Intoxicants and Personal Responsibility

Quote from Xygonn : So DUI + involuntary or negligent manslaughter is not the right charge for a drunk driver that hits somebody, where as a normal accident would perhaps have no charges?

does not compute.

Quote from bonkman : does not compute.

Look there are options, either you punish those who act irresponsibly while using drugs extra, or you don't. You seem to be of the opinion that people on drugs should not be punished extra.

Alcohol is a legal drug. If you lose control of your car on, say, a gravel road (and you aren't speeding and do not have a history of traffic problems) and kill someone at their mailbox, and you are not drunk, there might not even be any charges. However, if the same thing happens and you're drunk, you better believe your ass is going to jail. This is penalizing people more for being drunk than not. We already do this. You ought to be against this type of thing, correct? Do you think DUI is entrapment?

Quote from bonkman : Nobody quits heroin or cocaine cold-turkey. It's too addictive. The reason the necessity exists is because the nervous system has changed to accommodate the drug and now requires it to function.

Com'on bonk, you picked the examples that are like alcohol (going cold turkey can have detrimental effects on an addict) and I already mentioned that above.

We are in agreement on those points.

DUI plus Involuntary or Negligent manslaugter fits someone who kills someone while committing a DUI. I think this standard should also apply to all other moving violations that result in traffic fatalities regardless of whether or not the driver who broke the law was intoxicated. Now if a person kills another while driving, but violated no traffic laws in doing so, then I don't think they should face any criminal charges or civil lawsuits.

Quote from Xygonn : Look there are options, either you punish those who act irresponsibly while using drugs extra, or you don't. You seem to be of the opinion that people on drugs should not be punished extra. Alcohol is a legal drug. If you lose control of your car on, say, a gravel road (and you aren't speeding and do not have a history of traffic problems) and kill someone at their mailbox, and you are not drunk, there might not even be any charges. However, if the same thing happens and you're drunk, you better believe your ass is going to jail. This is penalizing people more for being drunk than not. We already do this. You ought to be against this type of thing, correct? Do you think DUI is entrapment?

Actually, I am for punishing drug use. But I am talking about the effects of drug addiction here. It seems (to me) to be quite unfair to punish extra for something that the person has no control over (once they're in the power of addiction). Just like we punish differently when people are judged insane or temporarily insane. That they were not in their "right state of mind," whatever that means. That is ABSOLUTELY the case when it comes to addiction and it seems strange to me that we can absolve in one case but not the other.

DUI isn't entrapment. I'm saying that the punishment should be doled out differently if the person is an alcoholic who's trying to recover than someone who got blasted at a frat party. The difference is in the ability to make the choice. An addict physiologically can't. So how can they be responsible -- other than the fact that they made the "choice" to become an alcoholic by drinking lots of alcohol years ago?

Quote from bonkman : Actually, I am for punishing drug use. But I am talking about the effects of drug addiction here. It seems (to me) to be quite unfair to punish extra for something that the person has no control over (once they're in the power of addiction). Just like we punish differently when people are judged insane or temporarily insane. That they were not in their "right state of mind," whatever that means. That is ABSOLUTELY the case when it comes to addiction and it seems strange to me that we can absolve in one case but not the other. DUI isn't entrapment. I'm saying that the punishment should be doled out differently if the person is an alcoholic who's trying to recover than someone who got blasted at a frat party. The difference is in the ability to make the choice. An addict physiologically can't. So how can they be responsible -- other than the fact that they made the "choice" to become an alcoholic by drinking lots of alcohol years ago?

Aside from that, and taking their keys, and then getting drunk again, and then driving. Yeah, how can they be held responsible? They are trying to recover.

Indeed someone who has a proven history of failing to get their shit together, should have their license revoked permanently. If you can't trust them to control their problem, you can't trust them with control over two tons of steel that can travel over 100 MPH. They can take mass transit, taxi's or get rides from friends. Put them on a bicycle. Maybe let them have a scooter that tops out at 55 that has a breathalyzer in it if they live in a rural area. That will limit the damage they can do.

This is like putting someone that is insane in an insane asylum for life. You are limiting the damage they can do to society.

Quote from Xygonn : Aside from that, and taking their keys, and then getting drunk again, and then driving. Yeah, how can they be held responsible? They are trying to recover.

Taking their keys is the responsibility of the DD, no?

Quote : Indeed someone who has a proven history of failing to get their shit together, should have their license revoked permanently. If you can't trust them to control their problem, you can't trust them with control over two tons of steel that can travel over 100 MPH. They can take mass transit, taxi's or get rides from friends. Put them on a bicycle. Maybe let them have a scooter that tops out at 55 that has a breathalyzer in it if they live in a rural area. That will limit the damage they can do.

Is one incident an indicator of that?

I'm all for those suggestions, btw. I really wouldn't mind if all cars required a breathalyzer test before starting. I would only mind if that data were stored.

Quote : This is like putting someone that is insane in an insane asylum for life. You are limiting the damage they can do to society.

If you want to limit the damage people can do to society, why don't you execute everyone after a wrongdoing?