Should drunk driving be reduced to a $75 fine?

[Chojo]

Originally posted by mx73someday

What does fraud have to do with drunk driving?

You should look at what you decided to define crime as.

You said that an act can't be labeled as a crime unless there is an injured party, and I was asking you to tell me if you are right and the law is wrong about how things like fraud (where there are no 'injured' persons) are criminal.

I was just showing you how easily your definitions falls apart, NOT that bringing guns to school and scamming people are related to drunk driving

It's just a really poor definition, that's all.

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


The definition of crime. Fail.

Except for that it doesn't define anything. You cannot injure public welfare because it does not exist in material reality. The interests of the state can never be defined in any consistent manner, as well states do not exist in material reality and therefore cannot have interests. Only the interests of individuals exists.

It's double speak definitions like this that make non-criminal activities criminal.

Originally posted by Chojo

You said that an act can't be labeled as a crime unless there is an injured party, and I was asking you to tell me if you are right and the law is wrong about how things like fraud (where there are no 'injured' persons) are criminal.

Well I have some radical beliefs about fraud, there are many kinds of fraud and I didn't want to start a tangent. I don't think that fraud can be compared to drunk driving.

[AndyL]

getting a whole new perspective on this lately...

no it shouldn't be reduced to a fine. hauling cars out of the checkstops this week - pretty much all of the ones i saw were falling down drunk...

and if i hear one more kid claiming they didnt know about passenger limits and 0.00bac with their gdl... i may just have to smack em around myself...

i'd rather dui became just part of reckless endangerment with much stiffer penalties - we dont need a law for texting while driving etc - it should all just be reckless endangerment... it worked to prosecute that lady curling her hair while driving...

[calgary403]

Originally posted by mx73someday


Except for that it doesn't define anything. You cannot injure public welfare because it does not exist in material reality. The interests of the state can never be defined in any consistent manner, as well states do not exist in material reality and therefore cannot have interests. Only the interests of individuals exists.

It's double speak definitions like this that make non-criminal activities criminal.



Well I have some radical beliefs about fraud, there are many kinds of fraud and I didn't want to start a tangent. I don't think that fraud can be compared to drunk driving.

So by your justification it should be completely legal to store a cocked loaded firearm in a child's room?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by calgary403


So by your justification it should be completely legal to store a cocked loaded firearm in a child's room?

I think, from his previous posts, he thinks it shouldn't be *criminal* because the child hasn't hurt itself (yet). I'm not sure he necessarily would be "OK" with it.

The problem with that logic is I can think of endless situations that put people's lives in danger and would clearly be criminal offenses even if nobody is injured. That includes drunk driving.

They keep discounting the target practice at school example but it is absolutely no different - in fact I would argue drunk driving is even more dangerous because people don't know the driver is drunk until it is too late. With the gun at the school, at least people would hear it and run away haha.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
They keep discounting the target practice at school example but it is absolutely no different - in fact I would argue drunk driving is even more dangerous because people don't know the driver is drunk until it is too late. With the gun at the school, at least people would hear it and run away haha.

Because it seems my example of such was actually picking straws.

But whatever. It is criminal and likely won't ever be changed. So I don't really give a shit.

[googe]

Ok, so 31% of the fatalities in 2007 had a driver that was legally impaired.

That means 69% of the traffic deaths contained only sober people.

Doesn't that mean technically you're much less likely to get into a fatal accident if at least one of the drivers is drunk? Being drunk cuts the fatality rate in half!

[calgary403]

Anybody that can read through this and think drunk driving should not be criminal is a sick bastard:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...encing-101112/