Quantcast

Sheer MADD-ness: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Discussion in 'Legal' started by roo_ster, Oct 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mikul

    Mikul Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    985
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    The goal is to keep people who are in no condition to drive from doing so and punishing if they act irresponsibly. I'm not going to argue that. The problem I have is that we are not trying to determine if people are impaired, we are testing a blood alcohol level which may or may not tell us anything about a person's impairment. Of course, we aren't measuring blood alcohol levels either. We're using a breathalizer to ESTIMATE the blood alcohol level.

    The problem that I have with current drunk driving laws is that it is legally worse to smash head on into a car with your family in it because you were drunk than because you were reading the morning paper and it's legally no different to do the same thing with a cell phone in your hand. It really doesn't matter to your family, does it?
     
  2. Ryder

    Ryder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,430
    Location:
    Mid-Michigander
    It's a witch hunt.

    Not sure what percentage of accidents involve alcohol these days but it used to be 50/50. Doesn't sound like cause and effect to me yet 100% of those drinking are at fault. The drinkers couldn't possibly have caused all those accidents.

    The way it works is if some idiot runs a stopsign causing a death I am automatically guilty and would have to do prison time? I wouldn't allow that. Lucky for them I don't drink. :)
     
  3. spartacus2002

    spartacus2002 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,578
    Location:
    St. Pete, FL
  4. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,758
    Many people are too emotional about this topic to make reasonable and logic discussions, IMHO.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with setting BAC limits, I just think having 0.08 as a near-felony is way to strict. I would like to see .08 become a more minor misdemeanor and some higher limit become the near-felony that we have today. To me that would be more reasonable especially if those are the people causing most of the accidents.

    If someone is driving 100 miles per hour through the city, they are driving in a very unsafe manner and could cause an accident and kill someone. If caught, we don't treat that person near as badly as we treat a drunk. Yet to me it is the same circumstance and same risk.
     
  5. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    USA
    So, what if the legal limit were lowered to 0.07? 0.03? 0.01? 0.001?

    Just chuck them into jail if they consume more than the neo-prohibitionists think you ought? Nice. Toss them into the same jail cell as the guy with the 17 3/4" bbl on his shotgun for the rest of their scofflaw lives.

    You do realize, that the states' legal limits have been steadily ratched down in the past two decades from much higher limits (double the current legal limit, in some cases)?

    Last, it is this sort of law that engenders contempt for the law.
     
  6. rick newland

    rick newland Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    ardmore al
    Beerslurper sorry but you don't know shineloa about how many beers cause .08. Sure if you weigh about 40 lbs you can be in danger of blowing .08 after one beer. If you weigh about 200 lbs it takes about eight beers to hit .08. It is all about body weight.
     
  7. ALS

    ALS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    PA
    I had a conversation with a VP at MADD about 15 years ago and proposed a better and cheaper way to solve the problem. Funny she shot it down so fast I knew I must be on to something. In fact she made it a point to say if was against the law to ban the sale of alcohol to someone of age. *** is what I said to myself at the time also.
    I said why don't we do it this way, First offence 30 day license suspension and rehab classes as they do now. Second offence we just ban the purchase of alcohol for 5 years by the offender. If found to have alcohol in his or her system they spend the rest of the 5 yr penalty in jail. Driving while intoxicated they finish the 5 yr plus another 5 yrs in jail and a life time ban of the purchase, possession, and use of Alcohol.
    On their driver licence there is a red A with a circle with a slash through it.
    So to purchase alcohol you would have to show your drivers licence to prove you were not a person banned from purchasing or possessing alcohol.
    Any one found to knowingly acquiring alcohol for such banned person would see a minimum $10K fine. Notice I used the word knowingly which means if the said individual was at a back yard barbeque or a tailgate party and was drinking yet the host had no idea he or she was banned from the use of alcohol they could not be held responsible.

    My reasoning is yes people make mistakes but why take it out on the family of the drunk. If the bread winner has his or her licence pulled for 5 yrs or longer how does he or she get to work in some cases? What if he or she drives for a living? That threat of a mandatory jail sentence would go a long way to solving the drinking problem.

    How many gun owners out there especially those with CCW's go out of their way to make sure they follow the letter of the law to protect their right to own and carry a gun. I wonder how much the DUI's would drop if this form of a law was implemented? Don't flame me on this I was just putting a point out to MADD and they were totally against the idea. Gee I wonder why? Maybe we should bring it back up to MADD.
     
