Drunk driving should be treated more harshly.

[n2doc]

At least, cases like this make me feel this way:

A 14-year-old victim in a suspected drunk-driving accident early Sunday morning suffered irreversible brain damage and was being kept on life support so doctors could assess whether her organs could be donated, according to Irvine police.

Police identified the victim as Ashton Sweet, a student at Northwood High School.

...

The pickup driver, 26-year-old Austin Farley of Irvine, was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. He and his passenger were unhurt, police said.
...

Farley has a long history of arrests, and in 2009 he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence and battery on a police officer or emergency worker, according to the Orange County courts online database. In 2005, he pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended or revoked license and refusing to submit to a chemical test for driving under the influence.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/14-year-old-crash-victim-suffers-irreversible-brain-damage.html

[Shagbark Hickory]

1. Yes they should.

But then again our politicians would have trouble getting to work,.

[madokie]

48. I think that is so true in so many cases

[Tikki]

2. Yes....

Tikki

[RebelOne]

3. Definitely.

I have had two family members killed by drunken drivers, and the offenders got off with just a slap on the wrist. When I was 10 years old, my stepfather was killed by a drunken off-duty copy. He got no jail time at all. But this was in the '50s and drunk drivers got off (especially cops) with no penalties.

Then in the '80s, my daughter's husband was mowed down by a drunken driver while he was walking down the street. He was dragged for a few yards. He died a few days later because he was brain dead, and my daughter had to have the life support machines turned off. The bastard that killed him got off with just a little jail time, and was able to get a work release.

[n2doc]

8. You have to wonder

If these people had been caught with a few grams of crack, they would have been put behind bars for a long time. Yet showing behaviors that are a clear danger to others gets a slap on the wrist.

[Tx4obama]

4. Drunk driving should be considered a mental health issue.

More money needs to go to addiction and mental health programs and NOT to the prison system.

[n2doc]

5. The mental health system in this country has been destroyed

I'm facing first hand this problem- I have a loved one with schizophrenia and cannot get the MH system, nor even the legal system, to help them because this person thinks they are "perfectly sane" and "is not a danger to themselves or others".

So until that little issue of getting people help who don't think they need it is fixed then I am all for getting these maniacs off the street.

[Cid_B]

25. If you consider poor decision making skills a mental health problem...

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cid_B]

30. Are you of the belief...

... that you can tell my politics by the fact that I believe someone who drinks and drives is responsible for that action and no one else?

[Tx4obama]

37. When enough alcohol is in the blood stream, people do not make the same decisions ....

that they would make if sober.
So, yes it is a mental health problem.
People that are addicted to alcohol do have a mental health problem.
And severe addicts have even been known to drive during black outs.
When a person is mentally impaired they can not make responsible decisions.
This is a medical problem that needs to be addressed, not a criminal one.

Throwing more money at the criminal system to house folks that have an alcohol addiction is NOT going to solve the problem.

[Cid_B]

38. So...

Only alcoholics get a free pass on the "it's a disease" train?

What about the college student who just started drinking and gets popped for DUI on their first night out?

In the end, no matter what, the person made the decision to crack open that bottle and put it to their lips.

edit : I looked back on your post and reread it. Wow... You are absolutely correct in that a drunk person makes different decisions than a sober one. No crap. In no way is that a defense.

"Defendant - Your honor, I wouldn't have backhanded my wife but frankly I was intoxicated.
Judge - Oh you poor man! That changes everything! Bailiff set this man free!"

Seriously, is that a justification? Christ almighty... Until someone tackles you, pours it down your throat and then holds a gun to your head to make you drive, YOU are the only one responsible.

[Abq_Sarah]

73. Not all drunk drivers are alcoholics

And drunk drivers are NOT victims in any way, shape or form.

