[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What better way would you suggest?[/quote]
Lessening the penalty for those slightly over the limit, and increasing the penalty for those who are way over the limit would be one possibility. Revoking driving privileges as the only penalty (using longer suspensions than are currently given), and greatly increasing the penalty for driving with a suspended license would be another. Either of those could possibly lower the number of accidents related to drunk driving.
i got 1 too and it looks like 1 yr. restricted licence.nothing i can do but do it. same with you.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?
One…two…three…etc. Hmmm…Looks like we have at least a few liars here!
Before you answer, remember that 3 or 4 drinks in a couple hours will do it — I saw this first hand, at a weight of ~200 lbs. Anyone want to put their hand down now?
[/quote]
For the record, I have NEVER driven drunk in my life. Am I worthy of voicing my opinion now?
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
OK, OK all you judgemental fucks, who among you has NEVER driven drunk?[/quote]
Me. I don’t drive after one beer, I’m too much of a lightweight.
We’re judgmental 'cause you’re dangerous and apparently unrepentant.
[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You don’t get it at all.
The legal blood alcohol limit is set like speed limits.
It is not dangerous for most people to drive at or above the speed limit. It is still set low to keep people UNDER the the unsafe range. Same with the blood alcohol limits.
Simple concept. I am surprised someone that studies the subject appears to not understand this.
BTW, I have to know what kind of degree requires a thesis on DUI?
Yeah, I do “get” that concept. However, I think that if you are going to charge someone with “driving while INTOXICATED” they probably should ACTUALLY BE INTOXICATED. It’s not called, “Driving while slightly impaired.”
I’m NOT saying that driving while drunk is somehow OK. It’s not. I never said it was, and it should be punishable. It absolutely should. However, people are not being charged correctly, the laws are overly strict, and the punishment does not fit the crime. That last part is absolutely fundamental if a society is expected to respect and, more importantly, adhere to, a law.
People are LETTING this stuff happen becuase they have been lead to believe the problem is much worse than it really is.
Got a BS in computer engineering, and working on a Masters in Criminal Justice…which didn’t REQUIRE a thesis in DUI’s, I just chose to do it on the subject. I’m hoping it will expose a bit of truth on the subject of what is essentially a socially constructed problem.
[/quote]
You clearly do not understand why the limits are set low. It is a simple concept.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Drivers must keep their BAC level below the legal limit or lose the privilege.
The limit is set not at a maximimum dangerous level, but at the minimum.
All you rationalization does not change the fact that many people as they approach 0.08 and keeping impaired people off the road saves lives.
Just because people that yak on cell phones may also be dangerous does not change anything. You have been trying to mix that into the discussion for no apparent reason. You have also mentioned tired people. Again it is not good to drive tired, but it has nothing to do with driving drunk.
I really don’t understand where you are coming from. As far as I can tell your whole point is that people at 0.08 are no really very drunk. No kidding. We do not want the cut off to be near the drunk mark. We want it to be near the impaired part.
Your thesis sounds like a load of crap. You are in good company. Most are.
What about old people? Their reflexes suck too and there’re sure a lot of old bags out on the road right about now.
There is a laundry list of other problems in our society with relation to driving, but can we all take a step back and admit that DUI’s have received an unequal amount of attention due to MADD and their disciples? It is fairly obvious.
I’m not condoning the offense, but lets admit that it is prosecuted much more harshly than comparable crimes simply because of the pressure brought on by public sentiment.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
What about old people? Their reflexes suck too and there’re sure a lot of old bags out on the road right about now.
There is a laundry list of other problems in our society with relation to driving, but can we all take a step back and admit that DUI’s have received an unequal amount of attention due to MADD and their disciples? It is fairly obvious.
I’m not condoning the offense, but lets admit that it is prosecuted much more harshly than comparable crimes simply because of the pressure brought on by public sentiment.[/quote]
larryb, Zap. jsbrook, good posts.
I agree with you Slim, that DUI’s receive more attention, but it is very preventable. You know beer gets you drunk, you have to go out of your way to impair yourself enough to affect your driving. Old people cause problems, but they aren’t killing near as many people as drunks.
Speeding in itself is not so dangerous, it’s speeding and not paying attention, in the wrong place, and while not knowing how to drive worth crap that is more dangerous.
What if somebody's an alcoholic? They are likely to be repeat offenders. Alcohol abuse causes so many problems, yet it's soooo cool to drink all the time. I don't see how beer is legal and gear is not. But whatever. I'm all in favor of far stiffer penalties for violating license suspensions, and for a much harder driving test.
The “Super License” idea was good, but it needs to go further. Everyone in America, especially teenagers(who kill LOTS of people on our roads), thinks they have the “right” to drive. Like drinking, it’s a damn privilege. You need to show you have earned it, and won’t abuse it. But that’s not likely to happen.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You clearly do not understand why the limits are set low. It is a simple concept.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
[/quote]
so what?
NO, it is set at a point where SOME people are affected. If someone is not inebriated at that point, why are they automatically guilty? For the good of the people? Guess they suffer for the rest of us eh?
Were you drunk when you wrote that, or just stupid?
My point is that if cell phone users, or tired people, have been proven to be as dangerous as drunk people, why are they given a pass? Why are they not subjected to the same ridiculous level of prosecution as DUI receivers? If you believe the research that says how bad drunk drivers are, why don’t you believe the research that says these other people are just as bad? I think you have preconceived notions…
Since you don’t seem to get much of anything, my point was that, if you aren’t drunk, you shouldn’t be charged with being drunk while driving. Pretty simple. I get your rationalization for why we need that arbitrary .08 number, but if you aren’t drunk, you aren’t drunk. Again…simple.
[quote]
Your thesis sounds like a load of crap. You are in good company. Most are.[/quote]
Now you’re just being an ass.
Is this just you posturing 'cause you’re on the internet or something? I bet you spend most of tommorrow sitting in a coffee shop waxing philosophical with some goofy friends about the death penality, the war in Iraq, or maybe all the issues you have with sex offenders moving into your neighborhood.
What is with all of this hostility you seem to have towards my point of view? I’m not attacking you, just saying I disagree and putting forth a different point of view? I most definitely understand WHY the level is set arbitrarily low, but I still disagree with it.
I just, and this is real simple, don’t think you can charge people with being intoxicated while driving, IF THEY AREN’T FUCKING DRUNK.
You also know nothing about my thesis. I’m not saying drunk driving is OK. I’m saying that all of the efforts that are so frequently made to increase DUI penalties are the result of MADD, rather than any research or studies showing that deterrence has any effect. IT DOESN’T. All the reasons you think drunk driving are so bad for, are largely MADD propaganda. Look into it, and you might find it informative. I used to have the same point of view you did. I believed what I was told. It’s just wrong. It’s that simple.
I know you want our society to be as nice as possible, probably put some foam on every sharp corner to keep you from hurting yourself, but it’s just not like that. Putting people in jail is just not the answer. Saying, “You broke the law, JAIL FOR YOU. MAXIMUM SENTENCE.” just isn’t working. This is why our prisons are severely overcrowded and our courts so heavily behind. We have no choice but to come up with a better method of handling our criminal issues.
yea, not something im proud of but two years ago at the ripe age of 19 i acquired a DUI…not that it matters now, but you should have gone to court, if it was first offense you more than likely could have gotten a PBJ.
in my case i was restricted from drinking UNTIL i turned 21…but i was underage, so that made sense. my probation was supposed to last through my 21st birthday…upon which i could legally drink, so long as i obviously wasnt drinking and driving. im not going to call you a liar or anything, as i suppose somewhere along the lines TX and MD have different laws…but that seems ridiculous. above all else, it seems ridiculous because how the fuck are they going to know if youre sitting at home drinking a beer, or out at a bar? unless your identification now says something to the effect of not being allowed to consume alcohol…i cant imagine them relying on the “honor system” as far as you “not being allowed” into bars.
really the only way they could catch you is if you were drinking and got in trouble with the cops again…in which case your probation is thrown out the window anyway…this baffles me.
