Drinkers Rights & DUI Laws

[ready182]

There are two sides to every story, except sometimes, in the world of political correctness. I speak specifically about the rights of thousands of people who like to drink alcohol while socializing/relaxing, and don't have the option to walk/cab/subway/bus home. This country was founded, and the was constitution drafted, in Taverns!!!

 

I expect, that in response to this post, that I will be FLAMED for supporting drinking and driving; be quoted numerous statistics about drinking and accidents; be told horrid stories of innocents killed by drunk drivers; etc.

 

But I dare to say the following:

 

FACT: Every day, Hundreds of Thousands of Americans drink moderately and drive - the overwhelming majority of which results in no incident of any kind. Many of these people do this almost every day, continuing the practice for years and years.

 

FACT: Every day, the livelyhoods of honest, hardworking, taxpaying, Americans, who endanger no one, are destroyed by the ever-tighting DUI laws and associated over-jealious efforts of law enforcement in this area.

 

FACT: With almost no exception, everyone who drinks, and who drives, has at one time crossed the "legal" line;

 

FACT: Police officers are sometimes amoung worst offenders, but are often immune to the severe penalties they impose on others.

 

Now, before you start screaming (I know you will): I denounce drunken driving - I hate people who get drunk an drive -- I hate drunks who kill innocent people -- etc.

 

But the point is, like every issue, there are two sides. Isn't it time we had a FAIR AND BALANCED approach to the issue of drinking and driving? Isn't it time we stop labeling people who drink moderately and drive as outlaws and murderers?

 

If I were writing the laws, there would be a multi-tiered system. I would define at least two levels. For example, let's call them a "major" offense and a "minor" offense. The definitions could be something like the following:

 

MAJOR Offense: Driving with a B.A.C. of .12 or above; or driving with a B.A.C. of .08 or above IN COMBINATION WITH one of the following "contributing factors":

-- an accident;

-- speeding in excess of 10 mph of the speed limit;

-- reckless driving;

-- etc.

 

For MAJOR offenses penalty -- it's ok by me to "throw the book at them". Jail time; loss of license; insurance surcharges; etc.

 

MINOR Offense: Driving with a B.A.C of greater than .08, but less than .12; with no contributing factors to make it a "major" offense.

 

The penalty for a MINOR offense should be a nominal fine, and mandatory DUI classes. No significant insurance surcharges.

 

Politically wrong -- Ready.

 

P.S. No, I have not been caught for DUI -- I am just pissed about the Federal mandate of loss of highway funds for any State that doesn't adopt the .08 standard!!!

[Barry]

>-- I am just pissed

>about the Federal mandate of loss of highway funds for any

>State that doesn't adopt the .08 standard!!!

 

Especially since the Federal standard remains at 0.10. You know, the one that applies to airline pilots.

 

Barry

[phage]

>There are two sides to every story, except sometimes, in the

>world of political correctness. I speak specifically about

>the rights of thousands of people who like to drink alcohol

>while socializing/relaxing, and don't have the option to

>walk/cab/subway/bus home.

 

Sure there are usually two sides to any issue, but that doesn’t mean they are equally valid or compelling. In this case, any argument that you can muster to defend driving while impaired (slightly or severely) will pale against another person’s right to be free from harm.

 

>This country was founded, and the

>was constitution drafted, in Taverns!!!

 

Yes, and they were also slave owners. Times change.

 

>FACT: Every day, the livelyhoods of honest, hardworking,

>taxpaying, Americans, who endanger no one, are destroyed by

>the ever-tighting DUI laws

 

That’s where you are wrong. They endanger people every time they do it. Whether the danger actually materializes does not negate the fact that they are putting others at risk every time they drive while impaired.

 

I’m sure it is no fun to be convicted of a DUI. I imagine it is very embarrassing and expensive, but if you get the message the first time, I can’t see that your life would be “destroyed”. How can you compare that to the actual destruction that occurs when an impaired driver makes a mistake and crashes into someone?

 

>MAJOR Offense: Driving with a B.A.C. of .12 or above; or

>driving with a B.A.C. of .08 or above IN COMBINATION WITH one

>of the following "contributing factors":

> -- an accident;

> -- speeding in excess of 10 mph of the speed limit;

> -- reckless driving;

> -- etc.