  8. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    "In fact she made it a point to say if was against the law to ban the sale of alcohol to someone of age. "

    Not in Virginia. There is a state law governing the interdiction of alcohol sales to known drunks. The state stores used to have a notebook with names and pictures.
     
  9. svtruth

    svtruth Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,702
    Location:
    Bradford, VT
    Competency

    What would happen if you tested a bunch of 40 yr olds w 0.08% and a bunch of liscensed 80 yr olds? If the drunks averaged better than the geezers, you would have an argument for pulling the driving privileges of the oldies.
    AARP vs MADD steel cage death match.















    5
     
  10. KriegHund

    KriegHund Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,514
    Location:
    Colorado, Broomfield
    HEA

    Hang em all.
     
  11. Koobuh

    Koobuh Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    325
    Bah

    :mad: I have little sympathy for the increase in pressure on drunk driving.

    Most people here would loudly and angrily protest someone waving a gun in their direction at the range, even if the person was just plain ignorant of basic safety.

    That is exactly what an intoxicated person is doing when they get behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.

    This is not a game, some 'innocent action' that no one is hurt by. Drunk driving kills and maims more people every year than firearms in the U.S. Most of the time it's a repeat offender, and I'm sick of hearing about it.

    Now- as for legal alcohol limits, what you must understand is that not everyone has the same tolerance for alcohol. This isn't rocket science, as everyone knows a 'lightweight' or two, who can't hold their liquor. They may be completely wasted on .08, while Jimmy Joe Bob, beer aficianado, won't feel it until .20 rolls around.

    Somehow it has become a badge of honor in certain parts of the country to barrel down roads drunk as a skunk. I can't say what I think of people that do that, on these forums. It's just too much. Like a pack of gangbangers at the range, sighting you down with their 'nahns 'n fohties' and laughing at you when you pack up and leave in a huff. It is absolutely inexcusable, execrable, and disgusting to try and justify drunk driving, at any time. There is always an alternative.
    You should be ASHAMED to admit that you drive while intoxicated- you are putting everyone around you, everything you care about, at risk. :fire:

    This isn't about freedom, it's about responsibility. :cuss:
     
  12. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ya see, that's the problem, Koobuh-not everyone, or even most, are drunk or impaired at .08% but yet, someone's life can be semi-ruined because of this arbitrary ruling. I could possibly agree with a standard test (physical) to determine sobriety, but not this BAC BS. A lot of old folks, when completely sober, cannot safely drive according to the standards set today.. Why not attack them?
    Biker
     
  13. brickeyee

    brickeyee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,135
    It is very important to watch the description used carefully.
    To continue to create the appearance of a crisis 'alcohol related' has become the new mantra. It means that someone involved in the accident had detectable alcohol in them. It does not mean than anyone was drunk (0.08) just that 0.01 or more was present in someone.
    Every newspaper seems to parrot the line without actually knowing what the criteria being used means.
    The ‘per se’ laws have also resulted in some obvious miscarriages. In Northern Virginia a few years ago a car pulled out from behind a stop sign and was struck. Children in the car did not have seat belts on and were killed. The alcohol level of the driver made him guilty of manslaughter. The fact that the other driver pulled out from behind a stop sign and had unbelted children was not a defense. ‘Per se’ rules.
    The pendulum has swung to far again, and MADD is trying to justify its continued existence by embarking on a new campaign against underage drinking.
     
  14. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,851
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I guess my take is that I'm against dangerous drivers, and could care less about whether they're currently intoxicated. Take the motorcycling study given earlier: at the legal limit, the racer was a better rider than everyone else when they were sober. I'd rather share the road with that rider at .10 than the others at .00.

    I see a bunch of 80 year-olds who shouldn't be on the road, period. Same with young kids (male and female) -- they're accidents waiting to happen.

    I'd rather see a situation where dangerous drivers were pulled over, rather than roadblocks designed to snag otherwise-safe intoxicated drivers.
     
  15. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    Well said, Derek.
    Biker
     
  16. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    I have figgered it out.

    Gun grabbers and MADD are almost identical. 'It's for the children'.

    What still bedazzles me is how so many on this board buy into it.

    These laws, both BAC and gun control, essentially say, "The citizen is too stupid to exercise good enough judgement to keep from harming the children so we must criminalize a non crime". Prior restraint is always wrong. It punishes the innocent for the lack of judgement of the guilty.

