Florida seeking pink license plates with DUI on them for DUI/DWI

[alkemyst]

I will not say in my youth I never drove when I had way too many, but I have been arrested later in life for a DUI. I should have insisted on a blood test, however; I had no reason too. I had 4 beers in over a 4 hour period, I was about 175lbs at the time. I blew a .168 which is like pounding down a case in an hour. Reason I failed the breath test was a major laceration along my lower lip from running straight into an odd placed shelf.

I'd like to get that out of the way...since some may say I am being biased. However, there really is no unbiased side of this.

Florida wants to pass a law that will require DUI/DWI offenders to have pink tags with the tag number starting with DUI. These drivers also face traffic stops and full searches without probable cause.

That is a problem to me. They pass this it's going to make it easy to allow that for other things.

If people truly researched drinking and driving they will find it's about as common as speeding. Most are not fall down drunk and know their limits. These limits are often not at the now standard 0.08 level. However, some cannot perform at that level at all. Scientifically measuring blood alcohol level through respiration is tragically flawed.

If this passes it will be a major blow to the freedom in this country through a sensational 'problem'.

Å

 

[etalns]

I think people who get caught should burn in hell. However, I don't believe impeding on our most basic freedoms is acceptable in any case.

 

[mugs]

How long do they have to have the tags? Like if they go X years without a DUI can they get a regular tag again?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I will not say in my youth I never drove when I had way too many, but I have been arrested later in life for a DUI. I should have insisted on a blood test, however; I had no reason too. I had 4 beers in over a 4 hour period, I was about 175lbs at the time. I blew a .168 which is like pounding down a case in an hour. Reason I failed the breath test was a major laceration along my lower lip from running straight into an odd placed shelf.

I'd like to get that out of the way...since some may say I am being biased. However, there really is no unbiased side of this.

Florida wants to pass a law that will require DUI/DWI offenders to have pink tags with the tag number starting with DUI. These drivers also face traffic stops and full searches without probable cause.

That is a problem to me. They pass this it's going to make it easy to allow that for other things.

If people truly researched drinking and driving they will find it's about as common as speeding. Most are not fall down drunk and know their limits. These limits are often not at the now standard 0.08 level. However, some cannot perform at that level at all. Scientifically measuring blood alcohol level through respiration is tragically flawed.

If this passes it will be a major blow to the freedom in this country through a sensational 'problem'.

Å

Probable Cause Definations

 

[spidey07]

What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

 

[Toonces]

i highly doubt that drunk driving is as common as speeding... not even close

and yes, those who have done something which risks the life of others should be aware of their crime as not being victimless - however, this law is not going to accomplish anything other than stigmatize the offenders more in the eyes of the public. I don't think it would serve the public's interest to know who is a former drunk driver. Unnecessary and it opens up the possibility of unfair police attention to potentially law abiding citizens. The point is to rehabilitate, not segregate and stigmatize.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

 

[Kevin]

Driving is a privledge, not a right. Driving drunk puts lives in danger. Just because people do it and don't get caught doesn't mean its right. If a pink license plate will stop people from drinking and driving, then why not? Its not that difficult to call a cab, call a friend/family member or take the bus home.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I don't thnk the pink DUI tag is such a bad idea, but the searches without probable cause are over the line.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

I also believe that registering sex offenders is super, super wrong as well. Extremely wrong. Even though I think it is a good idea, I find it very wrong and goes against everything our country was founded for.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mugs
How long do they have to have the tags? Like if they go X years without a DUI can they get a regular tag again?

Not sure on that yet, I can't find an honest answer. Some say it's for the probation period (however, during that you can't even drive), others say it's lifetime.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Good. They're lucky they're still allowed on road, which is more than what would happen if I was in charge...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
i highly doubt that drunk driving is as common as speeding... not even close

and yes, those who have done something which risks the life of others should be aware of their crime as not being victimless - however, this law is not going to accomplish anything other than stigmatize the offenders more in the eyes of the public. I don't think it would serve the public's interest to know who is a former drunk driver. Unnecessary and it opens up the possibility of unfair police attention to potentially law abiding citizens. The point is to rehabilitate, not segregate and stigmatize.

Well perhaps not exactly as common. It's hard to prove either way. Many say a majority of drivers out past 10pm on Thursday-Saturday are beyond legal limits esp near hot spots.

