again you are of sound mind and body...I hope anyway.
 
deltabtry said:
Well I can see I am in this fight alone oh well here goes...
I do think we all pay and as a taxpayer we pick up the tab, while those involved in the legthy process that will ensue will enrich themselves. The law enforcement, judicial and correction business has become a multibillion dollar business and as a result we need to drag down the people accused or convicted through this unnecessary wrecking ball of a process. The process not only cost billions to the tax payer but lays down a punishment that will follow the accused for years and again the taxpayer usually ends up with the bill. What I advocate is what I stated, and very expensive fine or punishment and the accused gets to walk without a criminal record, he would still be eligible for gainful employment.
Click to expand...

Do you really mean to say that someone who has been arrested for DWI is not eligible for gainful employment?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Do you really mean to say that someone who has been arrested for DWI is not eligible for gainful employment?
Click to expand...
No... I am just saying the odds are against him or her , especially if he or she has something to do with transportation, machinery etc. Although this isn't my argument, it's the criminal record one will get for this offense even he or she isn't involved in a wreck. Loosing a car on the first offense is quick and easy and no judicial process required to the extent they go through now, not to metion he or she won't be marked for life. Now a continuing offender would be different, but slamming them into prison and not some sort of treatment isn't the cure.
 
deltabtry said:
No... I am just saying the odds are against him or her , especially if he or she has something to do with transportation, machinery etc. Although this isn't my argument, it's the criminal record one will get for this offense even he or she isn't involved in a wreck. Loosing a car on the first offense is quick and easy and no judicial process required to the extent they go through now, not to metion he or she won't be marked for life. Now a continuing offender would be different, but slamming them into prison and not some sort of treatment isn't the cure.
Click to expand...

That I'd agree with. First timers should pay a fine, maybe lose driving privileges for a time, and that's it. Repeaters shouldn't be able to get a job in transportation or working around risky machinery, IMO.
 
Dittohead not! said:
That I'd agree with. First timers should pay a fine, maybe lose driving privileges for a time, and that's it. Repeaters shouldn't be able to get a job in transportation or working around risky machinery, IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes this is what I am getting at opposed to what currently goes down. I think it would be a great benefit for all in involved including the tax payer.
 
This is like saying a zero percent crime rate is bad for detectives
 
Mikeyy said:
This is like saying a zero percent crime rate is bad for detectives
Click to expand...
LOL..I guess it does, but one thing for sure it it would free up manpower on the law enforcement side to actually tackle real crime. all this said, I don't want to diminish the importance of our law enforcement or judicial system.
 
Your Star said:
Drunk driving laws are in place to save lives. Drunk driving kills, and when a cop pulls over a drunk driver, and takes them off the road, they are potentially saving not only their lives, but the lives of innocent others. I support DWI/DUI laws 100%.
Click to expand...

So? You could say the same for many things. I really don't think this argument has any value to society.

CaptainCourtesy said:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I support this adage being used, in some cases, legally. DWI's are one of this scenarios.
Click to expand...

You could use this for any amount of government. Doesn't work for me.

UtahBill said:
so if your children are out riding their bikes and playing chicken with unsuspecting car drivers, you will wait til one gets killed to spank their butts?
Click to expand...

What? Parenting and society as a whole aren't really all that connected. Society isn't meant to teach us how to live, parenting is. Different rules apply.

laws are meant to prevent as well as punish...
Click to expand...

Hogwash. Laws are meant to punish when a behavior harms another's rights or life. Preventing crime just robs us of our rights/liberty.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I understand that. It does work for me, though.
Click to expand...

Works for me too. I don't like people who drink so much that they do this:

1267795498_awesome_drift.gif


LOL.
 
deltabtry said:
I wouldn't consider you a alcoholic either judging from what you have posted, you made a mistake and i do think that the process you were dragged through also was unnecessary. Then again you are of sound mind and body...I hope anyway.
Click to expand...

So do I. :mrgreen:
 
UtahBill said:
Anybody here have a friend or relative who was an EMT? Ask them about drunk drivers......
Click to expand...

I was an EMT, and my ex-wife and I were hit by a drunk driver two months before our wedding. She went through nine surgeries and lots of physical therapy.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2011/BillPdf/HB0014.pdf

That being said, it appears the objection is to a change in the law that looks back further than five years when looking at subsequent convictions. Now I don't know how that translates into real life, and I don't know in what context the state senator's objection was raised. Was he really trying to defend drunks and alcohol retailers? It's possible, but is it likely?
 
Henrin said:
Hogwash. Laws are meant to punish when a behavior harms another's rights or life. Preventing crime just robs us of our rights/liberty.
Click to expand...

So you oppose to having the visibility of state troopers on the highway?
 
This thread should be merged with the Dumbest Congressman thread for a unified thread of a Hall of Shame political leaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom