Montana legislature considers bill to ban drinking and driving - Page 2 - VGF

Nick · 03-29-2005, 05:04 PM

So let me get this straight.....if people can get hurt through drunk driving, banning open containers in vehicles--which serves to eliminate consumption and close a loophole--is a bad thing/

**Prince Toad** · 03-29-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perrin Aybara:
I hope Phil gets hit by a drunk driver.-jay

I'll toast to that.

Philip55 · 03-29-2005, 06:27 PM

A drunk driver is intoxicated, dumb****.

If you want to save lives, do something about the actual problem. Isolate it; the Driving While Intoxicated license plate is all fine and good. Impound cars. Beef up penalties. Just quit whining about stupid, irrelevant stuff.

**Prince Toad** · 03-29-2005, 06:31 PM

Philip, do you know how people get drunk?

Maybe it's by... I dunno... drinking. That's what I always thought.

Jonathan Resop · 03-29-2005, 06:31 PM

So...drinking while driving is completely irrelevant to drunk driving?

Wow.

I repeat, I hope you get run over by a drunk driver.-jay

Link2000 · 03-29-2005, 06:59 PM

Phil does make sense though. You guys act like all you have to do is ban open containers and everyone will drive sober.

I'll have to suppor the ban though simply because there's a loophole there. If a person takes a swig they could fail the breathalizer and actually be sober. However, a person over the limit could simply use this as an excuse.

Either way there needs to be tougher penalties.

[ March 29, 2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Link2000 ]

The Missing Link · 03-29-2005, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Link2000:
Phil does make sense though. You guys act like all you have to do is ban open containers and everyone will drive sober.

I can't decide whether to laugh or to cry.

Drinking while drunk is already a criminal offense. You can already arrest people for that. We're talking about drinking while driving, which by consequence leads directly to the aforementioned criminal offense. I fail to see how this is "going too far".

I will admit, I do agree with Phil's point where we should be doing other things as well in this; however, I fail to see how this is so absurd an idea that it just simply put won't do a daggone thing for the problem.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

GRENTLEMEN · 03-29-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptHayfever:
Well, having open containers of any liquid in a moving vehicle is pretty stupid, but yeah, we don't need a law about it.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

I drink soda while I'm driving. What makes me so damn stupid?

Philip55 · 03-29-2005, 07:49 PM

Getting drunk requires drinking. Drinking does not require getting drunk.

Speeding requires driving. Driving does not require speeding.

You don't just ban stuff because it can be abused. You ban the abuse.

The Missing Link · 03-29-2005, 08:31 PM

^ You can't prove that it hasn't been abused in the past. Your issue is a moot point.

48 other states have already done so. My state is one of the said 48. Considering that they're talking more about gaining federal funding rather than the actual abuse, however, you also can't say that it has anything to do with infringing upon liberty but more like "standardising the law" by compeling the states to do so through funding issues.

Maybe you should write your Congresspeople if this makes you so upset.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

Link2000 · 03-29-2005, 09:16 PM

I am fully aware of what you're talking about. Many people in this topic seem to imply that this action will dramatically reduce drunk driving incidences. If you're going to drive drunk you're going to do so regardless.

I already said I support it simply because it closes a legal loophole.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 03-29-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CaptHayfever:
Well, having open containers of any liquid in a moving vehicle is pretty stupid, but yeah, we don't need a law about it.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

I drink soda while I'm driving. What makes me so damn stupid?

</font>[/quote]Again;

Quote:

Originally posted by Beam Yosho the Drunkard:
But drinking and driving is bad becase you might hit a bump and spill your drink.

GRENTLEMEN · 03-29-2005, 10:38 PM

..right.

Jonathan Resop · 03-29-2005, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Link2000:
Many people in this topic seem to imply that this action will dramatically reduce drunk driving incidences.

I don't think many people here are implying that at all. I think many people are simply saying that this is a law that should be made and it's obvious why. Simply put, it's not just some "stupid" law like Phil suggests. There are millions of laws passed that are much stupider than this one.-jay

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 05:51 AM

Well, yes, such as the Social Security Act, National Firearms Act, Court Packing Act, several amendments to the Constitution, etc., but I oppose those too.

Jonathan Resop · 03-30-2005, 10:12 AM

I don't care what your opinion on those are. I just hope you get run over by a drunk driver.-jay

Link2000 · 03-30-2005, 05:03 PM

Maybe if you actually brought a debate instead of calling him names I could see your point.

And if you guys don't seem to thin kthat it will reduce drunk driving, then what's the point in passing it?

The Missing Link · 03-30-2005, 07:01 PM

^ Read the article again, silly.

Quote:

According to federal law, all states must pass laws banning open containers of alcohol in cars or risk losing federal highway construction money. Montana is one of only two states that does not already outlaw drinking and driving, and the state could lose up to $6 million in federal money if legislators don't approve a bill banning open containers of alcohol in cars.

"There are some who call me... Link?"

"Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!)
Zelda: The Grand Adventures | Triforce MUCK
ザ行方不明リンク
悪いユウモアの賢人

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 09:12 PM

That's one of the problems with the federal government funding "internal improvements," as has been a trend particularly since the Civil War. At first it seems like a decent enough idea, in order to help out poorer states, but ultimately it just leads to federal control of whatever they subsidize.

I also do not believe the federal government has an unconditional ability to spend on the general welfare. There is a mountain of evidence that that is not what the framers of the Constitution intended, but the Supreme Court has largely abandoned original intent in favor of "modernization." This modernization, however well-intentioned, has had severe consequences throughout the whole operation of the federal government, and in my opinion has had an impact for the worse.