[pitohui]

105. the person in the OP is clearly an alcoholic though

despite multiple arrests and multiple evidence that alcohol was going to destroy his life and perhaps the life of somebody else, he COULDN'T stop drinking

this is not a case of a spoiled frat boy out on the town doing some binge drinking one time, who could have just as well afforded to hire a limo to take him around

this is a guy whose life was already severely harmed by booze, it's killing him, it's killing his chances, and still he can't stop

this is addiction, this is sickness

i agree, if a perfectly healthy person for some strange reason CHOOSES to drive drunk, throw the book at em if somebody is harmed, but how many perfectly healthy sane people still drive drunk, the laws now are already too draconian

[pitohui]

104. wow a sensible, sane, science-based post about alcoholism

thanks, tx4obama

alcoholism is a disease that eats the brain, no different from crack or any other addiction that eats the brain

people who sit on their couch, unable to resist eating pizza after pizza, yet they pretend that THEY can control their addictions and the alcoholic in blackout is making a choice

no one is making a damn choice to be an alcoholic or to have a disease that eats one's brain and then one's body

we need some research and to find out something that works to treat this problem, only 10 percent of alcoholics recover, the rest are the heartbreak of their families and friends -- what we have now DOESN'T WORK and we are punishing people for having an incurable disease, which is cruelty

[blueamy66]

41. I do

wish I was as perfect as you

[Cid_B]

43. I don't know about perfect...

... though I do take a small amount of pride in my ability to realize that my problems are of my own making and no one else.

If I had to find someone to blame for everything I screwed up.. wow.. that's a full time job by itself. Where do you find the time?

[Somawas]

26. A friend of mine, who is an alcoholic in recovery

once said that the last year or two that he drank, he would have driven, even if the penalty had been death. I think that's probably true. Harsher penalties will not deter completely irrational behavior.

[EOTE]

103. They may not deter irrational behavior, but they may prevent the person from taking another life.

If you engage in behavior which could easily kill others, you need to be removed as a risk. If you're incapable of controlling your behavior, society needs to do something about it.

[elocs]

6. The odds are that nearly anyone of us here could potentially be the victim of a drunk driver.

I routinely read in my local paper of someone being arrested for drunk driving with 4,5,6,7 previous DUIs. They frequently injure or kill some innocent person or persons who were just minding their own business. It also seems that often the drunk driver escapes with little or no injury.

I believe that prisons are places to separate people who commit crimes for the safety of society. People who cannot be trusted to be allowed in society due to their choices.

I say if someone has a prior drunk driving conviction and chooses to drive drunk again and injures or kills someone, then that person needs to go to prison for a long, long time. They clearly cannot be trusted to be among people in society.

[Taverner]

108. The odds are that nearly anyone of us here could potentially be a drunk driver

Ever have a beer and leave right afterwards?

.08 BAC is one beer, unless you're over 200lbs

[Jackpine Radical]

7. We need ways to reduce the damage done by drunk drivers.

I don't think harsher penalties are the answer. People lose their licenses & drive without. They get prison time, get out & do it again. Seems like we ought to be figuring out some functional preventative measures. We could, for example, stop glorifying alcohol. We could provide better treatment. We could start altering the painful characteristics of our society that drive people to drink.

[Atman]

18. A lot of common sense in your post.

When I was a child it was very common, almost acceptable, to simply toss trash out of your moving car. No one cared. It took years of public policy to change attitudes, but it worked. This is also a long-term issue based in changing public attitudes. Putting virtual ankle bracelets on every citizen is not the answer.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. You forgot something:

Public transportation. Stop glorifying the CAR.

If all bars could be visited and gone back home from with a bus or train trip, there would be a lot less drunk driving.

Hell, what about a law stating that bars have to be near a point of public transportation? Makes much more sense than "has to be X feet away from schools", "can't be in open air", and other nonsense.

[Cid_B]

70. Not everyone lives in a city...

Not everyone lives in a town...

Not everyone drinks at a bar...

Come on people! Think these things through before you spew em out!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. So how do you suggest a first offense DUI be punished?

[Jackpine Radical]

90. Others may disagree, but I favor

decapitation.

[alarimer]

67. I think harm abatement is the answer, not more punishment.

There is no functional difference in driving impaired (which is being defined lower and lower all the time by the Prohibitionist folks) and driving while excessively sleepy or while talking on the phone. Yet one is punished much more harshly than the others.

Obviously more and more draconian punishments are not the answer. They have not been successful so far, so what makes anything thing even more punishment will do the trick?

[RegieRocker]

9. All automobiles should be equiped with alcohol detection

period.

[Atman]

12. Ridiculous. But it's coming.

I'm stunned at how so many on DU actively promote the Nanny State. By your logic, all houses should have web cams to prevent domestic abuse. All public restrooms should have camera to prevent illegal sex acts. Everyone should just be required to run their lives like an ad agency where you have to fill in time sheets accounting for every fifteen minute block of your time.

[RegieRocker]

13. That is just plain stupid. Tests are taken to drive now. This

would be a daily test. Logic fail.

[Atman]

15. Has nothing to do with "logic fail." Get serious. Think like an adult.

When do you stop? Where is the line? How much of a safety cocoon do you need in order to open your front door in the morning? The only "fail" here is in thinking that by saying "fail" it is actually so. We cannot legislate away every bad thing life through Government Nannies.

[RegieRocker]

16. Respond like an adult. Why do we have driver tests then?

[Atman]

20. To see if you know how to operate a motor vehicle.

And we have DUI laws to help prevent drunken driving.

Of course, anyone can drive a car regardless of whether they have a license. Do you propose that everyone must retake the driver's exam every time they get behind the wheel and turn the key? Again... where do you draw the line?

[RegieRocker]

21. Pick and choose with you. Drivers tests are just as much a part

of a nanny state as a alcohol testing device in cars. We should draw the line at privacy (private). Once you get behind the wheel of a car and move onto public roads the public has a right to their safety. It should only be a concern to those that drink.

[Jakes Progress]

31. The stunning part is how many actually go the libertarian route.

All this don't inhibit me just because it might save lives stuff. It's the same old "i'm more important that anyone else" ayn rand shit.

If we had the kind of "nanny state" that kept drivers from driving drunk, I have two friends who would still be alive. The drunken ass that hit them is still alive. But you feel that it is worth having my friends dead so that you can drive impaired anyway you like. Yeah. That's a real progressive position.

[Whisp]

49. too many are too stupid, so yes, we do need a Nanny.

I don't see that as a negative at all.

[pipi_k]

89. I agree, generally...

but only because the idiots often end up hurting others. Innocent people.


If someone wants to do stupid and kill himself...whatever.


I think people see "Nanny State" in the light that the government is trying to protect people from themselves.

I don't. I see it as the government trying to protect the innocent from the stupid. People certainly have the right to be safe from idiots who would hurt or kill them.

[Cid_B]

32. Awful...

Yet again the masses pay for the bad choices of the few...

So many things wrong with it...

[provis99]

51. why would you be opposed to that?

I would be opposed to it, but you seem to be opposed to drunk driving. Putting alcohol breathers in all cars would seem to be a way to stop drunks from driving cars.

[Cid_B]

53. Registering your destination with police when you leave your home...

... with a mandatory arrival time would decrease crime as well.

Doesn't mean we should do it.

Also... Seriously? Because I don't think Americans should have to fellate a tube every time they want to go to Wal-mart I am pro drunk driving? Sheesh...

[provis99]

55. well, I am opposed to it,

yet I also think it would be a very effective tool to stop drunk people from driving. But I also don't see it as any more annoying than having to put a key into an ignitiion every time you start a car, but whatever...

[Atman]

58. Not ever selling alcohol to anyone, ever, would also cut down on abuse.

But we tried that once, didn't we?

Is this really DU? Are you breathe-in-the-tubers also in favor of computer chips in cars that relay your every move to your insurance company the police? Because if you are, you're living in the wrong country.

[provis99]

59. I already said I am opposed to the alcohol checkers.

[RegieRocker]

85. Being a DU'er isn't someone who promotes anarchy and

the, deaths of innocents. Once again breathalyzers would be another tool to only allow safe people behind the sreering wheels of motorized vehicles. Less intrusive than drivers tests. Get real.

[RegieRocker]

86. Come back to the shallow end of the pool.

[Aerows]

74. Cell phones are nearly as bad

Being impaired because you are too busy carrying on a conversation can cause a wreck just as awful as being drunk behind the wheel.

Note that I'm not saying that I condone either activity, I'm just pointing out that chatting on your cell phone while you drive isn't a safe activity, either.