 

It’s kind of ridiculous to say that it is not a major offense until you actually crash. It’s just not asking that much of people. Think ahead. Make a plan. Eat some food. Designate a driver. Just be responsible and avoid a possible disaster.

[dick_nyc]

Think of this, then.

 

You are tired and had a little more than you should. You drift over the line and hit a young couple, the children of your next door neighbor, who have just gotten a license and are trying to hard to drive carefully. They are killed, you are not injured. Now think of yourself walking up to these people, your next door neighbors whose kids you have just killed, and then telling them that you just had one drinkey-poo too many and your are so sorry!!!

 

Now tell me about drinking and driving!!!

[Guest]

I agree with a lot of what you say. Nevertheless, I do drive around with a breathalizer, and when I go wine tasting, or otherwise imbibe before driving, I check myself before driving, and have never driven with a level above 0.06%. I do believe that anyone who wants to drink and drive should spend the $100 for this device. It could save them thousands.

That being said, I agree that many if not most states do go completely ape-shit over being just slightly over 0.08%, and I do think things have gone a little overboard in that regard. Many people drive far more impaired when sober than a lot of people at 0.08% (for multiple reasons--using a cell phone, being old or with neurologic conditions, being deaf, being tired, and so forth). And I certainly agree that lawmakers should weigh the costs of being a little lenient for those slightly over the limit versus the costs of potentially ruining the career of a contributing member of society.

It's interesting. One of my best friends got into some serious trouble for driving with a BAC of 0.081%. This was about 10 years ago. Since then, we have traveled to many foreign countries together (Europe, Latin America, Africa, Caribbean), and have asked about what happens to drunken drivers in those countries. We've yet to come across one country that deals as harshly with drunk drivers as California. (My favorite story was a Portuguese guy who was pulled over by a cop who was himself staggering from a drunken stupor. In Belgium, someone told us that the cop required a doctor to get out of bed to draw his blood, and the doctor purposely mishandled the specimen in revenge).

However, in this country, politicians make great hay out of being holier than thou. We're the last civilized country to decriminalize homsexuality (and that wasn't done legislatively), and the only country in NATO to prohibit gays in the military. Being tough on "drunk" drivers makes for great sound bites.

In the meantime, though, whoever drinks and drives had best use a breathalizer when in any doubt--and not think of driving if his BAC gets close to 0.07%...

[+ deej]

Yes, as an adult you have the RIGHT to drink. You do not, however, have the RIGHT to drive, drunk or sober.

 

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege controlled via licensing.

 

As someone who didn't drive for 20 years that recently re-joined the game, I'd like to see driving restrictions become much tighter.

 

I'd like to see driving privileges for old men who confuse the gas and brake pedal (killing a dozen or so in the process) summarily revoked.

 

I'd like to see drunk drivers who cause even minor accidents automatically lose driving privileges. Permanently.

 

I'd like to see perky blondes in monster SUV's talking on cell phones banned from the roadways.

 

My drive to work every day is a whopping two miles through rural Southern California. I see a near accident every damn day caused by poorly skilled drivers.

 

Get 'em off the road.

 

ANYTHING that takes unsafe drivers off the street is a good thing, in my opinion. I don't really care if they're drunk. If they can't drive, get 'em off the road! If being drunk impairs their driving, get 'em off the road!

 

Yes, you have the right to have a drink. You do NOT have a right to endanger my property or my person as a result.

[Guest ncm2169]

FACT: Blame the MADD lobby. They've become very influential and very effective and, like many over groups born out of a legitimate passion, have become over zealous, IMHO. Agree or disagree, that's where the power is today with respect to DUI laws/penalties.

[Flower]

>>-- I am just pissed

>>about the Federal mandate of loss of highway funds for any

>>State that doesn't adopt the .08 standard!!!

>

>Especially since the Federal standard remains at 0.10. You

>know, the one that applies to airline pilots.

>

>Barry

Barry--this is incorrect--0.10 is NOT the applicable standard for airling pilots. More than ten years ago I know it was 0.04 and it has gone down since then--I believe to a zero tolerance, but couldn't say for sure. Airline pilots are controlled by DOT-- Department of Transportation, regulations, if anyone cares to check it out.