There is a proper way to modernize the Constitution, and that is by the amendment process.

For now, one of the best things to push for would be the repeal of the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the direct election of United States senators. That amendment has upset the fragile balance of power between the cosovereign federal and state governments.

***CaptHayfever*** · 03-31-2005, 10:31 AM

AI, I drink water & stuff while I'm driving, but in a closed container. (i.e., a bottle with a cap)

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

03-29-2005, 05:04 PM	#21
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,311.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,811.00 Donate	So let me get this straight.....if people can get hurt through drunk driving, banning open containers in vehicles--which serves to eliminate consumption and close a loophole--is a bad thing/

03-29-2005, 06:27 PM	#23
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,561.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,061.00 Donate	A drunk driver is intoxicated, dumb****. If you want to save lives, do something about the actual problem. Isolate it; the Driving While Intoxicated license plate is all fine and good. Impound cars. Beef up penalties. Just quit whining about stupid, irrelevant stuff.

03-29-2005, 06:31 PM	#24
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,401 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 43,206.88 Bank: 18,304.68 Total Points: 61,511.56 Donate	Philip, do you know how people get drunk? Maybe it's by... I dunno... drinking. That's what I always thought.

03-29-2005, 06:31 PM	#25
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 34,028.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 34,528.00 Donate	So...drinking while driving is completely irrelevant to drunk driving? Wow. I repeat, I hope you get run over by a drunk driver.-jay

03-29-2005, 06:59 PM	#26
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,798.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,602.37 Donate	Phil does make sense though. You guys act like all you have to do is ban open containers and everyone will drive sober. I'll have to suppor the ban though simply because there's a loophole there. If a person takes a swig they could fail the breathalizer and actually be sober. However, a person over the limit could simply use this as an excuse. Either way there needs to be tougher penalties. [ March 29, 2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Link2000 ]

03-29-2005, 07:49 PM	#29
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,561.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,061.00 Donate	Getting drunk requires drinking. Drinking does not require getting drunk. Speeding requires driving. Driving does not require speeding. You don't just ban stuff because it can be abused. You ban the abuse.

03-29-2005, 08:31 PM	#30
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,575 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 6,749.45 Bank: 55,328.64 Total Points: 62,078.09 Donate	^ You can't prove that it hasn't been abused in the past. Your issue is a moot point. 48 other states have already done so. My state is one of the said 48. Considering that they're talking more about gaining federal funding rather than the actual abuse, however, you also can't say that it has anything to do with infringing upon liberty but more like "standardising the law" by compeling the states to do so through funding issues. Maybe you should write your Congresspeople if this makes you so upset. "There are some who call me... Link?" "Carpe Gaium Domesticum!" (Seize the Cucco!) Zelda: The Grand Adventures \| Triforce MUCK ザ行方不明リンク悪いユウモアの賢人

03-29-2005, 09:16 PM	#31
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,798.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,602.37 Donate	I am fully aware of what you're talking about. Many people in this topic seem to imply that this action will dramatically reduce drunk driving incidences. If you're going to drive drunk you're going to do so regardless. I already said I support it simply because it closes a legal loophole.

03-29-2005, 10:38 PM	#33
GRENTLEMEN Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,881 Thanks: 456 Thanked 1,150 Times in 628 Posts Points: 6,345.57 Bank: 1,830,360.28 Total Points: 1,836,705.85 Donate	..right.

03-30-2005, 05:51 AM	#35
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,561.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,061.00 Donate	Well, yes, such as the Social Security Act, National Firearms Act, Court Packing Act, several amendments to the Constitution, etc., but I oppose those too.

03-30-2005, 10:12 AM	#36
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 34,028.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 34,528.00 Donate	I don't care what your opinion on those are. I just hope you get run over by a drunk driver.-jay

03-30-2005, 05:03 PM	#37
Link2000 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Gender: Posts: 8,052 Thanks: 1 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post Points: 15,798.15 Bank: 804.22 Total Points: 16,602.37 Donate	Maybe if you actually brought a debate instead of calling him names I could see your point. And if you guys don't seem to thin kthat it will reduce drunk driving, then what's the point in passing it?

03-30-2005, 09:12 PM	#39
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,561.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,061.00 Donate	That's one of the problems with the federal government funding "internal improvements," as has been a trend particularly since the Civil War. At first it seems like a decent enough idea, in order to help out poorer states, but ultimately it just leads to federal control of whatever they subsidize. I also do not believe the federal government has an unconditional ability to spend on the general welfare. There is a mountain of evidence that that is not what the framers of the Constitution intended, but the Supreme Court has largely abandoned original intent in favor of "modernization." This modernization, however well-intentioned, has had severe consequences throughout the whole operation of the federal government, and in my opinion has had an impact for the worse. There is a proper way to modernize the Constitution, and that is by the amendment process. For now, one of the best things to push for would be the repeal of the seventeenth amendment, which provides for the direct election of United States senators. That amendment has upset the fragile balance of power between the cosovereign federal and state governments.

03-31-2005, 10:31 AM	#40
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,273 Thanks: 160 Thanked 732 Times in 473 Posts Points: 105,367.73 Bank: 923.79 Total Points: 106,291.52 Donate	AI, I drink water & stuff while I'm driving, but in a closed container. (i.e., a bottle with a cap) And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"