• 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!

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

When you're an idiot who drives drunk, you give up your rights.

IMHO.

drunk-driver.jpg


File this thread topic under BFD.
What about the vast majority of people driving through those check points who are not driving drunk?
 
A lot of "unconstitutional" cries in this thread... and I agree. However, I wonder how many think we should search muslims at airports simply because they're muslim.
 
A lot of "unconstitutional" cries in this thread... and I agree. However, I wonder how many think we should search muslims at airports simply because they're muslim.

Strawman, stay on topic. Everyone has to go through the federal nudie booth. Someone already complained that airplane flight is not probable cause. Neither is simply existing on a road at a particular time.

Terrorists are Muslims. But not all Muslims are terrorists. However, I can see a Muslim from 500 feet away. I can't see a drunk driver that far unless he's toasted. Drunk drivers come in all races and sizes and colors. Terrorists do not. They seem to all have one thing in common, being a Muslim. No drunk driver can kill 300-400 people. A terrorist can.

So, sorry, apples and oranges comparison.
 
Last edited:
What about the vast majority of people driving through those check points who are not driving drunk?

In my experience, a couple of questions and waved through when it is obvious I have not been drinking... no big deal... driving a car is not a right...
 
What about the vast majority of people driving through those check points who are not driving drunk?

What about them?

They should say thank you for rounding up the irresponsible pigs.
 
Does that mean you think the stats are being inflated?

Yes, absolutely, in exactly the same way that rape statistics are inflated. Why? Because the people inflating them have a considerable degree of political clout, and no one wants to stand up and oppose them and thus be seen as "pro drunk driving" or "pro rape."
 
Does that mean you think the stats are being inflated? Why would anyone do that?
Alcohol, according to the link, is the #2 cause of accidents, with fast aggressive driving being the first. I'm still not convinced that checkpoints are the best idea, or that they are even constitutional, but both drunk driving and fast aggressive driving needs to be severely cracked down on. It seems likely to me that the two are related as well, as alcohol tends to cloud people's judgement.

Why would people inflate stats? To form propaganda, to excuse expansion of government power. The fact is drinking and driving is dangerous and needs to be watched for. However, not all the alcohol related deaths that are quoted were due to alcohol. The numbers are inflated in order to say "hey look at this". I don't think people say others should be allowed to drink and drive. It's that we've made the punishments horrible and have excused all sorts of government force against us in the name of it. There are reasonable DUI laws and procedures, and there's what we currently have which does not properly reflect the crime.
 
A lot of "unconstitutional" cries in this thread... and I agree. However, I wonder how many think we should search muslims at airports simply because they're muslim.

I don't. I think we've gone WAY too far with our TSA policies and have freaked out about a low probability event allowing further government expansion against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
A lot of "unconstitutional" cries in this thread... and I agree. However, I wonder how many think we should search muslims at airports simply because they're muslim.

Irrelevant.

And just to note: opposing one method doesn't automatically make you in favor of another by default.
 
Why would people inflate stats? To form propaganda, to excuse expansion of government power. The fact is drinking and driving is dangerous and needs to be watched for. However, not all the alcohol related deaths that are quoted were due to alcohol. The numbers are inflated in order to say "hey look at this". I don't think people say others should be allowed to drink and drive. It's that we've made the punishments horrible and have excused all sorts of government force against us in the name of it. There are reasonable DUI laws and procedures, and there's what we currently have which does not properly reflect the crime.

You have a point there. Some of the DUI laws are perfectly reasonable, as no one wants to share the road with drunks. A big fine and temporary loss of license fits the crime. Where they go too far, IMO, is when the drunk driver is charged with murder when someone is killed in an accident. The drunk may only be a part of the cause, for one thing. For another, if two people have the same number of drinks, then get behind the wheel, both have committed the same egregious error. If one of them is caught, fined, and spends the night in a drunk tank, while the other winds up in an accident and charged with murder, it hardly seems just. Manslaughter is a more reasonable charge when the accident is caused by the drinking driver.
 
I agree with the manslaughter point. I never thought it right to charge drunk drivers with murder. It's just the retribution attitude we have when we emotionally think about drunk driving. It's an accident. Someone drunk driving isn't looking to murder someone, they're looking to get home. Now they may have acted in a matter which was reckless and leads to other crimes; which all have proper punishments behind it. But it's not an intentional act, and in my mind that's what really defines murder over manslaughter. There was a guy in CO who got charged with murder 1 because he killed someone in a road rage accident. Now in that case, he most certainly intended harm as he used his vehicle as a weapon. But I don't think it was so premeditated to get a murder 1 charge; murder 2 I could have seen. But we seem to like revenge based tactics and in so doing apply harsher punishments than need be. Currently you can be jailed on your first DUI in CO. And in general, it's an expensive ticket often costing thousands and thousands of dollars. I don't see that as reasonable punishment, particularly if there was no property or personal damage caused. Also, I think the therapy classes are complete BS. They stack that on top of the classes you have to do. And even on your first offense, no damage done, if you want you car back for work or something you have to pay to have a breathalyzer installed and pay the monthly fee associated with it to use your car. I can maybe see that on repeat offenders, but not first time no damage done offenders.

I think we've just taken the punishments and went out of control because DUI is very emotional and some refuse to detach emotion from the crime.
 
I think we've just taken the punishments and went out of control because DUI is very emotional and some refuse to detach emotion from the crime.

Yes, we do attach emotion to several crimes, and then try to change behavior by imposing draconian punishments. As an example, we have pot dealers in jail for more time than armed robbers in some cases. Drunk driving is the same sort of thing. The fast, aggressive driver causes more accidents, yet the punishment is less for reckless driving. The goal is, or should be, to get as many druks off the road as possible. Is charging people with murder for an accident getting us closer to the goal? I'd say no, probably not. The guy leaving the bar and deciding to try to make it home isn't thinking about that anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom