Doesn't it hurt society more to make drunk driving illegal?

[3chordcharlie]

you realize there are only about 13,000 deaths a year where someone was drinking right? Many are the driver themselves and no others.

It's a great money maker for the government and helped to build one of the most powerful political lobbies in our country.

Drinking and driving is not the problem people think it is.

There are 100's of people arrested each week in most metropolitan areas on this charge...most would have never hurt anyone/thing.

As a rule, most jurisdictions now have punishments that are too strict, and BAC limits that are too low.

We also have drug sentences that are too long, and grand theft / fraud / embezzlement sentences that are too short.

This doesn't make drunk driving 'not a problem'.

 

[alkemyst]

The problem is that most know not to drink and drive, the law makes it about impossible to ever have a drink and be able to get home without risk of arrest.

People are more than willing to accept these laws and vote them in though...a la the Patriot Act.

It's sad. Law enforcement should be targeting gang activity which is now growing insanely since mostly it goes unlooked at. There is no revenue in it and most agencies are targeting only revenue generators as a priority.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The problem is that most know not to drink and drive, the law makes it about impossible to ever have a drink and be able to get home without risk of arrest.

People are more than willing to accept these laws and vote them in though...a la the Patriot Act.

It's sad. Law enforcement should be targeting gang activity which is now growing insanely since mostly it goes unlooked at. There is no revenue in it and most agencies are targeting only revenue generators as a priority.

That's becoming more true all the time. As it is, some police departments probably run at a profit; they should be budgeted and run as a deadweight cost, and ticket revenue ignored from a decision-making perspective.

Ticket revenue should be automatically sent as far away (politically) from the issuing body as possible (traffic tickets fund nuclear weapons research, or some such thing).

Most people did not 'know not to drink and drive' before DUI was taken seriously at the enforcement level; current behaviour is therefore not a good reason to stop enforcing. There are serious issues with over-enforcement, and laws-written-by-police, however, that need real change to restore some balance to things.

Try coming to Ontario; the provincial police here have been writing laws for the last decade, and they are pretty much 180 proof ridiculous bullshit. Most of them boil down to roadside conviction and punishment.

 

[Craig234]

you realize there are only about 13,000 deaths a year where someone was drinking right? Many are the driver themselves and no others.

It's a great money maker for the government and helped to build one of the most powerful political lobbies in our country.

Drinking and driving is not the problem people think it is.

There are 100's of people arrested each week in most metropolitan areas on this charge...most would have never hurt anyone/thing.

This is so dangerously clueless, I don't know where to start other than to point out it would serve well a lawyer arguing against democracy altogether.

 

[piasabird]

Well if by making the statement that you think it is OK for a Drunk Driver to run you down and kill you or your wife or your children when he loses control, I think perhaps your are mentally disturbed.

I think it should be mandatory that whatever car the drunk is driving, should be required to be crushed or immediately repossessed until such time that the person can prove he can live without drinking. Alcoholism is both a medical disease and a mental disorder. People that habitually over-drink suffer from mental instability. Alcohol alters the reasoning centers of the brain, causes depression, and other physical ailments. There is no logical reason to drink alcohol. The dangers of consuming alcoholic products outweigh any benefit.

What makes things worse is that some people are affected more than others when they drink alcohol. Some people are not affected and can drink a little to relax and know when to quit, while others from the first drink seem to become a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

 

[Thump553]

This has got to be a pure troll thread. I can see no other reason for it.

 

[Jaskalas]

For one thing, it's a victimless crime

Didn't read any further. You're a clod. Everything you say after this is pointless.

We are in complete agreement. The first 7 words in this topic killed it on the spot.

 

[bruceb]

No, it does not hurt society. If anything, it helps, by keeping drunks off the road and killing innocent people, wether they are in cars, or just walking along. If a person is near or over the legal BAC, which is about .08 in most states and they get caught, so be it.

 

[alkemyst]

This is so dangerously clueless, I don't know where to start other than to point out it would serve well a lawyer arguing against democracy altogether.

How do you figure? It's a true statement. Each DUI arrest is about $5000-6000 in 'income' for various agencies.

Each DUI arrest will probably never harm anyone in their entire lives. That's the facts.

DUI enforcement is one of the greatest revenue generators out there. Add that to the fact that even the judge has little say in the sentencing and there is your recipe against democracy.

 

[alkemyst]

Most people did not 'know not to drink and drive' before DUI was taken seriously at the enforcement level; current behaviour is therefore not a good reason to stop enforcing. There are serious issues with over-enforcement, and laws-written-by-police, however, that need real change to restore some balance to things.

I don't think that was ever true. Most knew when they had a few too many.

The whole thing that drove the whole MADD thing was repeat offenders. The lady that started it had a daughter killed by a 3 time offender while on bail for another hit and run accident.

The whole thing became bastardized when the lobby aspect of it became realized. Much of what MADD gets voted for has nothing to do with DUI law.

They got the laws in place for repeat offenders being seriously penalized, but they are going too far with these ultra low limits.

Many repeat offenders sadly repeat their errors without even having a license anymore.

It's much like murderers...no law is going to prevent someone from killing, fortunately with murder you don't have non-killers getting penalized for just carrying a deadly weapon around.

I don't think anyone should drive when drinking more than a couple drinks...however getting a DUI for simply having two with dinner is bullshit and a life changing event for many.

I believe the checkpoint system in place is total bullshit as well and has no place in america. I used to be out a lot at night. I probably have lost 20+ hours to being in some roadside stop and forced to prove all sorts of things (where I was coming from, where I was going)...meanwhile I have also missed movies, concerts, events having to wait for these things to run there course.

Just like the airbag idea, it's not really about saving lives.

 

[Craig234]

How do you figure? It's a true statement. Each DUI arrest is about $5000-6000 in 'income' for various agencies.

Each DUI arrest will probably never harm anyone in their entire lives. That's the facts.

DUI enforcement is one of the greatest revenue generators out there. Add that to the fact that even the judge has little say in the sentencing and there is your recipe against democracy.

No offense, but it's more useful to argue with a birther or a truther.

Hint: the cost of the DUI is about deterrance, not enriching the police.

And I'm saying that as someone who DID raise concerns about 1990's property seizure laws creating police abuse and corruption.

Then again, I support mandatory breathalyzers in all cars to start them.

People complained furiously about the 'inconvenience' of seat belts at first and then they became part of driving. Same with breathalyzers if we do them.

It'd be a lot more effective at preventing drunk driving - and free up the police - than the police catching them.

 

[LumbergTech]

you realize there are only about 13,000 deaths a year where someone was drinking right? Many are the driver themselves and no others.

It's a great money maker for the government and helped to build one of the most powerful political lobbies in our country.

Drinking and driving is not the problem people think it is.

There are 100's of people arrested each week in most metropolitan areas on this charge...most would have never hurt anyone/thing.

you are an idiot my friend


i personally know (knew) 3 people who died either due to being drunk while driving, being in a car with a drunk driver, or being hit by a drunk driver

you need to wake up

 

[alkemyst]

most don't know the costs of DUI.

Mandatory breathalyzers in cars, eh? So you believe in a Police state then and probably wholeheartedly agree with the Patriot Act.

Why not a device where you must scan your fingerprints in and have it uploaded to clear to start the vehicle...any crimelab gets the data...you show up you get popped?

Can I see your papers please?

 

[alkemyst]

you are an idiot my friend


i personally know (knew) 3 people who died either due to being drunk while driving, being in a car with a drunk driver, or being hit by a drunk driver

you need to wake up

Most people will say they have personally known DUI victims. You should also personally know the same amount of murder victims then.

Again it's 13000 lives. Truly insignificant for the amount of effort that goes behind this.

 

[Brainonska511]

OP, you should really watch the movie SLC Punk!, grow up, and try using that thing you call a brain before you make some more dumb posts.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Most people will say they have personally known DUI victims. You should also personally know the same amount of murder victims then.

Again it's 13000 lives. Truly insignificant for the amount of effort that goes behind this.

Drunk driving is an absolutely unsafe act, and it can and does harm others.

That being said, I agree that some enforcement is unreasonable, and that the distribution of police resources is very much profit-motivated (as it should be in a 'market' right?).

You're making the additional leap of declaring that since it is over-enforced, drunk driving must be 'insignificant'. Simply put: You are wrong, statistically and ethically.

Your all-or-nothing position is not necessary, and ultimately unjustified.

 

[brandonb]

There is a difference between someone who is drunk, and someone who's had a few...

I've been charged with DUI for having a 0.047 BAC. I was also sent to Detox. I was charged $1500 for my detox bill (it is normally $500 a day but I refused to sign the consent form so they held me for 3 days until I signed it.) State Law prohibited anybody to be placed into Detox unless they were intoxicated (0.10)... My number was half that. I was admitted anyways because the law says "If the officer believes you will be harm to yourself or others, they can place you into detox."

Do you know what the officer asked me previous to going to Detox: "Do you have a ride home?" I said "No, I was sober cab, all my friends that can pick me up are drunk." So he drove me across the street to Detox... Easier than driving me home, or letting me find a pay phone to call a cab (because if I got hurt, the police would be liable.)

I was stopped at a DUI checkpoint 2 blocks from the bar as I was leaving. I seen it... I knew I wasn't drunk, I just continued to it. They asked me if I had "any drinks" (Now I know to lie) I said I had one, they gave me about 8 field sobreity tests, and it was off to the station. Apparently I failed? Odd they needed 8 to determine that. I think any sober person is going to fail 1 in 8.

I went to court, and the judge threw out all my evidence as it wasn't considered (what was the term) "Expert Evidence"? He said the detox employees could not be considered evidence (even though they all told me to fight it in court because I shouldn't have been there) because they were not considered experts by the state. THe police man was. I lost.

Now I have it on my record that I have a drinking related offence at 0.047 and I'm barred from every driving a commercial vehicle (any offence over 0.04 BAC prohibits you from getting a commercial license.) BTW, I blew a 0.000 an hour later at Detox. Apparently someone who drinks loses about 0.015 per hour, so that was great evidence that the breathalizer picked up the alcohol because of the sudden consumption before leaving. "My treat for being sober cab."

That is excessive, and not fair.

On the other hand, someone who is obviously drunk and should have no business on the road, sure, throw the book at them. I think what alkemyst is trying to say is the ratio between cases like mine and "obviously drunk" is like 10 to 1, and they do it to rake in revenue.

$1500 detox
$1000 court fines (reduced to $90)

Luckily I didn't have to do manatory treatment. That costs about $2000-3000.

Out of principle, I didn't pay Detox. But now its on my credit for another 3 years (go go go!) I did learn my lesson. No more alcohol outside the home. It's a good deterrent even if I find it extreme and unfair. But I suppose that may be required for those "obviously drunk" people. I'm not happy about it, but maybe its a necessary evil.

 

[piasabird]

Then there are the trains buses and planes that are crashed by people that are drunk or high. Not to mention the drunks that walk into traffic or fall asleep on top of rail road tracks or place a baby in the oven. Even if the drunk or intoxicated person only hurts or kills himself, there is the effect they have on other family members that indirectly affects other people. If a mother or father or son/daughter dies it can devastate a family.

 

[alkemyst]

Simply put: You are wrong, statistically and ethically.

How am I wrong? Do you know that more than 13000 lives were lost?

Where is the ethics problem? Inconvenience 1000's of people if not ten's of thousands over trying to save so few lives when we ignore other more pressing problems.

Ethically, we'd target gangs right now...that's the most growing problem and the most damaging...problem is 'ethically' no one wants to foot the bill.

 

[alkemyst]

I think what alkemyst is trying to say is the ratio between cases like mine and "obviously drunk" is like 10 to 1, and they do it to rake in revenue.

It's actually about 100 to 1 or more.

In my class no one was involved in any accident or injury. There were about 100 total I met during all the classes I had to go through. The holding cells in my city ran out of room that night there were so many arrested.

The problem is most 'obviously drunk' aren't going to drive anyway....those that do will do so no matter what, it's akin to a serial killer. They know they are bad, they can't help it.

One sad casualty is I was fortunate to be able to afford the $4-5k I paid and be able to catch rides to work that first month. Some cannot afford it and also lose there job over it. Again they didn't hurt anyone and more than likely would never hurt anyone. Their lives are ruined and ultimately the taxpayer pays.

I do agree with DUI enforcement. A cop sees a 'wandering car' and captures that on video for evidence, that is probable cause...cop sees someone drinking behind the wheel, likewise.

Checkpoints...shouldn't exist in this country. Two drinks should also not be enough to fail someone. .10 was more than adequate. Since the change statistically there hasn't been more lives saved, however; definitely more people have been arrested.

 

[sandorski]

I should be able to test Nuclear Weapons on my Apartment Balcony. It's a Free Country, I'm a Nucular Genius, and I ain't hurt no one yet

 

[cubby1223]

For one thing, it's a victimless crime, for another, it costs too much to lock these people up and send them to court, etc., and finally, people do it anyway. It's not like someone who is severely intoxicated has enough self-control to make the decision not to drive.

Now, if someone hits someone, then that's another story.

So, why should drunk driving be illegal? I don't want money being wasted on having drunk driving illegal.

Why would it be another story if a drunk driver hits someone?

Can't have it both ways. Slip on a patch of ice and hit another vehicle, you are not at fault, because neither driving nor slipping on ice is illegal. Be drunk and hit someone else, what did you do that was illegal?

 

[nageov3t]

Most people will say they have personally known DUI victims. You should also personally know the same amount of murder victims then.

Again it's 13000 lives. Truly insignificant for the amount of effort that goes behind this.

what about total drunk driving accidents and personal/property damage?

I don't personally know anyone who's died as a result of drunk driving, but I know 2 people who've had their cars totaled in accidents involving a drunk driver (in one of the accidents, the driver totaled my friends car and then drove through a store-front window)

 

[StageLeft]

FWIW most people are so used to alcohol in society and their own lives that it seems totally foreign a concept that maybe in fact their habit is bad, even if they are not textbook drunk. I do think that the law should come down like a ton of bricks on drunk driving. First time, every time. I have known a lot of people to drive legally drunk. A few DUIs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

For one thing, it's a victimless crime, for another, it costs too much to lock these people up and send them to court, etc., and finally, people do it anyway. It's not like someone who is severely intoxicated has enough self-control to make the decision not to drive.

Now, if someone hits someone, then that's another story.

So, why should drunk driving be illegal? I don't want money being wasted on having drunk driving illegal.

must be nice being 10 years old...enjoy!!