The only people that penalties are an effective deterrent for are people who have a modicum of sense to begin with. People KNOW they are likely to get addicted and waste a bunch of money, and lung tissue, but they still CHOOSE to smoke. Meth, coke, heroin, whatever, everyone knows thit shit is bad, yet that doesn’t stop them. People know what they are doing is wrong, they usually just don’t care. Maybe AFTER suffering penalties, SOME of them will.
As far as the .08 goes, well don't they have field sobriety tests? I f you're not impaired, you should pass that no prob. I don't know if a breath test is mandatory, though, and if you refuse it here you're going to jail. One solution may be to increase the punishment along with the drunkenness, and not just use the breathalyzer as the yardstick, i.e. other field sobriety tests.
Hey everybody. I’m only 20 years old … and I love beer. breaking the law breaking the law breaking the law. I’m just curious. There seems to be a lot of self righteousness in this thread. So … am I going straight to hell or what?
hedgrinder…
im not going to quote your thread, b/c its long.
since you dont believe that some people are impaired as they approach .08, you should do more research yourself. when you get a DUI or DWI, and have to do the alcohol classes, you should come across a video of a study that was done for people that think this way. it was very simple. they set up a closed course of cones and such. they then chose a few drivers. one of the drivers had had previous dui/dwi arrests, and was bragging about how many beers he could drink in a certain amount of time.
his claimed number, in the amount of time, given his bodyweight, would have put him at a BAC of something near .5–thats .5, not .05. now, .35 is pretty much commatose, at that level your brain is done, youre going to die. so anyway, these people do the course sober, then they begin doing it drinking. they keep running the course of cones, drinking in between. everyone did the course great sober. as they started and continued drinking, they began running it worse and worse, taking out many of the cones that had been set up.
the loudmouth that bragged about his intake ran over the most cones, and was all over the course. at the end the scientists were asking him ok, what if these cones were people, other cars, buildings, etc…he didnt have much to say then…your line of thinking that “not everyone is impaired approaching .08” reminds me of this guy.
i completely agree about being tired and using the cell phones…but i think that is more of an issue with some people can, some cant. i dont like talking on my cell as im driving, and i also regularly switch back and forth between which hand is on the wheel, so having the cell in my hand is a pain anyway.
even still, im paying way more attention to the driving than i am the talking. on the other hand, i see some people that are in their own little world with the cell, or youll get cut off or almost in an accident because of some asshole, then see that they are on their cell…
the tiredness…i agree full well with that, but i think it would be too hard to come up with the legislation for that. drinking and driving comes down to a moral issue…youre impaired, and then taking a 3000+lb killing machine out on the road…with all the MADD and all of that, at this point its like drinking and driving is just a few steps away from murder 1, as if getting into the car you are actually thinking that you are endangering people, could possibly kill, and that youre perfectly ok with it.
in reality, youre drunk and only having stupid drunk thoughts. either way, youre doing something “wrong”. but how are you going to come up with the legislation for driving tired? certainly if youre simply tired you dont feel as though youve done something wrong. and whos to say you felt so tired when you first got in the car? are you supposed to pull over on the side of the road and take a nap?
its just not practical. driving tired isnt something new, if there was a logical way to map out some legislation, it wouldve been done already. i do believe well be seeing more cell phone/driving legislation popping up though.
hedgrinder-
Let’s not talk about cell phone use while driving, as that’s another subject, and as you know, laws are being put in place to deal with it.
Let’s just talk about DUI. If an accident is alcohol related and the driver gets tested, his level is in the arrest report. You pick a number that represents a level that you think most people are impaired at, 0.12 for example. Skip the stuff about some people aren’t impaired at this level. Just talk about most people. How many of this type of accidents are there yearly? What should we do with them?