 

Just be relieved that it isn't 0.10 for pilots:+

[woodlawn]

Do you support the right of ANY person who is at least 18 years of age to make his own sexual choices?

 

If you have a problem with an arbitrary legal standard that does not take account of individual cases, I would expect you to say "No."

 

There's no disputing that not everyone who has reached his eighteenth birthday has the intellectual and emotional maturity to make such choices in a rational manner -- that is, with due consideration for the consequences of his choices for himself and others.

 

So what system would you propose for separating those who lack the ability at that age from those who possess it?

[Barry]

This is certainly a case when I am very happy to be wrong. Thanx Flower

 

Barry

[Flower]

Where to begin....First, I see a lot of governmental infringements that anger me, but NONE that has such a clear, well defined objective to save lives and NONE that I see where there is such an overwhelming body of evidence to support the claimed "infringement."

 

You say you know of the facts, yet it appears you are really saying "DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS!"

 

It's been well over 20 years since the standard in the USA almost uniformly has been 0.08 as being that level where anyone is "under the influence." Before that it was 0.10 and before that it was 0.15 -- going lower as testing and politically climate became more sophisticated. It is interesting to note (that many countries in Europe, despite an apparently contradictory post already made here) had lower levels much earlier than we did and many have much stiffer penalties including LIFE TIME LOSS OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES in at least one country!

 

I recall as a young prosecutor citing expert witnesses to such countries and studies to demonstrate that our 0.10 and then 0.08 was more than fair and in fact gave the alcohol impaired driver the benefit of the doubt--and I still believe it to this day.

 

I have seen all too many families destroyed by the news that there young son or daughter, or husband/dad/breadwinner or wife/mother was killed by a drunk or "just impaired-by-alcohol" driver--much more so than any other type of impairment. One of the most emotionally draining and saddest civil cases I had to defend was when after I went into private practice and was retained by a county roadway department to defend it in a paraplegic case. The plaintiff was a beautiful and bubbly and energetic 17 year old girl that had become paralyzed as a result of her boy friend being drunk (and her driving with him) and drove off the road where she was ejected (no seat belts). After her depositions I had tears in my eyes and at trial, I insisted that my kids watch her entire testimony to visually demonstrate and hopefully have REAL IMPACT on what drinking and driving causes. There are dozens of other stories I can tell you with the consequences just as sad and unnecessary.

 

As a young prosecutor I remember being told by a much older and experienced deputy DA that the charge of "vehicular manslaughter" from driving under the influence was hard to get a jury to convict on, due to the fact that "everyone does it!" He was old school and I and most other and newer DDA's found it no more difficult than any other serious offense. But it demonstrates an attitude and political change--all for the better by my way of thinking.

 

While this country may have been "planned out in taverns," times change and with changed realities come changed societal expectations, attitudes, and solutions--that's called progress and enlightenment by many.

 

I agree with you that there are many other areas of impairment--eating the big Mac, sipping the latte, and talking on the cell phone while driving as you said. The fact that these exist doesn't justify driving under the influence or present an argument for deregulation of same--rather, it is a strong argument to stop ANY activity by the driver that poses a major distraction to his driving--and I'm all for that.

 

Once we properly define our objectives (here saving lives and preventing major injuries) then knowing what to do is easy--but getting the politicians to do it is the hard thing. For those reasons, I at first thought your post was tongue in cheek, and still am not quite sure that you were serious.:-(

[Guest]

Well, you've in part become a victim of many of the lies put out by the "DUI industry." My friend told me his DUI class informed him about all of these laws supposedly on the books showing how stiff the laws against DUI's are in foreign countries. In one case, it mentioned one central American country, in which driving under the influence supposedly carried the death penalty. I told my friend that this sounded like a bunch of shit, especially for this to occur in a Roman Catholic country. When we looked it up, sure enough, there was no death penalty whatsoever in the country in question (not even for murder).

DUI laws more Draconian than the US's are really seen only in Scandinavian countries, and, even then, I doubt reality measures up to the letter of the law. Can you honestly tell me you've actually met someone (or even talked to someone who knows someone) who's lost his driver's license permanently due to DUI? I will tell you flat-out that I've talked with at least half a dozen people from as many countries who've been pulled over drunk, and none of them had consequences as serious as my friend's. (I can tell you that my friend is one of the few people in the world who drives better than I do, and he's never gotten into an accident in over 25 years of driving).

I agree that we should get impaired drivers off the road. What's unique about DUI, however, is the "moral" and political aspect to it. A person who drinks and drives brings on a sense of moral indignation that one doesn't see, for example, with an elderly driver, a deaf driver, or one who's chatting on the phone or with people in the back seat (at least in the US).

We look at an elderly driver, and think "Poor old lady (or man)! If we take away her driver's license, her life will be ruined. She'll lose her independence, won't be able to go to church, etc." The reality, of course, is that dangerous drivers should be taken off the road, be they elderly or drunk. What I'm uncomfortable with is the emphasis on the "moral" and political approach to DUI, rather than the pragmatic.

When people reach a certain level of age-related debility, there probably is little that can be done to make them safe drivers. When a person drives under the influence, however, we certainly have the technology to install ignition lock-out devices to prevent him/her from doing it again. Also, local governments collect millions in fines/fees from drunk drivers. If the goal is truly to get drunks off the road rather than to collect money, why not earmark this money to let public transit systems stay open closer to when bars and clubs close?

I want to make it very clear that I do not condone DUI at all. And those with BAC's of 0.12% and above need severe action. I just think we should try to look at this problem with a more objective eye. Why are we so much more incensed by someone driving with a BAC of 0.08% than by someone else who drives with an equal amount of impairment from some other reason (even something as simple as knee or hip arthritis)?

[Minneapolis]

Society is changing and its not acceptable to be drinking and driving anymore. Yes, the constitution may have been drafted in a tavern, but the forefathers didn't get into SUV's driving 65 mph down the road loaded.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think that our country is slowly gearing up for the ultimate drunk driving law--not a drink before driving. Personally, I'm o.k. with that. My dad spent six months in incredible pain after being hit by a drunk driver who was just over the limit. May dad's legs were crushed and he needed steel rods put in place of the bone. He almost died after losing half of his blood. He still uses a cane seven years later. Sorry, your case doesn't sit well with me. Pick a real cause to write about.

[phage]

>I agree that we should get impaired drivers off the road.

>What's unique about DUI, however, is the "moral" and political

>aspect to it. A person who drinks and drives brings on a

>sense of moral indignation that one doesn't see, for example,

>with an elderly driver, a deaf driver, or one who's chatting

>on the phone or with people in the back seat (at least in the

>US).

 

These are very different circumstances, and although I support pretty severe restrictions on elderly drivers, I believe the moral indignation is perfectly valid and not present in the elder debate. Driving under the influence is a voluntary action and is completely under the control of the driver. He/she chooses to drink and then drive. You just can’t say the same about grandma. Yes, she needs to be forced off the road if she has lost the ability and isn’t going to give up driving voluntarily, but it is hardly the same thing. I also think we are going to see continuing evolution of the law and stiffer penalties when it comes to cell phone usage.

[Will]

Deej, several times a year you give me yet another reason to envy your husband, as it one weren't enough. And here's another.

 

As for the rest of this thread, I'm beyond incredulous. There's a difference between individual rights and legally-sanctioned narcissism. I didn't know there was a alcohol chapter of the NRA.

[+ deej]

Thanks for warming my cockles, Will.

 

I had this thread on my mind as I braved the Ventura Freeway and the notorious 405 earlier today.

 

Drunk or sober, 90% of those drivers shouldn't be on the road. They are unsafe and a threat to everyone around them.

 

I say get 'em off the road.

[Guest]

> Driving under the influence is a voluntary

>action and is completely under the control of the driver.

>He/she chooses to drink and then drive. You just can’t say

>the same about grandma.

 

Yes I can (and will). Most older people are well aware of their impaired status, but chose to continue driving because it's more convenient. A friend of my mother's was still driving at the age of 80, after she had literally wrecked three cars within a five-year period. I had the harrowing experience of being a passenger while she was driving. Other drivers frequently had to take evasive maneuvers as she changed lanes without looking, and so forth. She was constantly being honked at, and there was no doubt but that she realized she was being a menace. I asked her if she felt she should stop driving, and she said she would continue driving until the state ordered her not to.

