Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (7697)	8/9/2004 2:39:26 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

DUI could be considered reckless endangerment. Yes, and that's the problem: any action, regardless of how small, that results in someone else being hurt or dying could be blamed on someone else being 'reckless;' human beings and their actions are inextricably tied to other human beings and their actions, as we are a gregarious, communal animal. "Reckless endangerment" is among the precariously grey legal definitions that give the government license to intrude upon privacy, curtail civil liberties and/or violate property rights. Reckless driving is the infraction; not what an individual has in their blood or what they were doing before they got behind the wheel. Similarly, I believe that murder should be a felony, but I don't support the "special circumstances" caveats that delineate such ridiculous legal concepts as (a) "hate crime(s)." Murder is murder, and reckless driving is reckless driving. People aren't killed every time someone act in a reckless and dangerous way but laws against such actions are not unreasonable. That's a valid opinion, and I disagree completely. LPS5

To: TimF who wrote (7697)	8/9/2004 6:09:48 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Off topic <<< the act of driving drunk in and of itself kills no one>>> Not true. It kills around 17,000 people a year in the US and accounts for 41% of all traffic fatalities. Legalizing drunken driving on the argument drunks often don't kill anyone when they drive, would be about like saying drive by shootings should be legalized as often the shooter doesn't hit anyone. nhtsa.dot.gov On the flip side, the truly scary part is the number of people killed by drivers who are lethally dangerous even when sober. For example; a person whose physical and cognitive powers have been so deteriorated by age, they couldn't pass a field sobriety test under any circumstances, will never the less be issued a driver's license if they aren't legally blind. Not to mention that most places, only knowing 3 out of 4 traffic regulations is all a person needs to know in order to pass a driving test, and that driving test will be the only one administered in that person's lifetime. The absolutely ludicrous part is on any given day, you will never see a State Trooper handing out right of way violations in hot accident spots, they'll all be parked on deserted stretches of highway where there hasn't been an accident in the past decade. The problem isn't having a law on the books to remove drunks from behind the wheel of vehicles. The problem is not having a system in place to properly qualify all persons issued licenses, along with periodic tests to insure those persons issued licenses remain qualified.