That majority are not getting in accidents or killing people regularly.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

I also believe that registering sex offenders is super, super wrong as well. Extremely wrong. Even though I think it is a good idea, I find it very wrong and goes against everything our country was founded for.

What exactly do you think our country was founded for? As a free-for-all for criminals to run rampant while bleeding hearts protect their rights? In many countries a sex crime gets you put away forever, not moved to a different parish. In many countries drunk driving gets the driver off the road completely instead of a simple fine. Whose rights are more important, the criminals or the victims?

I propose that if you are convicted of breaking the law that you should no longer be entitled to using those laws to protect your own rights. After all, if you didn't care enough about the laws to obey them it's logical to assume that you don't care enough about them to use them as a shield.

 

[jadinolf]

Oh, the ACLU is gonna love this one.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Kevin
Driving is a privledge, not a right. Driving drunk puts lives in danger. Just because people do it and don't get caught doesn't mean its right. If a pink license plate will stop people from drinking and driving, then why not? Its not that difficult to call a cab, call a friend/family member or take the bus home.

cabs can be excessive for most people that are just living paycheck to paycheck, calling friends/family is not that easy at past midnight, and buses don't run that late or ever in most of the US.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I will not say in my youth I never drove when I had way too many, but I have been arrested later in life for a DUI. I should have insisted on a blood test, however; I had no reason too. I had 4 beers in over a 4 hour period, I was about 175lbs at the time. I blew a .168 which is like pounding down a case in an hour. Reason I failed the breath test was a major laceration along my lower lip from running straight into an odd placed shelf.

I'd like to get that out of the way...since some may say I am being biased. However, there really is no unbiased side of this.

Florida wants to pass a law that will require DUI/DWI offenders to have pink tags with the tag number starting with DUI. These drivers also face traffic stops and full searches without probable cause.

That is a problem to me. They pass this it's going to make it easy to allow that for other things.

If people truly researched drinking and driving they will find it's about as common as speeding. Most are not fall down drunk and know their limits. These limits are often not at the now standard 0.08 level. However, some cannot perform at that level at all. Scientifically measuring blood alcohol level through respiration is tragically flawed.

If this passes it will be a major blow to the freedom in this country through a sensational 'problem'.

Å

unfortunately, the idea of "freedoms" is rarely pure today. i've asked my constitutional law professor many times about certain topics that we cover and she said that the courts have routinely said "yeah that treads on the freedoms guarnteed in the constitution but so what."

for instance, in florida people convicted of felonies have their voting rights removed (i think permanently...has been brought to USSC and lost the challenge) AND sex offenders are part of a database and are required to list their address even after their prison term is over. this is florida.....so what? don't like your pink plate and your "non-probable cause" stop after a conviction of drinking and driving? you had better learn some responsibility.

EDIT: After reading some of your responses, some of you fail to realize that there are numerous, very popular laws that curtail severely our civil liberties in the name of security. it's a part of life, no matter how much someone may oppose it. it's a necessary evil.

 

[MikeMike]

Ohio already has it.

the tags are yellow.

ill look up if there if there is anything about probable cause in there or not for ppl with the tags.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

I also believe that registering sex offenders is super, super wrong as well. Extremely wrong. Even though I think it is a good idea, I find it very wrong and goes against everything our country was founded for.

What exactly do you think our country was founded for? As a free-for-all for criminals to run rampant while bleeding hearts protect their rights? In many countries a sex crime gets you put away forever, not moved to a different parish. In many countries drunk driving gets the driver off the road completely instead of a simple fine. Whose rights are more important, the criminals or the victims?

I propose that if you are convicted of breaking the law that you should no longer be entitled to using those laws to protect your own rights. After all, if you didn't care enough about the laws to obey them it's logical to assume that you don't care enough about them to use them as a shield.

Wow. There's no justification for anything for you? I'm not justifying getting a DUI in any way, but listen to the OP's story. If it's true, does he deserve to lose the protection of the law for the rest of his life? You have a scary worldview if you think that.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

I also believe that registering sex offenders is super, super wrong as well. Extremely wrong. Even though I think it is a good idea, I find it very wrong and goes against everything our country was founded for.

