• 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

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You won't believe what he said:

YouTube - Rep. Hale Defends Drunk Driving

So DWI laws are bad for tavern and bar owners? Actually, they are not. If bar owners behave responsibly and stop serving drinks to drunks, they don't have a problem. To everybody else - Drink responsibly or go to jail. You are NOT allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk by going out on the road drunk. If you do, then you have made a bad choice, and I hope you get busted before you ruin the lives of others. If it was just your own life, I wouldn't give a damn, but it's not, and that's why we have laws against driving drunk.

As someone who is serving probation for a DWI, I will be the very first to say that this lawmaker should be unelected as soon as possible. Not only is he irresponsible, but he is a menace. I support DWI laws, and if you value your own lives, you will support them too.
 
My only issue with DWI laws is that they are sometimes abused and people are prosecuted for things like sleeping in the driver's seat of a car while intoxicated, even if it wasn't moving at the time. However, that's an issue with the people enforcing the laws, and not the actual laws themselves.
 
Anybody here have a friend or relative who was an EMT? Ask them about drunk drivers......
 
I love Montana. Lived up there for years. Now I'm in 'Dogbreath Houston'.
 
Move over Tea Party, Montana has the Beer Party.
 
which state has the whine party, oops, I mean WINE, party....
 
which state has the whine party, oops, I mean WINE, party....

That's not a state. France has the wine party. They surrendered to their alcohol addiction. LOL.
 
DWI laws are over the top control by the state. Punishing people for potential outcomes is not right. If you want to punish them when they do kill someone you already have a law for that.
 
DWI laws are over the top control by the state. Punishing people for potential outcomes is not right. If you want to punish them when they do kill someone you already have a law for that.

Are you serious?
 
I'm almost always serious unless I'm not.
 
Maybe you can apply more critical thinking skills towards the issue. Setting a standard for acceptable impairment while driving a heavy machine and punishing people as a deterrent towards reckless behavior for violating said limit is unacceptable and worth the cost of life and suffering it would incur on hundreds of thousands to satisfy whatever your notions of libertarianism are.

mk...now were bng srsbzns mk?
 
Maybe you can apply more critical thinking skills towards the issue. Setting a standard for acceptable impairment while driving a heavy machine and punishing people as a deterrent towards reckless behavior for violating said limit is unacceptable and worth the cost of life and suffering it would incur on hundreds of thousands to satisfy whatever your notions of libertarianism are.

mk...now were bng srsbzns mk?

If someone is not harmed there is no need to punish. End of story. I thought about it plenty.
 
Why don't you think of a better way to prevent deaths due to drunken driving? Also putting your idea into implementation spells death for countless innocent people. Just so you know.
 
You won't believe what he said:

YouTube - Rep. Hale Defends Drunk Driving

So DWI laws are bad for tavern and bar owners? Actually, they are not. If bar owners behave responsibly and stop serving drinks to drunks, they don't have a problem. To everybody else - Drink responsibly or go to jail. You are NOT allowed to put other peoples' lives at risk by going out on the road drunk. If you do, then you have made a bad choice, and I hope you get busted before you ruin the lives of others. If it was just your own life, I wouldn't give a damn, but it's not, and that's why we have laws against driving drunk.

As someone who is serving probation for a DWI, I will be the very first to say that this lawmaker should be unelected as soon as possible. Not only is he irresponsible, but he is a menace. I support DWI laws, and if you value your own lives, you will support them too.

You forgot to mention the most important thing about this guy... he is a BAR OWNER! talk about conflict of interest lol.
 
You forgot to mention the most important thing about this guy... he is a BAR OWNER! talk about conflict of interest lol.

Sounds like a real classy fella. I'll enjoy watching his argument get torn apart.
 
DWI laws are over the top control by the state. Punishing people for potential outcomes is not right. If you want to punish them when they do kill someone you already have a law for that.

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%.
 
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.
 
Why don't you think of a better way to prevent deaths due to drunken driving? Also putting your idea into implementation spells death for countless innocent people. Just so you know.

There is no way to prevent it. Deterring behavior doesn't work.
 
There is no way to prevent it. Deterring behavior doesn't work.

It's not black or white. Deterring behavior may not prevent it, but it can reduce it.
 
Why don't you think of a better way to prevent deaths due to drunken driving? Also putting your idea into implementation spells death for countless innocent people. Just so you know.

the argument is not unlike gun owners rights..
until something bad happens, why does everyone need to be punished?

after all, "it spells death for countless innocent people" . right?

oh and btw. i am a gunowner and gun sportsman, so dont roll me into the 'anti-gun' crowd. im just stating a parallel to the arguement.

i wonder what the numbers are between drunk driving deaths and shootings are? seriously.. im just asking for the argument's sake.
 
Last edited:
DWI laws are over the top control by the state. Punishing people for potential outcomes is not right. If you want to punish them when they do kill someone you already have a law for that.

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?

laws are meant to prevent as well as punish...
 
It all about the money making juducial business, nothing to do with safety. If you drive drunk, first offense you loose your car but you don't get a criminal record. Second offense you loose your car but you don't get a criminal record etc. BTW the car is lost regardless who owns it. Eventually driving while drinking will be a very expensive proposition. Although mandatory treatment for the hardcore cases would be required. I just disagree with criminalizing every offense that's seems to be difficult to cure.
 
It all about the money making juducial business, nothing to do with safety. If you drive drunk, first offense you loose your car but you don't get a criminal record. Second offense you loose your car but you don't get a criminal record etc. BTW the car is lost regardless who owns it. Eventually driving while drinking will be a very expensive proposition. Although mandatory treatment for the hardcore cases would be required. I just disagree with criminalizing every offense that's seems to be difficult to cure.

Wrong. First offense in Texas you DO get a criminal record, but you don't lose your car. You lose your license for a year, but you can get an occupational license. I was convicted of DWI, and I still have my car. The judge gave me a break, though, and I only lost my license for 6 months. However, you are right about it being expensive. Lawyers fees, fines, surcharges, fines, classes, interlock fees, probation fees, forced donation to the 100 Club, and a few other small fees, put the cost of my DWI at 18 thousand bucks. You can be very sure that I won't be doing that again.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. First offense in Texas you DO get a criminal record, but you don't lose your car. You lose your license for a year, but you can get an occupational license. I was convicted of DWI, and I still have my car. The judge gave me a break, though, and I only lost my license for 6 months. However, you are right about it being expensive. Lawyers fees, surcharges, fines, classes, interlock fees, probation fees, forced donation to the 100 Club, and a few other small fees, but the cost of my DWI at 18 thousands bucks.
NO what I am saying is that you do loose your car but you get no criminal record. What you went through I am against, I would have simply taken your car and that would be it. No fines, no jail, no donations, no criminal record etc.
 
NO what I am saying is that you do loose your car but you get no criminal record. What you went through I am against, I would have simply taken your car and that would be it. No fines, no jail, no donations, no criminal record etc.

Are you talking about Massachusetts? In Texas you don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom