Oh you didn't think it was a bad idea to drive because you were drunk... well lets forget the whole thing then. There's no need for a DUI charge, because you didn't think it was a bad idea to drive. Oh and don't worry about the 8 year old girl in the minivan you hit, sure she's dead but it wasn't your fault, because you were drunk, we won't hold you accountable for your actions. I mean it was the booze fault, not yours right? Because you were drunk we're going to forget the whole thing and just let you drive on home.

Culling the herd would be sarcasm... perhaps it was misplaced in this discussion, and for that I apologize.
As for the scenarios, lets hear what you've come up with. Last I knew you were still alive and able to tell us why someone should drive drunk/high.

Oh you didn't think it was a bad idea to drive because you were drunk... well lets forget the whole thing then. There's no need for a DUI charge, because you didn't think it was a bad idea to drive. Oh and don't worry about the 8 year old girl in the minivan you hit, sure she's dead but it wasn't your fault, because you were drunk, we won't hold you accountable for your actions. I mean it was the booze fault, not yours right? Because you were drunk we're going to forget the whole thing and just let you drive on home.
Are you serious ? Have i've been saying that ? Have i in any way, shape or form been defending that these people shouldn't be accountable ?
Or is the nature of the punishement you have lined up for these people, and for those caught driving drunk or high that end up not killing anyone that i've been questioning all along ?
Seriously, if the lack of arguments leads you to put words in my mouth/keyboard i think it's best if we drop it.
As for the scenarios, lets hear what you've come up with. Last I knew you were still alive and able to tell us why someone should drive drunk/high.
How can someone with so little imagination presume to 'legislate' on anything it's beyond me.
No mate, i'm not in the habit of doing other people's homework. Do your own homework and maybe you'll see that nothing about the world and about people is ever black and white enough to justify summary executions.

Sheepdragon seemed to imply that they shouldn't because they were drunk, and you were defending his statement.
Sure I can come up with a few situations, none of them are even close to plausibly happening. And anything else has holes in it so large you could drive a MAC truck through it. There's a reason tax dollars are spent on people called emergency responders. Any situation that you can think of where someone would have to drive drunk/high could be better handled by them, or they aren't in populated areas that are policed (Note: I never said anything about an automated system in vehicles, the person has to be stopped first and a blood test done to confirm they are above the legal limits).
You seem to think that the a person has a right to live no matter what. That's where we disagree. People who drive under the influence don't have a right to live. They're risking everyone else on the road, above and beyond what would be considered the accepted level of risk (considering just driving in general puts you at some risk). Too many people get out of DUI's due to "technicalities" and end up back on the road. Obviously you think that our current system is fine, and I pity you for it. I honestly hope you never lose someone you care about to a drunk driver who gets off Scott free. Your internal struggle at that point (assuming normal human reactions) is going to be worse than I would wish on anyone.
I think we should drop this though, because neither of us are going to budge, I'm going to constantly think they should be help ultimately responsible, and you'll think they should only be held kinda responsible with a slap on the wrist. If you do want to respond, what do you think a suitable punishment is for drunk driving, or driving while high?

Sure I can come up with a few situations, none of them are even close to plausibly happening
You and two friends are going to have a little party in the woods near your town this weekend, just the 3 of you. You don't drink, so you're the designated driver. After a while, your friends are a bit drunk. You get up to take a piss, it's dark, you fall, you bang your head on a rock, you're out for the count.
Your friends can't bring you back and there's no one else around, so one of them, even if he's drunk, decides to grab the car and go for help. He finds a cop patrolling the road, he get's tested, he's drunk, he's dead. No if's, and's or but's remember ?
The end.
Is this really a stretch ? Because i have to tell you, i can think of hundreds more.
You seem to think that a person has a right to live no matter what
Now you're just making assumptions.
I think a person has the righ to a trial no matter what. I think a person has the right to at least try and justify its actions no matter what, like the guy from my scenario above who was executed because he was trying to get you help.
I honestly hope you never lose someone you care about to a drunk driver who gets off Scott free. Your internal struggle at that point (assuming normal human reactions) is going to be worse than I would wish on anyone.
Thank You. I hope so to.
But that's not either here or there, and again we're moving from arguments to personnal feelings.
People who want to legislate and establish punishments have to be able to see the bigger picture, which you clearly can't.
I'm still waiting for an argument on drunk driving VS speeding punishement wise, BTW.
If you do want to respond, what do you think a suitable punishment is for drunk driving, or driving while high?
How about jail time, reabilitation and never being able to drive anything EVER again no matter how well their reabilitation turns out ?
And even if i can't come up with a suitable punishment that doesn't mean i have to accept one that utterly sucks, like yours.

Sielle, may I have a newsletter as well? =)
I'm all for hemp and the such, but at least give the person a warning BEFORE killing them. =)

These are both a bit tl;dr, but relevant:
False positives on drug tests
"Ibuprofen is a common pain reliever that (even
in low dosages) used to cause a false THC positive on the EMIT
test. The EMIT has been changed to use a different enzyme to
eliminate false positives due to Ibuprofen. Ibuprofen in very
high doses will still interfere with both the EMIT and the GC/MS."
Also, the list of over the counter and prescription medication that can cause false positives is ridiculous.
Statistical analysis of false positive probability
"...the proportion of spurious results among people failing drug tests approaches 100% as the proportion of drug users in the general population approaches zero. Drug testing in a drug free population amounts to a witch hunt."

Sounds like you and your friends were acting pretty stupid, not to mention the only people I know that ever went that far out into the woods just to drink were doing it because they were underage. Maybe you should stay somewhere that has cell service, or have two designated drivers.
As for the speeding thing, I already agreed that they should be treated the same if they were going fast enough to be considered reckless (In the US it is a specific speed above the speed limit). It's not like I've said someone with ANY alcohol in their system should be punished, just those that are above the legal limit.
What point is a trial for someone that was proven to be legally drunk? So they can try to get off on a technicality? (Oh he said my car was a 2005, but it's actually a 2004 so the whole case gets thrown out) I did say there had to be a blood test to prove that they were under the influence. At that point a trial isn't trying to prove guilt, that's already been done.
Jail time and lose of licenses so far haven't worked at all. Drunk driving is a bigger issue than ever.

I'm not saying surprise them with the change in laws. It's not like there's anyone out there that doesn't know it's wrong... even if you spend 2 years publicizing the fact that the punishment is changing, it'll make sure that everyone knows and gives people more than ample time to enter rehab if they need it.
And on that note, I'm heading out, if you want I can continue this on Sunday night. Toodles everyone.

Sielle, while I am certainly not going to defend people who drive under the influence, I find your views radical in the extreme. Just so you know I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime so I would have to disagree with you there straight away, neither do I drive although I have been at the scene of a couple of nasty accidents and been hit by a car in the past too.
I assume you drive, now while I don't drive I do know that driving while tired is also extremely dangerous and can cause fatal accidents, so my question to is, have you ever yawned while driving and if you have, should you therefore be executed because of putting other people in unnecessary danger, in much the same way as a speeder or a drunk.
Nothing is black and white in life, just be careful what you wish for because you never know when you may be on the recieving end of the same extreme treatment as that which you advocate.

Sounds like you and your friends were acting pretty stupid, not to mention the only people I know that ever went that far out into the woods just to drink were doing it because they were underage. Maybe you should stay somewhere that has cell service, or have two designated drivers.
You're right, that's a major hole in my plot.
After all, teens and young people in general never act stupid, right ?
And none of us has ever been confronted with a dying cell phone when we need it the most, right ?
You're just nitpicking, nothing else.
What point is a trial for someone that was proven to be legally drunk? So they can try to get off on a technicality? (Oh he said my car was a 2005, but it's actually a 2004 so the whole case gets thrown out) I did say there had to be a blood test to prove that they were under the influence. At that point a trial isn't trying to prove guilt, that's already been done.
I don't know. Do you think the guy who was executed because we was trying to get you help deserved a chance to explain why he was driving drunk ?
As for the speeding thing, I already agreed that they should be treated the same if they were going fast enough to be considered reckless (In the US it is a specific speed above the speed limit).
You're right, you did. I'm sorry.
Not to mention all the other arguments, don't you see what a slippery slope that is considering how easy it would be to carry over that kind of radical summary punishment to other areas ? Trust me, we'd be killing people left and right in no time.
Anyway, you're heading out, have a nice time.

Well at least they have an idea of consistency. Let them make things like that legal so they can regulate it and keep it more under control with taxes instead of telling people who will ignore you anyways. As long as I don't smell the crap and it doesn't effect me then go on ahead.

How about defending rule of law, proportionality, human rights, and actually addressing problems instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction? Draconian measures are not only ultimately ineffective, but end up creating far more problems than they solve. For the most part you strike me as a fairly reasonable person, but the views you've expressed in this thread simply come across as either juvenile or from someone who is far too close to the issue to think clearly and reasonably about it (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter).
This is an incredibly dangerous mindset, and was a part of pretty much every large-scale atrocity committed throughout history. I recognize there are situations where killing people may be necessary or may be the path that most greatly benefits society, but even in such cases one should still regard life as a right that you are violating, and that you should have a damn good reason for violating this right. Once you cease to think this way and get into the mindset of "Group X doesn't deserve to live"... well, let's just say I sincerely hope you're never in a position of power that would allow you to implement your beliefs.

Actually when you put this,
*chuckle* I've been told by multiple people that I should setup a blog or something for my political and society rants. I guess I have a way with getting a point across or looking at things from an angle that wasn't considered before. Oh well, maybe someday.
and this,
The world has an over population problem anyways, lets find ways of culling the herd so to speak.
togheter, you have a pretty accurate description of my worst nightmares right there.

Maybe I should have put in a disclaimer that most everything in this thread is excluded from that statement.

I was about to write something mentioning this particular issue.
Distribution is still illegal, so I think the ruling was something among the lines of "let's shake up some media coverage".
I'll let you know how the whole thing develops, but sadly I know my country's way of manipulating public opinion :-(
Edit: Reading around some local papers, it seems that the ruling still needs to be approved by Congress in next week's session. After the debate and voting on this issue, it still needs to clear a last chamber to be approved as Law.
I'd guess that they'll flesh out some kind of project where distribution penalties will be revalued in this new law framing. As I said before, I'll keep you guys posted as soon as new info pops around!