Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.5K

(post is archived)

[–] • 17 pts

Yes. But the penalty for harming/killing someone while driving drunk should be ultra severe.

[–] • 4 pts

It used to be a defense: officer, I didn't mean to kill him, I was drunk.

[–] • 1 pt

This, when my best friend was killed by a drunk driver, and his mom was scream crying in her bed, I couldn't help but think about this. Who cares if he was drunk, or driving, this cunt murdered a truly great person and it wasn't being handled as a murder. Actually, the guy was given 5 years probation. He has a family now and Scott will never have that...

No drinking and driving laws, no bullshit about intent. If you drive drunk and get away with it great, if you hurt or kill someone you pay for murder. How many people would drink and drive if this was the case? Not many.

Our system has failed us and we are living with the consequences. Fact.

[–] • 6 pts

Dui is negligent and extremely dangerous and has been proven countless times.

A dude smoking weed in a basement that is a victimless crime.

Me going 130 mph is also a victimless crime but it's so dangerous and negligent we can't allow it.

Dui is justified, and punishment should be severe if you are shitfaced. Il

[–] • 4 pts

Driving the speed limit is also statistically very dangerous to other drivers and pedestrians. Where do we draw the arbitrary line and why?

[–] • 1 pt

It's gambling with other people's wellbeing. If you stole someone's money and gambled with it on a pretty reliable winner, and returned it once you won, that wouldn't make it OK, because at some point you'll lose.

[–] • 5 pts

Just like standing on the sidewalk and shooting your AR into a house. It's only a crime if someone's inside and they get hit. Otherwise, it's just vandalism.

[–] • 3 pts

It's only victimless if the drunk driver manages not to hit something. This is a fucking stupid post.

[–] • 4 pts

Yes, you have made my point

[–] • 1 pt

And when you do drive home safely why do you need to be locked up?

0.09 BAC is not really drunk where you are incapacitated yet it is enough to land you in jail.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I agree, OP is a stupid fucking niggerfaggot.

[–] • 2 pts

Every DUI should have their fingers cut off and forced to take a hot sauce enema.

[–] • 1 pt

Why maim them for life?

Wouldn't a better prison system than we currently employ be better than maiming them and making the state support them?

We could put them in prison on half rations and hard labor, or no rations and no labor, their choice. You don't work, you don't eat. work is a 14 hour day. Seal off old low production mines with machine gun turrets.... there, go, bring back some of what we mine here, or you don't eat.

I like the idea employed in Escape from New York. Lets seal off Manhattan island, drop people in, there, go, you want be a fucked up individual, go live with the rest of the fucked up individuals.

[–] • 2 pts

Maim them and don allow state support. Drunk drivers are trash that should be stuck in tbe dustbin of society

[–] • 2 pts

OK. But then I have to see them begging on the corners. There are already enough homeless begging on fucking corners...

I want them gone, out of sight, and worked to death if possible.

[–] • 0 pt

It is meant to end their life, but more importantly it is to show every would be DUI how fucked they will be.

[–] • 2 pts

If they don't hit anything/damage property, yes.

[–] • 3 pts

Driving under the influence is like driving without a license: you're not in control of your vehicle. Requiring a license implies the operator has control of the vehicle and can drive it safely. If we make DUI legal, then there is no reason to require anyone to be licensed.

[–] • 3 pts

If the state suspends or revokes your license, what do they do to you to ensure you aren't capable of driving a vehicle? The state can't stop you from driving without locking you up. The only thing that stops people is their honesty, and other laws.

When you realize how easy it is to not get pulled over, you realize a lot of laws involving vehicles are pointless. A British gent drove for 60 some years without a license or police interaction involving a motor vehicle in that time before getting caught.

[–] • 3 pts

no reason to require anyone to be licensed

Licensure, as it currently stands, is so you have to ask the state for permission to move about freely on the roads you have paid for. It too should end, the penalties for negligently harming others should be astronomical, and the burden for certifying that young people are ready to drive should remain with their parents rather than offloading it to the state.

[–] • 1 pt

I'm fine with that. What about trucks, planes and buses?

[–] • 2 pts

I could be 1.0 BAC and be in full control of my vehicle

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I think we should make it a states' rights issue. Then we should deport all our drunk drivers to your state. Kind of like what England did with Australia

[–] • 2 pts

All 'crimes' where there is no victim in court (or in a grave) shouldn't be crimes.

"The state vs." should always be nullified ... the state can't be a victim.

If selected for jury duty, I personally promise to vote not guilty (or use juror nullification) if the victim is 'the state'.

(All crimes -with a victim in the court or in the ground- should have heavy penalties.)

[–] • 1 pt

What if it's a nigger on trial?

[–] • 2 pts

Did he hurt someone? Then - yes.

Example:

  • If any man wishes to smoke crack, that's on him. He can wreck his life, I don't care. But, I won't help put him in jail. No matter his skin color.
  • If that same man murders his kid while on crack, then I'll be first in line to enforce capital punishment. No matter his skin color.
[–] • 2 pts

It’s kinda like being a Jew corresponds with a higher frequency of degeneracy or being black means being violent with an instinct for gettin gibs. Your ability to successfully not kill somebody goes down when you are dui

[–] • 1 pt

As the saying goes, "your rights end where mine begin."

DUI can only be victimless in a vacuum, as a theoretical exercise.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Come back and ask us this question after some drunk kills yer mom/dad/sister/brother/grammy on the road. But wait until after the funeral, when it really hits you... that fact that your loved one is gone forever...

[–] • 1 pt

The same appeal to emotion is presently being used to justify gun control. "What if it was your own child in that classroom?"

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

False equivalency.

There really is no reasonable need to drink and drive. On the other hand, there is a legit need for 2nd amendment rights.

[–] • 0 pt

A "reasonable need" test for laws banning actions of others could be used in numerous deleterious ways.

I.E. Nobody reasonably needs to be fat, therefore ban ice cream (&etc.).

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

If you get pulled over for DUI, you're probably not as good of a drunk driver as you thought.

Load more (3 replies)