[CC]

10. Yep they should.

Death by a drunk driver is as violent as any other homicide. Most people over the age of 5 know it is illegal to drink and drive, therefore it is a willful decision they make to break the law and put others in danger.

After jail they should have to get a medical release signed by a medical doctor just like anyone else with a disease that could affect their driving skills. Tried getting something like this passed in my state, unfortunately it failed. Doctors said they would not take responsibility for drunk drivers future actions by signing a medical release that they were "cured" or under treatment that would stop them from repeating their actions and safe.

[Cleita]

11. Maybe if we had better and more affordable public

transportation, people who are substance abusers, would be inclined to use it instead of driving when they are not able to function properly. The problem with substance abuse is that it is an illness as well or a symptom of something going on in the life of that person that impairs their judgement. The drunk driver doesn't start out with the intent of killing someone on the road, however, I agree that something has to be done.

However, just making laws that get people thrown in jail or worse doesn't offer alternatives to DUI. Maybe restaurant and bar owners should group together to figure out a way to make sure patrons don't get in a car and drive after they have had something to drink, a shuttle service or some such solution. I know people who hire a limo for a night out on the town, but not everyone can afford that.

[taterguy]

14. So the price of drinks skyrockets so people who don't live within walking distance can get home?

I'd be outraged if I hadn't quit drinking.

:toast:

Public transportation is good in theory but not practical for a vast amount of the establishments where people drive after drinking.

And what are you gonna do about people who drink at parties?

[JanMichael]

17. Gee, when I was at house parties in Poland I took the streetcars home!

It's a design issue.

[provis99]

40. so you were drunk in public? That's illegal.

[JanMichael]

42. Only when one is drunk AND disorderly or obviously incapacitated.

Luckily I was not.

[provis99]

50. that's not the case in the US.

In many counties of the US, simple possession of alcohol is illegal. Public intoxication in these counties, the simple act of being drunk, is punishable by jail time in many cases.

[JanMichael]

54. Possession on a tram (read "street car" for the uninformed) was illegal.

So? Taking a 10-20 minute tram ride without an OPEN drink is fucking easy unless one is an unhinged alcoholic. "Simple possession" is insane and only law in very few places.

The "act" of being intoxicated is so infinitely subjective that unless one pisses on a cop, starts harassing everyone, acts like they are suicidal, passes out and starts vomiting, or shits on the tram leave them alone.

[provis99]

56. hmm. Each country has its different viewpoints, I guess.

Public intoxication, ie. simply being drunk in Indiana, is a Class B misdemeanor, same as Assault, punishable by 180 days in jail. And people are convicted of this all the time,and the poor ones who can't afford a lawyer often serve the maximum.

[Kievan Rus]

63. Even in most places over here (such as Pennsylvania)...

it has to rise to a level where a person endangers themselves, endangers others, or is disorderly. At least that's what the law says in Pennsylvania; the standard is sometimes merely being drunk in public in many conservative red states.

[Taverner]

109. Yes, in fact cops use "serving a drunk" as an excuse to shut down bars they don't like

Such as Hispanic Bars, Gay Bars, African American Bars, etc...


It's called "Prohibition By Proxy"

[Jackpine Radical]

22. So every bar has 1 or more "chauffeurs." Before you start drinking,

you put up some amount--say $20--to prepay your ride home, surrendering your keys at the same time. Then, when you get sloshed, you get taken home; for an extra prepay of $20 or whatever, a second sober driver drives your car home for you. He then rides back to the bar with your driver for their next passenger.

It's a variation on the old Scandinavian "double taxi."

[taterguy]

24. So you pay $40 in addition to your bar tab?

If you made that a requirement it would close down almost every bar in my town.

And what do you do about restaurants? That's where the real resistance to draconian laws comes from. They make most of their profit off booze, and most of it is people having one or two drinks that don't impair them much.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. I was envisioning it as voluntary, just a business transaction.

No laws, no requirements, just a service for those who want to get sloshed without taking the risks associated with drunk driving.

[Cleita]

52. Admittedly a lot of work and planning needs to go

into coming up with a solution. However, people are going to party and maybe we have to figure out how to make that safe for everyone. We had to figure out a way with sex when AIDs came on the scene. Up until then people were just punished for having unacceptable sex, without any thought as how to make it safer for everyone by admitting that abstinence, or jail sentences, or other punitive measures aren't going to make people stop having sex.

