Terse Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Drunk driving is a crime that occasionally ruins lives. If it has the potential to ruin any lives - and is preventable - then it ought to be severely stamped on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 It still does not get away from the fact that drink driving is a serious crime that often ruins lives, therefore it is a problem if just one person does it. I for one would not and have not hesitated in the past of phoning the police to report a drunk driver. No. Drug dealing is a serious crime that often ruins lives. Drunk driving is a crime that occasionally ruins lives. If you want to spend tax dollars on preventing people from shattering other's lives, tackle the drugs problem. First of all I do not pay my tax in dollars, second no matter how you put it drink driving is a crime in mine and many peoples eyes just as bad as drugs, more often than not a junkie will mess his own life up and others may suffer emotionally. Now please go tell the mothers of a group of children hit and killed by a drunk driver running into a bus stop that drunk driving is not serious. No matter how you try to spin it drink driving is a serious crime and those who commit it are in my eyes are scum, even worse than a junkie who injects heroin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 First of all I do not pay my tax in dollars, second no matter how you put it drink driving is a crime in mine and many peoples eyes just as bad as drugs, more often than not a junkie will mess his own life up and others may suffer emotionally. Now please go tell the mothers of a group of children hit and killed by a drunk driver running into a bus stop that drunk driving is not serious. No matter how you try to spin it drink driving is a serious crime and those who commit it are in my eyes are scum, even worse than a junkie who injects heroin. We had better ban driving altogether then because nearly all the hideous crashes as you describe above are caused by sober people. The drunk ones make the news because it sells papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 No matter what you say drink driving is illegal but by the way you are arguing I would say you wish it wasn't so, are you a persistant drink driver yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 No matter what you say drink driving is illegal but by the way you are arguing I would say you wish it wasn't so, are you a persistant drink driver yourself? Not at all. I am a persistant taxi taker and walker. However, going back to my original point, Changing the acceptable blood alcohol level will not make a blind bit of difference. The level needs to be enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 But you have just stated it is too trivial to be enforced, make your mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 As we are all supposed to a) Be free to live our lives with the minimum of interference from the Government/Authorities; and b) Be presumed innocent unless proven guilty then I would never agree with random testing of drivers as suggested by some posters, and if this was brought in & I was ever stopped for no reason then I would refuse to give a sample, and damn the consequences. I also do not agree with lowering the DD limit, there's nothing wrong with having a pint or two over a whole evening if you're designated driver - a nano-second of a slow down in reflexes maybe, but nowhere near as dangerous as the millions of Mums and Dads twisting round in their seats to shut up the kids in the back or stop them from fighting, men nattering to their boy-chums in the passenger seat or scoffing donuts/drinking pop etc etc. As someone else said, if it aint broke, don't fix it. And jimbms, there's nowt to be proud of in being a dirty grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 As we are all supposed to a) Be free to live our lives with the minimum of interference from the Government/Authorities; and b) Be presumed innocent unless proven guilty then I would never agree with random testing of drivers as suggested by some posters, and if this was brought in & I was ever stopped for no reason then I would refuse to give a sample, and damn the consequences. I also do not agree with lowering the DD limit, there's nothing wrong with having a pint or two over a whole evening if you're designated driver - a nano-second of a slow down in reflexes maybe, but nowhere near as dangerous as the millions of Mums and Dads twisting round in their seats to shut up the kids in the back or stop them from fighting, men nattering to their boy-chums in the passenger seat or scoffing donuts/drinking pop etc etc. As someone else said, if it aint broke, don't fix it. And jimbms, there's nowt to be proud of in being a dirty grass. Oh but I am proud of preventing someone who was so pissed the could hardly walk from driving and ruining other lives and I would do the same again, I do hope some time you do get stopped for a random test. Noted how you use the term grass, obviously you are from the fraternity that believes breaking the law is ok and sod how it effects others, do you also fiddle your benifits, there's nowt proud about condoning a potential killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 But you have just stated it is too trivial to be enforced, make your mind up. No I did not. What I am trying to get across to you is that the problem is already under control. Any additional spending is a waste of public money, which would be better spent on real problems that are not under control, like drug dealing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Are you a bit dim? Spending on trying to prevent people enjoying drugs that are growing & growing in popularity is the biggest waste of money there is. Still, keeps the cops in a job I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThankU Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If the police were to stop every car going through the QB on a Sat,Sun or Monday morning the prison would be full, it takes up to 24 hrs for alcohol to disappear from the blood system. Stop all the advocates in the afternoon as well, they like a tipple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.