I just recently got a DUI, and It has turned into the most life changing experience I have ever encountered. Before I even thought about how this was going to fuck my life up, I thought about what it would be like If I got into an accident and ruined someone elses life forever. I feel horrible. After learning what I had to go through because of this offense, I thought if everyone had to go through that before getting a licsense, there would be far less DUIs.
If you had a friend or family member that was injured or killed by someone who was under the influence, I guarantee you wouldnt be crowing about the .08 being strict.
[quote]cbeefyt wrote:
If you had a friend or family member that was injured or killed by someone who was under the influence, I guarantee you wouldnt be crowing about the .08 being strict. [/quote]
I think that’s why some mothers are against drunk driving.
And by the way, if someone maimed one of my children because of DUI, I wouldn’t bother with the legal process, I would probably just find him and chop his hands off.
the reason we have such low speed limits is because of all the drunk idiots on the roads.
I personally feel that some laws in this country should be changed for the bettering of it in situations such as this.
For instance, if they made it a law where an 18 year old could go into a bar provided they were clearly marked as not able to consume alcohol and they were a DD to a few other people, I think this would solve some problems.
First of all, the kid is under age, so the drunks get a DD, that’s great!
Second, the kid gets to see how fucking stupid most people are in the bar drunk (as if they didn’t see this enough in hs and/or college). Along with being an idiot, the kid gets to see how much money people piss away too.
The kid gets to drive the drunks home. Allowing them to vomit out the window and basically make a mess with “drunk-food-dorritos” in the kid’s car.
After a minimum of 26 times of shaperoning drunken morons (every other week for a year) I think that people should then be given “drinking license” if they’re between 19 and 21. This license would allow them to drink while under age. Hell they worked their ass off for it and did a year of civic duty, they deserve it.
who would even want to see a bar after a year of dealing with people’s bullshit? Would observing really drunk folks for a year make you wanna be like that? I’m gonna guess no.
For the record, I enjoy throwing a few back on a saturday or friday night (and occaisonally a few in between), there’s nothing wrong with that. But if you’re gonna do it, don’t be an idiot, get a driver.
For 50 bucks you can probably get a cab to take your drunk ass 20 miles home. Go do this a few times and you’ll realize you’re wasting your money and your time… or maybe it’s worth it, either way, it’s better than ruining yours, and others lives.
For instance, if they made it a law where an 18 year old could go into a bar provided they were clearly marked as not able to consume alcohol and they were a DD to a few other people, I think this would solve some problems.
Why throw an underaged person into a scene that they shouldnt be in. Peer pressure could eventually corrupt this DD. This would be training the 18 year old to behave in the same matter as the others at the bar.
I’m not even going to get into the debate here. My question is simply a matter of the law as written. The OP’s offense was not drinking, he drank legally. His offense was driving. How does the law have the right, being that he is not in prison, to take away his right to drink? If they were to take away his privilage to drive, that would be totally acceptable and I would have nothing to say. But drinking was not his offense, driving was.
I fail to see how the two go together as a matter of law. If I were to get drunk, and go shoot a gun at office buildings, I should have my rights to a weapon taken away, because the weapon was my offense.
[quote]cbeefyt wrote:
For instance, if they made it a law where an 18 year old could go into a bar provided they were clearly marked as not able to consume alcohol and they were a DD to a few other people, I think this would solve some problems.
Why throw an underaged person into a scene that they shouldnt be in. Peer pressure could eventually corrupt this DD. This would be training the 18 year old to behave in the same matter as the others at the bar. [/quote]
good point
The whole point would be to introduce folks to how fucking stupid us drunkerds can be sometimes (as a deterrent), it could also go a long ways to teach people how to go out and be social without drinking… and get some people some drivers, ya know, make the highways a little safer.
I guess if someone wanted to corrupt it, we could just noose the bastards for fuckin it up for everyone else.
simple problems have simple solutions.
Its all about teaching someone a lesson. Alcohol was involved in the incident, so punishment of your driving privileges and alcohol consumption will happen. Its as if theyre giving you time out. Go stand in the corner sober and think about what you did. Evaluation, alcohol and drug classes will twist the knife a bit. All paid for by you.