[Xithras]

71. Your solution already exists.

I have yet to meet a bartender who wouldn't offer to call a cab for an obviously drunk patron.

As for public transportation, it's my experience that drunks on buses usually get arrested on public intoxication charges. Most modern cities simply ban being drunk in public...period. It doesn't matter whether you're driving your car, walking down the sidewalk, or taking the bus.

[Ilsa]

19. If you are going to drink, take a sober friend with you. That is what

my girlfriends and I did. I've taken my turn as the designated driver. It's the responsible thing to do.

And yes, I think the laws for DWI should be harsher.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

27. In TX.

... I doubt this guy would have still had his license. And probably for many if not most other states. What you mean is CA laws are too lax.

In TX trust me, they don't fool around with DWI, especially if there is an accident of any kind involved.

[BlueIris]

28. It really is inexcusable. nt

[tabasco]

33. Oh no! It's those dangerous marijuana criminals that need to be

dealt with most severely!

[Darth_Kitten]

35. It really should, innocent people shouldn't have to suffer...

until somebody else finds "their" rock bottom. :(

[Never Stop Dancin]

36. .08 is not intoxicated

Too many people who've only had 3 or 4 drinks are getting stopped, and it's had a chilling effect on the American club scene. Thankfully they don't have these stupid laws in Israel and other countries.

[Codeine]

47. "a chilling effect on the American club scene"

Heavens. *swoons*

[ccvirgo911]

57. My 17 year old son was slaughtered

by a drunk who had a BAC of 0.097. Low BAC, my son is just as dead. My life is in ruins, my son is murdered, all for the sake of a drink. We were told we were lucky; the drunk murderer got 15 years in prison. Somehow, luck is not a word I ever use to describe myself.

[pipi_k]

60. I'm so sorry...

Both of my kids were nearly killed by drunk drivers, in separate incidents.

I can't even begin to imagine how awful it must be for you and your family to have lost your son for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

:(

[ccvirgo911]

65. You are right, for no reason....

The guy hit my son as he crossed the street on his bike. My son had a green light, and the drunk blew through his red light at 90 mph and sent Chris 162 feet down the street. Then he left him there to die. Didn't stop, didn't think twice. Now he has decided that prison life is just not his thing and is appealing his guilty plea. So it's never going to be over. I have to look at this piece of shit again next month and listen to his sorry ass blathering about how he needs to be with HIS kids. Well, I need to be with my son too, but all I'm left with are visits to the cemetery. All I want is five minutes alone in a room with this scum and a baseball bat. Problem solved. No more innocent children mowed down in the street by this animal. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, except him.

Thank you for your kindness.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. God damn....

I'm so sorry you have to go thru that. That asshole should thank God he's breathing. Fuck him him and his kids.

[underseasurveyor]

78. Oh god sweetheart. That's horrible.

I'm so sorry you lost your baby boy but to have the added insult of losing him in such a - it shouldn't have ever happened- way is..... an unimaginable loss. ((((HUG))))

Lost my father to a drunk driver when I was 13 months so I have no memory of him. When he was killed in 1960 there were no drunk driving laws, it was an excusable accident.

I'm glad laws have changed and I hope the POS that caused the death of your son rots in prison for many years.

[pipi_k]

61. I don't know what's intoxicated or not...

for other people.

I do know, however, that 2 drinks will put me on the floor. Absolutely.

I have a lousy tolerance for alcohol and meds. So while perhaps some people wouldn't be exactly intoxicated at .08, lots of others would.

Maybe it's a compromise between the two.

[Cid_B]

62. That's just a perk...

...

[Bluebear]

64. What a burningly STOOOPID post.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

66. That depends on the person driving.

.08 will affect a light/rare drinker different than it will affect an alcoholic, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you are alcoholic who can drive just fine at .08, good for you, but make sure all your lights work.

[lapislzi]

97. You must be effing kidding.

Please tell me this was irony. Please.

You're kidding. You have to be. Nobody's that stupid, not even on The Site that Shall Not Be Named.

