Rep. Alan Hale (bar owner & Repuke - of course) Defends Drunk Driving

[DeSwiss]

Run time: 00:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl_QNa-bCKc   Posted on YouTube: March 28, 2011 By YouTube Member: MontanaDemocrats Views on YouTube: 8846   Posted on DU: March 31, 2011 By DU Member: DeSwiss Views on DU: 1474

 
- You. Can. Not. Make. This. Shit. Up.

[GKirk]

1. Alan Hale...I know that name from somewhere...

...oh yeah! He was the skipper on Gilligan's Island!

[doc03]

3. That's what I was thinking, what was the scipper's name ?

Jonas Grumby

[GKirk]

22. I went and looked it up

and when I came back to post the answer I see you already did that.
I'm pretty good at trivia but I would have never guessed that.
If forced to guess I would have said his name was never mentioned other
than Skipper.

[provis99]

2. I happen to agree with him.

I don't think DUI should be illegal. It's a law punishing somebody for something they might do, not what they are doing. If a person can get home fine while drunk, then no damage has been done. It's no different than talking on a cell phone, or carrying a gun, or anything else that MAY be hazardous, but isn't necessarily.

DUI laws were brought into being by Southern Baptists and MADD, who are opposed to any kind of drinking, because they are teetotalers pushing their own anti-alcohol beliefs on everyone else.

[JBoy]

4. You can't be serious. Does your thinking apply to bus drivers too?

[provis99]

6. absolutely. Also to epileptics.

Why should an epileptic be punished for something that may occur when driving, rather than what did occur? If an epileptic can get home fine without crashing a car, he should be allowed to drive.

What next, banning people over 65 from driving because they MAY have a heart attack and crash their car? How about making it illegal for women to drive because they have more accidents than men per mile driven?

What do you think about George Jones getting a DUI for driving a lawn tractor, not doing damage to anyone? What about someone getting a DUI simply for riding their motorized bicycle?

[gadjitfreek]

12. Sure! Makes sense. Punish the result.

So when a drunk driver kills a little girl, make sure he gets a lethal injection for first degree murder. Getting behind the wheel drunk is one of the most irresponsible things you can do.

[provis99]

13. you completely missed my entire point.

If a drunk driver kills someone, then they would be charged with vehicle homicide. If they don't affect a single person with their driving, why should they be punished for anything?

Do we throw gun owners in jail because they MAY injure someone? Of course not, yet we do to those that drink and drive.

As DUI laws stand now, people can get arrested because of an arbitrary number set for blood alcohol level, not whether their driving was reckless or not. In America, it is usually .08; in Canada, it is .04 (and blowing .02 keeps your from driving home for the night); in Norway, it is .01! You can be arrested for DUI in Norway for having 1/10 of a beer in your system. Do you think all people in Norway with .01 blood alcohol levels are dangerous drivers?

[JBoy]

15. I think he didn't miss your point at all. You're advocating only punishing the result.

[Charleston Chew]

7. your question is ridiculous

[JBoy]

8. So you think a bus driver should be able to drive after drinking all afternoon in a bar

so long as he doesn't hit anything?

[provis99]

9. yes.

If he does hit something, he can be charged with dangerous driving. If he doesn't, why should he be treated any different than a sober person who also hits nothing?

[JBoy]

10. You're nuts. That's all I can say.

Why would it be "dangerous driving" if he hit something?

[provis99]

11. Reckless driving, dangerous driving, there are all kinds of charges.

Would you also advocate punishing someone for driving while wearing sunglasses, because it might obscure their vision and cause them to hit somebody? How is that different than DUI? What about potheads, who apparently drive slower than other cars but are otherwise no more dangerous than other drivers; should they be punished with DUI like they are?
How about people that took an anti-histamine? Why isn't that treated like DUI, if it affects people the same way that drinking does? Because there is a prejudice against drinking, but not against anti-histamines, even if they affect a driver the same way.

[Charleston Chew]

14. no, I didn't say that

don't spin my comments.

A bus driver is hired to perform a task. If someone shows up to work intoxicated then there should be repercussions.

I never once stated that I think "a bus driver should be able to drive after drinking all afternoon in a bar".

Are you a Republican? The only people I know who perform such spin jobs are Republicans.

Your question IS ridiculous. the end

[JBoy]

16. provis99 thinks my question is ridiculous for the opposite reason.

[Charleston Chew]

5. that is an interesting angle

[Ramulux]

17. Insane

Drunk driving results in huge amounts of fatalities every year. Alcohol fucks your brain up and impairs your vision. Those are facts. Yet somehow you believe that people should be free to imbue alcohol and drive on public roads and possibly kill people. I dont get it, why do you want people to be able to do things which often results in the deaths of other people who are not drinking and driving.

Do you also believe that there should be no eye tests for people to get a license? Is it unfair to make sure someone can see before giving them the right to drive? Or is that punishing people with terrible eyesight for the possibility they might be an unsafe driver?

[Cowpunk]

18. I won't go that far, but some of these laws are messed up

The ones who actually cause accidents are almost always two, three, four times the legal limit. Targeting people who have two or three drinks and then drive home is wrong and wastes needed resources. The "buzzed" driver is no more dangerous or irresponsible than the mom driving with noisy children in the car, or anyone carrying on a conversation while driving.

[stlsaxman]

20. I would agree whole-heartedly if driving drunk was a victim-less crime- like doing heroin or...

masturbating, or over-eating... though many times it IS a crime without victims- those instances where people die or worse make driving drunk a MAJOR crime.

[GKirk]

21. What you are suggesting is already...

...in place basically. Generally speaking people who DUI
only get ticketed if they do something like weave around or something wreckless like that.
The exception to that are when police have sobriety check lanes set up.
And I think those should be unconstitutional.

[stlsaxman]

19. "Taverns are the center of the communities"... guess it's either that or church...

or the adult entertainment store... or the gun shop... or the pawn shop... or the liquor stores...

[ScottLand]

23. What's a little drunk driving among friends?