What exactly do you think our country was founded for? As a free-for-all for criminals to run rampant while bleeding hearts protect their rights? In many countries a sex crime gets you put away forever, not moved to a different parish. In many countries drunk driving gets the driver off the road completely instead of a simple fine. Whose rights are more important, the criminals or the victims?

I propose that if you are convicted of breaking the law that you should no longer be entitled to using those laws to protect your own rights. After all, if you didn't care enough about the laws to obey them it's logical to assume that you don't care enough about them to use them as a shield.

And there in lies the problem - deciding what laws are more important than others.

Felons lose certain rights. But those rights are across the board for all felonies. What this is proposing is "special treatment" for certain crimes. And that is wrong in my opinion.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: UNESC0
i highly doubt that drunk driving is as common as speeding... not even close

and yes, those who have done something which risks the life of others should be aware of their crime as not being victimless - however, this law is not going to accomplish anything other than stigmatize the offenders more in the eyes of the public. I don't think it would serve the public's interest to know who is a former drunk driver. Unnecessary and it opens up the possibility of unfair police attention to potentially law abiding citizens. The point is to rehabilitate, not segregate and stigmatize.

Well perhaps not exactly as common. It's hard to prove either way. Many say a majority of drivers out past 10pm on Thursday-Saturday are beyond legal limits esp near hot spots.

That majority are not getting in accidents or killing people regularly.

i would have to back this up. when i was younger i would not drink and drive ever and that was without exception. i actually drink and drive more in my older (28+) days then when i was younger. i will not drive if i am not in control safe and that is personal decision that is not measurable with numbers.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: UNESC0
i highly doubt that drunk driving is as common as speeding... not even close

You don't know many people under 25 do you?

 

[fishface313]

Originally posted by: Kevin
Driving is a privledge, not a right. Driving drunk puts lives in danger. Just because people do it and don't get caught doesn't mean its right. If a pink license plate will stop people from drinking and driving, then why not? Its not that difficult to call a cab, call a friend/family member or take the bus home.

agreed...i live in florida and i think this is an awsome idea, if people are stupid enough to drive drunk, then they deserve to drive around with a pink license plate letting everyone know how stupid they are.

 

[Toonces]

well, considering that most of my friends are between 19-25 (myself being 22) I'd have to say yes

how many people speed while driving? I'd say find a highway and there'd be over 80% driving over the speed limit. Sometimes not going over is a cause of much frustration and accidents - BUT does that mean there are millions of drunk drivers all over the road each day? Of course not.

To think that the amount of drunk drivers is equal to the amount of speeders is rediculous. Is it not common? Sure it is. Just not in the same prevalence as speeding. Even if you define "drinking and driving" as only having 1 drink there is still an overwhelmingly larger amount of people speeding on roads than driving drunk....

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: AntaresVI

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: spidey07
What next?

Scarlet letter?

wrong man, wrong.

What about registering sex offenders to protect kids? Is that wrong man, wrong?

The recidivism rate for drunk drivers is staggering. About 1/3 of all people arrested for DUI/DWI are repeat offenders. I want to be protected from idiots who don't learn their lesson. How about this: On the first DUI/DWI conviction the criminal is given a choice of using a pink tag or surrendering his license to drive forever. Would you find that more palatable?

I also believe that registering sex offenders is super, super wrong as well. Extremely wrong. Even though I think it is a good idea, I find it very wrong and goes against everything our country was founded for.

What exactly do you think our country was founded for? As a free-for-all for criminals to run rampant while bleeding hearts protect their rights? In many countries a sex crime gets you put away forever, not moved to a different parish. In many countries drunk driving gets the driver off the road completely instead of a simple fine. Whose rights are more important, the criminals or the victims?

I propose that if you are convicted of breaking the law that you should no longer be entitled to using those laws to protect your own rights. After all, if you didn't care enough about the laws to obey them it's logical to assume that you don't care enough about them to use them as a shield.

Wow. There's no justification for anything for you? I'm not justifying getting a DUI in any way, but listen to the OP's story. If it's true, does he deserve to lose the protection of the law for the rest of his life? You have a scary worldview if you think that.

Justification? Justification?? Yeah, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving kids is justified. Sitting your drunk ass behind the wheel of a car and putting the life of EVERYONE else on the road in jeopardy IS NOT JUSTIFIED. My right not to be t-boned by a drunk driver is far stronger than that drivers right to kill innocent people.