I recently had an elderly patient, whom I told she couldn't drive, and I was notifying the motor vehicles department. She said that she only wanted to drive to the grocery store and to church on Sundays. When I suggested a grocery delivery service, and having one of her fellow church-members give her a lift, she felt it would just be "too embarassing."

I also find it offensive when someone drives under the influence because it's too inconvenient to get a lift (or wait until the BAC drops). I'm also struck by how entirely differently the two situations are perceived by the public and the law.

[+ glutes]

I had a good friend that was arrested for drunk driving, after he failed the 'freeway ballet' (what we call'm here in California) at a checkpoint. After he grumbled about it I said, "what if you got into a crash and injured someone, you'd be a felon!" The grumbling stopped.

 

Don't know whether there are chapters in other states, but we have DADD here, Drinkers Against Drunk Drivers - supported by a beer distributor.

[VaHawk]

>Drunk or sober, 90% of those drivers shouldn't be on the road.

>They are unsafe and a threat to everyone around them.

>

>I say get 'em off the road.

 

Well as you admit, you haven't driven in 20 years. I'm sure it must be a real eye opener for you. I bet you are finding that it is a "real war" out there now compared to 20 years ago. This is why, at least in the DC area they are cracking down on aggressive driving, which is the major culprit in accidents. It has gotten to the point that I absolutely hate to drive and I wish I never had to do so again.

 

I agree with you that it is not only alcohol impaired drivers that are idiots and should be banned from driving. I want to see all bad drivers banned (btw, I wouldn't put it at 90% but maybe 40 to 50%). But who gets to make the decision on who is a bad driver? All of us are at times and all of us consider ourselves good drivers and the majority of the rest idiots.

 

I have seen and believe that drivers who are: using the cell phone, shaving, reading the newpaper or other printed material, putting on makeup, engaging in sex, have their heads turned to the backseat to admonish children, ad nauseum, to be just as inattentive and just as dangerous as those driving while impaired by alcohol.

 

As such, I want to see just as hard of a crackdown and just as harsh of a penalty levied against these drivers as is currently levied against those arrested for a DUI.

[+ deej]

We agree, Hawk.

 

>Well as you admit, you haven't driven in 20 years. I'm sure

>it must be a real eye opener for you. I bet you are finding

>that it is a "real war" out there now compared to 20 years

>ago. This is why, at least in the DC area they are cracking

>down on aggressive driving, which is the major culprit in

>accidents. It has gotten to the point that I absolutely hate

>to drive and I wish I never had to do so again.

 

The 20 years of separation actually doesn't make much of a difference at all. I see the same idiots on the road today that I saw on the road 20 years ago when the 14th Street Bridge heading into DC was part of my morning commute.

 

The only real difference is that in DC we'd sometimes see snow and you KNOW what THAT does to traffic inside the beltway! :9 In LA, "uphill" produces much the same affect. :7

 

JUST ON TODAY'S TRIP I saw unsafe lane changes, I heard tires screeching (and saw the smoke) IN STOPPED TRAFFIC.

 

There are people driving that shouldn't be. They're hazards. The "PC" thing is to say they don't know they're hazards. I don't give a damn.

 

Get 'em off the road.

[phage]

I hear you…I really do. I still don’t agree that impairment due to age is the moral equivalent of someone putting alcohol into their body, but the elder issue definitely needs to be addressed.

 

They are a hazard. Many of them obviously know that they are not up to the challenge of today’s roads because you can see the terrified expression on their faces.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>the constitution was drafted in Taverns!!!

 

Even the 18th ammendment? :+

[VaHawk]

>MAJOR Offense: Driving with a B.A.C. of .12 or above; or

>driving with a B.A.C. of .08 or above IN COMBINATION WITH one

>of the following "contributing factors":

> -- an accident;

> -- speeding in excess of 10 mph of the speed limit;

> -- reckless driving;

> -- etc.

 

Well, I don't know what the heck the etc. is? Perhaps hitting a steer in the middle of Wyoming at 3am when it is only you and the steer on the road? As far as speeding goes, most intoxicated drivers are so messed up, that they over compensate by driving slower not faster and this is one of the things that the police look for to identify a DUI.

 

To major offense, I would add more than 1 DUI in a 5 year, perhaps less, period. This is what Maricopa County (Phoenix) Arizona does (which is why Diana Ross is lucky to have gotten arrested in Tucson). Even a first offense lands you 1 day in tent city jail, 2 offenses in a 5 year period lands you in tent city for more than a day, and 3 offenses lands you in the state prison in Florence (where no sane person would ever wish to land in).

 

>MINOR Offense: Driving with a B.A.C of greater than .08, but

>less than .12; with no contributing factors to make it a

>"major" offense.

 

To start with BAC is a very subjective criteria to measure impairment. Some who have a BAC of 4 or less are more dangerous drivers than those with a BAC of 12 or more. It all depends on the alcohol tolerance of the driver. Those who drink a lot are less impaired at .12 than those who drink only at Friday evening Happy Hours and have a BAC of .04. But to be fair to law enforcement, there has to be some kind of arbitrary measurement, so BAC is the fairest they can come up with so far.

 

>The penalty for a MINOR offense should be a nominal fine, and

>mandatory DUI classes. No significant insurance surcharges.

 

IMO, there is no such thing as a MINOR offense. Do you really believe that the penalties you suggest would deter repeat offenses?

I can assure you that they would not! I believe a first offender should go to jail for 1 week, lose driving priviliges (and it is a privilege, not a right) for 6 months, pay a penalty of no less than $1,000 and pay significantly high insurance for at least a 3 year period. That's it period, and no attorney can argue for a change.

[DaninWA]

>Well, I don't know what the heck the etc. is? Perhaps hitting

>a steer in the middle of Wyoming at 3am when it is only you

>and the steer on the road?

 

It wasn't my fault. The damn thing jumped out in front of me.

 

Dan

[Flower]

>IMO, there is no such thing as a MINOR offense. Do you really

>believe that the penalties you suggest would deter repeat

>offenses?

 

Hawk, I agree with you--there are NO minor offenses when you are talking about intentionally becoming impaired and then hurling down the highway in 3-4000 lb. of steel, plastic and glass!

 

I'm not a nuero-psychologist, MD, or any other expert on alchol/brain impairment, but the way it has been explained to me by experts who are, is that EVERYONE is impaired at 0.08--Even the most habitual drinker, however, the more experienced drinker has learned to compensate to some extent--drive slower as you said, talk slower and more deliberate (tries to avoid slurring) and can even walk straighter and better than his less experienced counterpart--but this is learned behavior and has very effect in most DUI accidents.

 

There are KEY elements that driving requires which cannot be compensated for even by the most habitual and experienced drinker-- (1) judgment (2) visual acuity (3) reaction time (4) depth perception (there are 5 key factors and I don't remember the other

 

As to JUDGMENT, even the drinkers evaluation of his own intoxication or impairment is effected and thus the "I'm fine to drive" statements we have all heard. His judgment as to speed, etc., is all affected.

 

As to Visual Acuity, he is more susceptible to night blindness from oncoming headlights and it takes longer for his pupils to open back up after the headlights have passed; loses much of his peripheral vision,

 

As to Reaction time, this is often FATAL to him--but usually others He just doesn't perceive and react in time to avoid the danger, whether it be a steer in the road or a kid crossing the street.

 

As to Depth perception, it speaks for itself, but usually presents itself in the impaired driver not realizing how near the oncoming car or pedestrian is.

 

And each of these works in a synergistic manner with the others--judgment impaired so you don't even recognize a danger as quickly, but when you do your reaction time is slowed so your response is WAY late and your judgment being impaired, may cause you to make the wrong evasive maneuver even if you had time to belatedly avoid the accident.

 

Greatly oversimplified, one can drink 12 ounces of beer, wine or 1 ounce of most hard liquor and it metabolizes (burns off) in 1 hour in the average 150 lb. man--faster if you are bigger and less if you are smaller. This is subjective to the individual, body weight, metabolism, medical condition, etc., But usually you can have 2 drinks in 1 hour; 3 drinks in 2 hours; 4 drinks in 3 hours and walk away a 0.02 in EACH case--if you add one drink to each of those drinking periods, you become a 0.04 (still legal but more impaired) that's not such an onerous requirement and certainly a reasonable governmental "interference" as the ORIGINAL POSTER was so incensed about.