Ya not drinking for a full year is kinda ridiculous, either take driving priveledges or drinking but not both at the same time. People learn after a while, but just torturing them might make them mad at the law. It’s not getting to the problem in the long run.
[quote]Kratos wrote:
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.
[/quote]
That is sweet, we punish people that only hurt themselves because we care…
Combine that with the idea that some things are privileges (privileges handed out by the government , no less!) not rights that need to be a little regulated and you can start a collection of brown shirts, they will be very “in”, very soon…
[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]
Well I’ve NEVER driven drunk. When I did drink I either:
A)Called a Cab
B) Walked back home
C) Rode back with the designated driver
So no, never have driven even after a drink or two several hours before.
~V
i don’t know where the rest of you are living that “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime” and the punishments are too harsh for dui.
people get off here with a slap on the wrist. i have plenty of friends and acquaintances that have multiple dui’s, and the worst they get is a night in the drunk tank, a small fine, community service, alcohol classes, and a restricted license (and increased insurance premiums.) note that i said multiple dui’s. it’s clearly a deterrent.
people that know about what really happens when you get a dui view the punishments merely as an inconvenience, nothing more.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Drivers must keep their BAC level below the legal limit or lose the privilege.[/quote]
That I have no problem with. On a second offense, take away their licenses for five years. Third offense - no drivers license for life. In some cases now you can move to another state and get a “fresh start”. That should be corrected.
Locking them up in jail is a different matter, as is treating a second offense as a felony, as happens in some jurisdictions. If ALL you did was have a .08 blood alcohol level, then you have probably only broken a rule, not committed a crime. If you blow a .15 or you can’t see straight, then you are recklessly endangering lives. For that they could also prosecute you, but the BAL would be a strong piece of evidence, not automatic proof of guilt.
At the age of 25, one of my friends was killed by a drunk driver. Stop being a pussy and wait it out. Hey, at least you are alive, right?
[quote]ThatGirl77 wrote:
Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.[/quote]
Wow, you’re the greatest. Do want a medal or a chest to pin it on?
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
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]
I tend to agree. Driving was the irresponsible action. Drinking was not. I don’t think drinking is irresponsible in itself. But I don’t have too much of a problem with it. Part of punishment is about retribution and part is about deterrence. Both are higher with the added punishment. And I do think that both the person punished and others who know of the law are less likely to drive durnk with both punishmensts. Not being allowed to drive is very annoying but not the end of the world depending where you live. Drinking is something that many people are going to want to do every weekend and depriving these people of it impresses upon them how serious their action was and dissuades them from doing it again. Others too.
[quote]larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What better way would you suggest?
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.[/quote]
I think that’s a horrible idea. Leads to people thinking, “Oh, I’m not that drunk. [when they may well be]. I’m ok to drive soon. I must be close to the legal limit.” When in fact they are not. The threshold should be fairly low because people overestimate their abilities and underestimate how much they’ve drank, how long ago, and how much it’s affected them. I see it all the time. The best way is to keep the threshold low so people realize they better be damn careful. Don’t drive at all after drinking or make damn sure they’ve only had a few drinks and have waited awhile or they’ll get in trouble if they stop. I do think maybe a greater punishment for those who are way over the legal limit. Because they clearly got smashed and knew it and didn’t care and decided to drive anyhow.
[quote]simon-hecubus wrote:
ThatGirl77 wrote:
Sunshine, my hand is still up. Not only do I not drink and drive, I also don’t get in a car w/ anyone who’s been drinking.
Wow, you’re the greatest. Do want a medal or a chest to pin it on?[/quote]
She should get a medal. But lessening her chances of killing someone or dyng in a drunk0driving accident is probably reward enough.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The threshold should be fairly low because people overestimate their abilities and underestimate how much they’ve drank, how long ago, and how much it’s affected them.[/quote]
If they underestimate how much they’ve drank or how long ago, they won’t make the lower threshold.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What better way would you suggest?
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 think that’s a horrible idea. Leads to people thinking, “Oh, I’m not that drunk. [when they may well be]. I’m ok to drive soon. I must be close to the legal limit.” When in fact they are not.[/quote]
After some research, I find that some states already have this - impaired driving assumed for a .05 BAL. Apparently they don’t think it’s such a bad idea.
[quote]larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The threshold should be fairly low because people overestimate their abilities and underestimate how much they’ve drank, how long ago, and how much it’s affected them.
If they underestimate how much they’ve drank or how long ago, they won’t make the lower threshold.[/quote]
Or they can just be very conservative and just not drive if they’ve drank more than a drink or two with dinner. Should be fine then. Honsestly, I’m all for drinking and having a good time. But for Christ Sake. We have these things called cabs and designated drivers. It can make the night a little more annoying, but it’s worth it to prevent your own life and those of others from being in danger.
[quote]larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
larryb wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
What better way would you suggest?
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 think that’s a horrible idea. Leads to people thinking, “Oh, I’m not that drunk. [when they may well be]. I’m ok to drive soon. I must be close to the legal limit.” When in fact they are not.
After some research, I find that some states already have this - impaired driving assumed for a .05 BAL. Apparently they don’t think it’s such a bad idea.[/quote]
How would it be? I don’t know what this has to do with your previous post? You mean a lower impairment [.05 BAL] but a lesser penalty for this is what some states are already doing? And a greater penalty for higher amounts? I’m still not sure it’s a good thing. The fact that it’s law doesn’t make it so. There are plenty of shitty laws.
Well I find it funny that in a nation that wants you to drink, they basically force people to drive. Most busses stop running long before bars close. The subway here stops way too early. Everywhere worth going for the evening is a long ways away. I’m not condoning DWI but it seems to me that for a nation that makes a significant portion of its revenue on alcohol they aren’t very smart about said alcohol.
In DC, they enacted a law that if you were caught with .05 BAC or higher the district could seize your vehicle. They had a lawyer get pulled over after having one glass of wine with her dinner. She blew at .05 and then the district seized her vehicle. Being a lawyer she fought the charges, and they were overturned. The laws are very screwy and fickle here in the US, especially the capitol of the US.
Some people might not identify with what I’m talking about here. When I gave up drinking for a while, it was as if I gave up my friends. I wasn’t invited to the house parties, because I didn’t drink. When my friends/co-workers would go out to bars or happy hour they wouldn’t invite me. There is no point to inviting me, I couldn’t drink. For the younger crowd, there is definitely a social stigma for not drinking. You seem like an outcast and stop being invited into the social scene in your circle of friends, company, etc…
[quote]northcutt wrote:
Ya not drinking for a full year is kinda ridiculous, either take driving priveledges or drinking but not both at the same time. People learn after a while, but just torturing them might make them mad at the law. It’s not getting to the problem in the long run.[/quote]
They are trying to break him of an alcohol addition.
Letting someone drink for a year and then handing him his license back is a risky proposition.
He should be allowed to drink as long as he wants but lose his license until he goes a year without drinking.
He can decide when he wants to quit drinking.
[quote]hedgrinder wrote:
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.
so what?
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.
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?
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.
Were you drunk when you wrote that, or just stupid?
[/quote]
Typos. I was busy trying to get my kid back to sleep.
The only stupid stuff I have seen here is your rationalization.
Why should we try to cure cancer when people die of heart attacks?
Just because other things may be as bad as drunk driving does not mean we should give drunk drivers a pass.
Impairment starts with the first drink. Who are these people unaffected by alcohol and why do they bother drinking?
The limit is set to protect people on the roads, same as the speed limit. I am a better driver than most people on the road. Should I be allowed to drive faster and pass on the sidewalk?
Just because someone may be a more functional drunk than someone else does not mean the get special privileges. They are still drunk.
The laws must apply equally to all.
Of course I am being as ass. When you start off by insulting everyone on this thread by calling them sheep and bragging on your thesis when it is apparent you have not thought it all through, but rather are looking at the issue from a very limited point of view you look like an ass.
I thought I would respond in kind.
While I agree with some of this, drunk driving is not the place to back off.
Tough enforcement of the drunk driving laws works.
I am sure you can cook the statistics anyway you chose but that does not change the facts that drunk drivers are dangerous and tough enforcement of the laws reduces the numbers of drunks on the roads. This saves lives.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
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.
[/quote]
It’s a condition of his probation; they could say he has to wear pink underwear for a year and wear a pink polo w/ the collar popped and if he wants to stay out of jail, then that’s what he agrees to do.
To me, it doesn’t seem all that unreasonable, it gives the person caught a chance to discover that you don’t have to be able to drink. I suspect that when the year is up, if he sticks to it, he really will be better able to make decisions about drinking and driving.
In a more recent post by the OP he seems to be resigned to the fact that this is the way it’s going to be and willing to take this as a learning experience.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Well I find it funny that in a nation that wants you to drink, they basically force people to drive. Most busses stop running long before bars close. The subway here stops way too early. Everywhere worth going for the evening is a long ways away. I’m not condoning DWI but it seems to me that for a nation that makes a significant portion of its revenue on alcohol they aren’t very smart about said alcohol.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’d agree. The public transportation system should be better.
oooo you can’t drink for a year…
pussy!!!
try spending that year locked up with nothing: no friends,no family, no nothing.
shut the F up, suck it it up.
Or as my wife says “grow a set”