    Land of the free.
     
  17. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,076
    Location:
    Lubbock, TX
    Seems like I remember seeing some college study comparing the effects of .08-.10 BAC and cell phone use while driving, and the cell phone users were worse!

    Couldn't find it with a quick internet search, so if anyone has a link...

    Brad
     
  18. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama

    I don't think so.

    Gun grabbers are trying to take away a God-given, inalienable right to self defense that is protected by the US Constitution.

    The MADD people may be over-zealous, but fundamentally, drunk driving is not a protected right.
     
  19. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    The problem is, I believe, defining *drunk*. Does anyone feel that .08 should apply to carrying firearms in public?
    Biker
     
  20. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    What you meant to say was 'enumerated' right. It is further NOT a .gov enumerated power to legislate against.
     
  21. Mnemesyne

    Mnemesyne Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    SE Ohio
    I can see the sense of penalties for drunk driving...why you might ask? Because I grew up with a severely alchoholic father who repeatedly wrecked his vehicles due to drunk driving....Did all the points on his license stop him? Nope...nor did the fines or totaled cars...Even when he almost lost his leg it didn't deter him....

    Ohio has made DUI laws tougher since I was a kid...Dad's had his license suspended for drunk driving a couple of times already, and still the moron keeps doing it....He's been in and out of rehab...managed to stay sober a whole 4 years (mind you I'm now 30) and still to this day, he'll drink and drive...

    Yeah...I wish they'd make tougher laws....for people just like dad....because I'll admit it...(and I pray nightly this never happens) if dad does take the life of another due to his drinking and driving....I'd have a hard time ever looking at that man again....

    I love my dad don't get me wrong...But I wish the law could do something to keep chronic drunks like him off of the blasted streets already....before he does hurt someone besides himself.....

    When I took my emt class, I learned that the drunk usually survives the wreck simply because their body goes limp at moment of impact.....This is a sad but true fact...
     
  22. Strings

    Strings Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,031
    Location:
    30 miles from Everywhere, right in the middle of N
    Heh. I've been stopped (legitimately) exactly ONCE for suspicion of DWI...

    I had just left a bar, where I had finished a second drink (quicker than planned: they decided after I had it they wanted to close early). Felt fine, got behind the wheel... cop saw me SLIGHTLY over the centerline, pulled me over. I was honest about what I had been drinking, and we started the field sobriety test... and stopped with the "follow the light" section. Why? I know what they're looking for, and I was showing the signs of intoxication! Verified with the officer (he was shocked that I'd ask about it like that, and told him "I don't care WHAT you say, I am NOT getting behind the wheel of that car again tonight!". I was given a warning. All that said...

    I think .08 is WAY too low. HAs there really been any improvement since it's been lowered?
     
  23. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    I think at the federal level you are correct, but DUI laws are state laws, and each state should have the power to establish its own legal limits.

    The individual states certainly should have the power to establish whatever limits they want.

    Heck, in Georgia, counties have the right to totally ban the sale of alcohol if they so choose.
     
  24. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    How long have you been in this country?

    Why is it all the states have settled on .08?

    I must be a simpleton too. I thought the fed.gov told them what to make it to keep some funding or other.

    This is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

    I'm done, good night.
     
  25. 12-34hom

    12-34hom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    876
    Location:
    Ia, Northeastern
    It's about driving Impaired. While most impaired drivers will tell straight up that they can drive good or as good while impaired - it's pure B.S.

    Standard field sobriety tests show this, reaction times lowered, perception of time and field of depth altered, visual acuity reduced, aggressive driving habits bolstered. This all happens at .08 bac, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

    It's not about drunkenness it's about impairment. It's about taking responsibility for your actions while operating a motor vehicle.

    Their are too many options one can take to avoid getting arrested for D.W.I., designated driver, call a cab, find a place to stay until sober, drink responsibly, etc...

    Ignore these signs, keep driving impaired and you will either end up a statistic or a peace officer taking you to jail - if you're lucky. From what I've observed over the last 10 years working in law enforcement drunk drivers have a bad habit of killing some Innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place & time, instead of just killing them selfs.

    .08 is a great law, the more impaired drivers i put in jail, the safer my roads will be for those who have the right to drive without being maimed or killed by drivers that are impaired.

    12-34hom.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice