State Senate Passes Tougher DUI Laws

[Red Arrow]

If you remember, that is exactly what I have proposed.  Except for the fact that since the pot smokers don't kill 20,000 per year, if the RWRE was REALLY all about personal liberty, or even personal responsibility, we would not see them so into the idea of incarceration for something that is a non-event on the "bad things to do in society" scale.
And those penalties would help keep the drunks off the streets - they wouldn't have any money to buy gas.  And if they did, then raise it to $50,000 for first event.  $100,000 per second.  Since we don't really want to punish drunk drivers, then at least make it a little more painful for them.

I don't imagine that the US demand for pot has anything to do with the drug gangs in Mexico.

[Conan71]

If you remember, that is exactly what I have proposed.  Except for the fact that since the pot smokers don't kill 20,000 per year, if the RWRE was REALLY all about personal liberty, or even personal responsibility, we would not see them so into the idea of incarceration for something that is a non-event on the "bad things to do in society" scale.

And those penalties would help keep the drunks off the streets - they wouldn't have any money to buy gas.  And if they did, then raise it to $50,000 for first event.  $100,000 per second.  Since we don't really want to punish drunk drivers, then at least make it a little more painful for them.

My mother had some friends in Norway she went to visit, I guess 20 or so years back.  The husband was a doctor.  They went to dinner, Doc has a glass of wine, wife drives home.  One glass.  Apparently at the time, their limit was .05.  He would have lost his professional license to practice and his livelihood if he got popped.

We might think of it as draconian here in the states but that's a damn good deterrent and must work.  Raise the stakes high enough and you will get the desired result of fewer fatalities and injuries related to drunk driving.  It's worked here in the states with a dramatic drop in rates since the early 1980's.

The libertarian in me struggles with issues like this until I put it in the context of whose rights are more impacted by the actions of someone else.  Sort of like smoking laws.  My decision not to smoke harms no one.  Someone else's decision to smoke doesn't just harm them, it also harms those around them.

Ask someone who became a quadriplegic as a result of someone else's drunk driving if they think our drunk driving laws are harsh enough.  99.9% chance they don't think so.  I know, heavy on the hyperbole but the major point of public safety laws is to attempt protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others or outright criminal intent.

[TURobY]

We might think of it as draconian here in the states but that's a damn good deterrent and must work.  Raise the stakes high enough and you will get the desired result of fewer fatalities and injuries related to drunk driving.  It's worked here in the states with a dramatic drop in rates since the early 1980's.

You don't think better safety standards in general have contributed to those numbers? Especially given that overall fatalities and injuries have fallen as well.

[Conan71]

You don't think better safety standards in general have contributed to those numbers? Especially given that overall fatalities and injuries have fallen as well.

You mean as far as vehicle and road safety standards?  No doubt they've contributed as well.  There's been a variety of factors which have lowered injury and fatality rates.

[Red Arrow]

  Raise the stakes high enough and you will get the desired result of fewer fatalities and injuries related to drunk driving. 

Fewer is good. You will never get them to zero.

[heironymouspasparagus]

But you can get all but about 7 of the drunks off the road.


As far as Mexican drug dealers??  That is an industry that will very quickly come back home.  No need for Mexican drug cartel if you can grow a small patch in your backyard.

[Teatownclown]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/31/montana-rep-alan-hale-says-dui-laws-are-destroying-a-way-of-li/


Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life'
Not only are DUI laws 'destroying a way of life,' but they're hurting small businesses, too, says state Rep. Alan Hale. Including the barroom he owns.

[Conan71]

What a dumb donkey

[Breadburner]

A DUI has not stopped anyone that I know from drinking and Driving......It aint about public safety and thats a fact.....

[Conan71]

A DUI has not stopped anyone that I know from drinking and Driving......It aint about public safety and thats a fact.....

Slow learners.

[Teatownclown]

I personally have a problem with the pre-emptive nature of drunk driving laws. They assume guilt and that assumption allows for suspension of fourth and fifth amendment rights. It criminalizes a POTENTIALLY harmful situation even when no one is harmed. If the assumption is that someone who has had a drink or two is liable to hurt someone if they put the key in the ignition and this potential is so terrible that this person should be locked up and criminalized, then all driving should be banned. Because there's a distinct potential to have that crash regardless of your intakes, state of mind or health. And when you see studies that show cel-phone use, texting et cetera, being more likely to cause an accident than a six-pack of beer, where is the enforcement of cel-phone bans?

Remember the daze when a cop pulled you over, saw an open beer, took it and poured it out and told you to go home. Now you get pulled over and you go to jail. 

MADD is another part of the War On Drugs, the Ladies Auxilliary, the WTCU bluenoses reanimated. And the pre-emptive punitive nature of the laws they promote are an incursion on all of our rights.

Don't drink and drive....

[Conan71]

I personally have a problem with the pre-emptive nature of drunk driving laws. They assume guilt and that assumption allows for suspension of fourth and fifth amendment rights. It criminalizes a POTENTIALLY harmful situation even when no one is harmed. If the assumption is that someone who has had a drink or two is liable to hurt someone if they put the key in the ignition and this potential is so terrible that this person should be locked up and criminalized, then all driving should be banned. Because there's a distinct potential to have that crash regardless of your intakes, state of mind or health. And when you see studies that show cel-phone use, texting et cetera, being more likely to cause an accident than a six-pack of beer, where is the enforcement of cel-phone bans?

Remember the daze when a cop pulled you over, saw an open beer, took it and poured it out and told you to go home. Now you get pulled over and you go to jail. 

MADD is another part of the War On Drugs, the Ladies Auxilliary, the WTCU bluenoses reanimated. And the pre-emptive punitive nature of the laws they promote are an incursion on all of our rights.

Don't drink and drive....

What liberties did someone paralyzed or killed by a drunk driver give up?

There's plenty of other pre-emptive laws out there as well like speeding or weapon laws because it's a potential public safety issue.  I do agree with you though that there is unequal enforcement from other distracted behaviors and I tend to see more people weaving all over the place on the expressway during the day while they love with their smart phone than I see weaving all over the place at 10pm.

Chances are if my bike becomes a hood ornament, that driver will have been on the phone or texting or trying to dig that hot cigarette butt out of their lap.

[Cats Cats Cats]

My grandfather was killed by a drunk driver.  I don't know if the .08 should be sufficient for the device.  I think it should be based on perhaps squad car footage of the drunk test.  As stated earlier, different amounts effect people differently.  If you are impaired the same as somebody talking on a cell phone.  It shouldn't be installed.  I honestly don't know what BAC I have at any level.  Maybe if they had breathalyzers at bars...

[Conan71]

My grandfather was killed by a drunk driver.  I don't know if the .08 should be sufficient for the device.  I think it should be based on perhaps squad car footage of the drunk test.  As stated earlier, different amounts effect people differently.  If you are impaired the same as somebody talking on a cell phone.  It shouldn't be installed.  I honestly don't know what BAC I have at any level.  Maybe if they had breathalyzers at bars...

Everything I read says motor skills and judgement are impacted in everyone at .08.  Again it's what the person feels or doesn't feel.  There's probably a lot of experienced drinkers who drive home at .12 or .15 every night and never get busted because they keep it in a straight line, don't speed, stop at all stops, and don't mess with the radio or cell phone while they are driving.  Usually the traffic stop is initiated for speeding, unsafe lane changes, crossing the center line, or some sort of reckless behavior.  Cops just don't randomly pull people over for sobriety checks.  In other words, it wasn't the drinking that got you pulled over in the first place, it was the crappy driving.

You can get a keychain model for $10 to $80 I think.  Not as accurate as what the po-po uses, but it will give you a good idea if you might be over the limit.  I imagine they more expensive ones are more accurate.

There was no doubt the driver who killed by brother and his boss was overly impaired.  BAC was over .20, driving completely in the wrong lane and no headlights after dark.  

[Red Arrow]

Cops just don't randomly pull people over for sobriety checks. 

Actually it's not random except by location but they do pull drivers over at the check points they sometimes run.