Right?

[Cali_Democrat]

39. This guy has quite a rap sheet...and he's only 26

https://ocapps.occourts.org/Vision_Public/Index.do

Go here, accept the terms and then search for his name.

His name is Austin Farley.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. DUIs should mean you lose your license forever.

Instead of jail.

On the other hand, driving while having one's license revoked for a DUI should mean a LONG jail term.

[alarimer]

68. That's absurd.

Increasing draconian measures HAVE NOT WORKED. And making them worse is not the answer.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. You'll notice I said ''no jail''. (Unless the person reoffends.)

[akbacchus_BC]

77. I totally agree with you. Take the licence away forever, especially

if some one got killed. Driving whilst drunk is no excuse! Take a frigging taxi if getting drunk is so frigging important!

I dislike drunk drivers with a vengeance!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. I could go for a finite time, if it's a first offense...

...and the alcohol index is not too much above limit.

[Knight Hawk]

45. All major ..............

driving violations should be treated much more harshly.

[Aerows]

72. I've been in two accidents.

In neither of them had I been drinking or at fault. Both times, the person that hit me was chatting away on a cell phone. My father just got in a wreck; a man rear-ended him, and the man who plowed into my father's truck was, predictably, not drunk, but on a cell phone.

I refuse to use my cell when I drive for this reason. It's every bit the menace of driving under the influence to be barreling down the road on a cell phone.

In broad daylight, I firmly believe you are far more likely to have a wreck because someone can't stop talking on the phone than you are because someone is drunk.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. Possibly true.

Which is why more states are mandating restrictions on cell phones while driving, and I support those laws too.

[akbacchus_BC]

75. People should never drink and drive! It is called responsibility for one's actions!

[Never Stop Dancin]

83. well

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

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. No argument from this retired medic

[w4rma]

84. If you actually want to do something about drunk driving you should do something about the cut offs

at bars where they serve folks a drink 15 minutes before close and put them out on the curb to drive home.

And most areas in the United States require driving to get to and from, due to our abysmal public transportation system.

I've read nothing but facetious, non-solutions on this thread.

[ccvirgo911]

88. Totally agree

When I lived overseas, I never heard of or read about a drunk driving death. If people wanted to drink, they walked to the bar and walked home, or took transit on a night out. The penalties at that time were quite strict, and getting a driver's license wasn't as easy as walking into the DMV and walking out with one. You had to pay a lot of money and go through a lot of driver's education. Here, drunk driving is a huge money making machine, and the lobbyists keep that money flowing. I suppose until someone with a lot of power and influence loses a loved one to this, nothing will change. It's a travesty that 13,000+ people die and over 500,000 are injured from drunk driving every year in the US, yet it's not considered a crisis to the level it should be.

[snooper2]

87. "Police are still investigating the accident."

So nobody knows exactly what happened. Maybe the father was a freak looking at the cute girls in the back seat and ran a light?

One thing, never drink and drive period. If there is an accident and you are the one who has been drinking you are the one who will be placed at fault and double fucked. Regardless of what really happened.

[lapislzi]

98. ?

What a strange response.

If you drink and drive, you are taking a terrible risk with your own life and the lives of everyone else on the road. If you are caught, you will be prosecuted. It's very simple, really. Nobody gives a crap about whatever your circumstances were at that moment.

What "really" happened? Let's ask the poor brain-dead kid, shall we?

Like it matters when we have one dead kid and a drunk behind the wheel. What else do you need to know? What could possibly excuse the driver? Nothing I can think of.

[Philippine expat]

91. I agree n/t

[Never Stop Dancin]

92. The real victims here

are the ones who've had their lives destroyed by being arrested and handcuffed for a .08 BAC.

American DUI laws are draconian, shameful.

The idea that they should be made harsher boggles the mind. Let's make .02 BAC the new limit (eyeroll)

Anyone who's falling over after 2 drinks is an uber-lightweight, not exactly the norm.

Until they can do a field sobriety test that accounts for one's weight and drinking history, they need to suspend these tests!

[pipi_k]

93. Yep...makes sense to me...

There aren't nearly enough alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities in this country.

We need to just chill out and let it get to 70% - 80% before we victimize all those poor souls out there who only have BAC levels of .08 or more.



http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

[LanternWaste]

94. actually, the real victims here are the 13,846 fatalities

"The real victims here are the one..."

No... actually, the real victims here are the 13,846 fatalities of alcohol/vehicle deaths in 2008.

However, you just continue rationalizing drinking and driving... :eyes:

[taterguy]

95. The test already takes your weight into account

As for the drinking 'history' that's a bit of a Catch-22.

Yes, you have more tolerance for alcohol if you consume it a lot.

However, the alcohol you've consumed in the past damages your brain, especially the part of the brain that deals with decision making skills, which are an important part of safe driving.

Would you be comfortable on the operating table if the surgeon had a couple drinks?

[ccvirgo911]

96. So you are saying

My son is not a victim? Can you rationalize that statement by any stretch of the imagination? Go ahead, try and tell me my 17 year old son is not a victim of a murderous drunk.

[lapislzi]

100. You obviously know nothing about DUI in the U.S.

1. In point of fact, if you are operating a motor vehicle and you are under the age of 18, a BAC of 0.025 is grounds for losing your license until 21. It is also illegal for you to drink alcohol if you are under the age of 21.

2. Field sobriety tests are not admissible in court. They are voluntary and are used by police to determine whether there are grounds for an arrest. You can refuse a field sobriety test, but they can still bring you in and submit you to the formal breathalyzer test, which you cannot refuse. Or, if you refuse, you will automatically lose your license. If a fatality is involved, the police will obtain a court order to take a blood sample.

3. Police will hold you for about 20 minutes at the station house before administering the breathalyzer to ensure that your BAC has, in fact, peaked, assuming you left the location soon after consuming your last beverage.

4. I am no lightweight. I weigh in at 150 lbs easily, and I cannot drive if I have consumed more than one drink. Nobody can. I can cite literally hundreds of studies and statistics proving the effects of even small quantities of alcohol on depth perception, vision, reaction time, and a whole host of other functions necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

5. Alcohol affects different people in different ways. Women get drunk faster and stay drunk longer than men, due to (generally speaking) having more body fat than men. Many, many other factors are also in play.

6. Just because you THINK you're OK to drive doesn't mean you are. Alcohol impairs your judgment. Feedback loop.

7. Nobody gives a crap about your "drinking history." If you're drunk, you're drunk, and you shouldn't be driving.

8. You don't like it? Wait until your state (like my state) signs onto the ignition interlock device law. Hint: it doesn't give a crap how well you hold your liquor, either.

[LeftishBrit]

101. Seems to me that the REAL victims...

are those who are killed, injured, or bereaved by drunk drivers.

[TheKentuckian]

99. I'm pretty sure ramping up punishment has about a 6,000 year history of not working

I certainly don't get why those that are supportive of harsher sentences have no burden of proof to demonstrate why stiffer penalties would be effective.

[trueblue2007]

102. i think .... THE DEATH PENALTY would work

my dad had been drinking to point of being impaired) and my mom died as a result of a mva when i was 13. back then, they didn't make you do breathalizer. so i have a strong feeling about drinking and driving.

[Taverner]

107. Why don't we torture them to death! Yeah! That will teach them!

While we're at it why don't we kill their families, friends and even people who owe them money!

:eyes:

[Taverner]

106. Why don't we just torture drunk drivers to death! Along with their families!!

Seriously - you don't think the penalties are too high?

1st time, you lose your license, go to jail, pay a huge fine and have to do months of community service. This is if you have a .08 BAC. To know how little that is, drink one pint of beer, and you're over that limit.

2nd time, you actually do jail time, pay a bigger fine and most likely will lose your licenese for life. And you are forcibly barred from drinking alcohol. And there is a period of house arrest.

If anything is a case of overkill, it's the punishment and BAC levels for drunk driving

In Europe, they have a solution that works. Yes, the punishment is high, but you have options if you are drunk. Many pubs and bars have an inn attached, with a reduced rate for those who are too drunk to drive. Also, there is public transportation. Also, there are taxis.

Drunk Driving laws are prohibition by proxy, especially in places like LA, Vegas and Portland where your only choice is to drive home from a bar.