Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
I haven't been to the Buckskin for ages....not since we used to sneek over the State line to buy beer at 18!! I used to LOVE to swing dance there. But that's been, OMG, 30 years ago.
It would be great to meet and get aquainted in some joint...as long as it's not THE joint. We can take cabs home.
I think video cameras in police cars is a good idea for a lot of reasons.
"Indeed it does when you fail to qualify your opposition with alternative solution [to the problem of airport security]. What is your qualifer?"
---Fool. I can say that it is wrong to attack Switzerland, or go to the moon, or drive to the mall, without devising an alternative "solution." To refute your argument does not demand I supply alternate one. If you suggested that the best way to defend the US was to provide everyone with a 1971 Ford Econoline, I wouldn't need to provide another, better way to defend the US to demonstrate you're wrong. That 'propose your own solution' reply is the mark of someone who can't defend his own proposal and needs a distraction to avoid the simple fact that TSA nailclipper searches do nothing to prevent another 9/11. There will never be another 9/11, because PASSENGERS won't allow it to happen again. TSA has nothing to do with it.
"It is a true statement to say that if you oppose searches at airports you hold the same position that terrorists do, they oppose searches also. Go ahead and tell me how that statement is inaccurate. THEN you can call me silly."
---LOL. Have you interviewed terrorists recently, then? Perhaps they would prefer MORE security on the airports and less on the nuclear missile silos. You sink ever deeper into your swamp.
"Hitler was looking for jooooooos....to exterminate them.
Is that what TSA is looking for? This is a failed anaology. You omit the WHY in your comparison and that nullifies when the WHY is injected. You call it security when indeed hitlers purpose was genocie NOT protecting ALL people."
---Ah, you flail desperately for some form of distraction again. My point was that I can try the silly guilt-by-association game just as you, and you'll end up looking just as foolish then, too. I should have guessed you'd miss that point, though.
"That is funny you just DID that with your attempt at hitler anlogy. Laughable it is."
---Well, DUH. That was the POINT, dimbulb. If you were any quicker turtles and snails would be honking for you to move out of the passing lane. See the above answer again, I typed it slowly because I know you can't think real fast.
"Yes[, people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS]. Drunk drivers and terrorists both set out on their own agenda regardless of who is harmed. They only seek to push their own agenda and whomever gets hurt in the process is irrelevant. Both of their actions lead to hurt and dead people and both attempt to justify what it is they do. Go ahead and make that statement untrue. Let me see you try."
---Let me just see if I can get you to clarify that statement first: the degree of intent to harm or actual harm is irrelevant, only that there is intent to harm at all, or a disregard for the fair to good odds of harm occuring, that is enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent. Do I characterize your position properly? Please correct if I'm not right there.
And I do appreciate you finally taking the time to answer a question I posed quite a while ago.
"That isn't what I said at all, you stretch and twist there.
Schumer would be proud. I made a comparison and it is accurate."
---Which explains why it took you so long to admit you made the comparison. We haven't really come to that yet.
"Most terrorists that set off roadside bombs (unless suicide bombers of course) make it home to, so I guess their actions are ok eh? That is your logic."
---Actually, no, my logic was that most drunk drivers don't actually cause anyone else to be hurt or killed, and I would bet that the most likely victim of drunk driving is the drunk himself. So following my logic--and I'll try to make it clearer for you--the average 'victim' of drunk driving isn't anyone, because the average drunk hurts nobody at all. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous but the point is that you mean to compare terrorists to drunk drivers, and one is clearly far more dangerous to people than the other.
"My arguments are valid because they are true sir."
---Do you really think this is anything more than a tautology? Am I supposed to go, "oh, YEAH, he's right because his arguments are TRUE!?!?!" I would bet dollars to donuts you haven't any idea what a valid argument IS.
"AND THEY WOULD BE??? I notice that you say in general what they should be and then swith to specifics that should NOT be. How about you offer some what SHOULD be's?"
---How about I just did in the post below, dumbass? You really ought to use that preview button. And you really ought to consider that I'm proposing specifics that SHOULD be, not shouldn't.
"Here an idea was floated to put BAC machines in bars for the public to police themselves. Guess which party members threw a fit and killed that Idea? The party of NO..the party that refuses to assign personal responsibiliy. The claim came of invasion of privacy, the very same argument made against checkpoints."
---But see, you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with them. And you fail to refute my point, which is that there are much better ways to stop drunk driving than lowering the bac to a ridiculous one-drink level.
"They get off because the punishments aren't really there in strength to make them actually be punished. Some sommunity service, some 'counsiling' and a fine, maybe even a few months without a license, if you couyld call it that, as they get work permits and drive anyway."
---I'm against that. I think the laws that we use on drug purchasers who are driving through ghetto hoods trying to score would be used to better effect on drunk drivers. Take their cars. Work permits are simply letting them stay on the road to really cause harm eventually. Letting them keep a car at all does the same thing.
"I hear the arguments made about augmenting budgets and to a point I agree but much of the funds collected go to places like the victims compensation fund. I would also ask you to think about the people hurt or killed , who themselves or their families exit the capitolist arena and enter the socialist arena when their income is deleted as a result of the drunk drivers action. Food stamps, medicare even housing dollars are now the 'income' and the drunk driver is Why. Someone has to pay for this right? Why not a people that chose to drink and drive? Why shouldn't they have to pay?"
---Who said they shouldn't pay? I just say that if we're going to change the law, it should STOP them from drinking and driving while impaired, not stop people from drinking a beer and driving home. It shouldn't stop everyone who wants a beer after work, or bust everyone who owns a bar and serves a single beer for getting people 'drunk.'
"Impairment is questioned regardless of what the level is established at. This post has some of that contained within it. This is exactly WHY BAC as a limit is what is used as legal or not legal. It removes the impairment argument."
---Well, DUH. I understand the system. And yes, the BAC is a number that 'removes' the argument, but do you really think juries will convict people for 'drunk driving' when the BAC that's illegal is equivalent to having drunk a single beer? I think you are simply setting the system up to lose even more than it does now. How many more driveaway, work-permit DUI convicts do there have to be before you see the system isn't stopping drunk driving but is simply creating more "drunk drivers," who will all too often drive without a license or insurance that will NOT pay as you wish?
"I do not advocate making illegal to drink. This is where you omit something in attempt to justify drinking and DRIVING."
---You DO, or you wouldn't be backing what this article advocates. And I'm not justifying drinking and driving--I'm advocating laws that stop IMPAIRED driving, not create a stupid hassle for everyone on the road that's had a single beer.
"See, you omited the DRIVING part. This debate is not about drinking, it is about the Driving when you drink. You just tried to moit the driving part and make it about just drinking. This is something that many attempt to do. It fails when the real context is talked about. It is the driving that is the issue, not simply drinking."
---But if driving is the issue why is the BAC a problem? Why not just make it illegal to be a drunk driver? Oh, wait, already done! No, the issue here is PRIMARILY a WCTU one. The MADD crowd would prefer to illegalize drinking anywhere outside the drinker's home, and ideally, not even there.
"This isn't about prohibition of alcohol. If you think it is, then I suppose you would to see pilots allowed to fly when they drink, I suppose you would like to see commercial truck drivers be allowed to drive when they drink. I suppose you would see logbooks for those folks go away so they could drive 36 hours straight too eh? (that goes to the tired arguement.....I didn't see anyone opposing that law as they do the .08 law. Funny how that is eh?"
---You're out of your mind. The differences are staggering. You're not advocating people being stopped for simply being drunk. You're advocating people being arrested for having a beer before they drive. Not being drunk--having a beer. The 'tired driving' laws and the 'no-drink-and-fly' laws, all go to stop IMPAIRED driving and flying. What's advocated here does not stop impaired driving. It goes simply to not having a drink AT ALL and then driving. And that would shutter bars all over the country.
"I can think of a lot of good reasons to stop letting 16 year olds drive, and accidents are just one."
But instead 'drunks' are the whipping boy, when thousands of accidents yearly are caused by perfectly sober teens. This age group makes up 7% of licensed drivers, but suffers 14% of fatalities and 20% of all reported accidents.
And of course, we can't find a similar statistic for DRUNK DRIVERS. We always run into the hedge of "where alcohol was a factor," when of course there is a significant difference between driving drunk and running into one because you were a stupid teenager. Just try to find a statement that says what percentage of all drivers are drunk, what percentage of fatalities they suffer personally, and what percentage of reported accidents are attributable to them. You won't, because the numbers are usually inflated by the 'intoxicated' or 'where alcohol was a factor' language.
I am not saying it's not a problem. But it's less a problem than the MADD harpies encourage us to think it is, and far less a problem than cops put into enforcement because it's a hellofalot more fun to hang out with your buddies at the roadblock under nice white lights, harassing sober people, than it is to sit and watch drunks come out of bars in a dark parking lot, and then have them toss their cookies in your car or fight with you when you bust them.
And this kind of BAC drop wouldn't do anything but encourage the same 'roadblock' mentality.
"I'd also like to know how a person who just has to yak on their cellphone (or apply makeup, or any of the other stupid things that people do while driving) and veers across the yellow line while not paying attention, causing a head-on collision, is any better than the drunk driver who causes one (never mind the "drunk" driver stopped at a checkpoint who blows a BAC of .10 but hasn't hurt anyone). But one is a criminal offense, while most people would chalk up the second as "just an accident", when in fact it is an example of negligence."
Preach it, -YYZ-! And we both know the answer--DEMON RUM IS EEEEEEVIL!
That has some serious potential for being a possibilty. I'm where the sun shines almost all the time! Just to the south of you in Nevada on the 15 corridor. Looking forward to it.
"Let the policeman make the arrest, let the jury determine whether the person was or wasn't impaired. Pretty simple. It's what policemen do every day."
Police do that very thing when they issue sobriety tests.
BAC comes after such tests at the judgment of an officer.
I sugest to you that BAC functions as a check and balance to officer judgement. The jury in a trial (or judge if you chose a bench trial) sees something besides just the officers personal oppinon. You do believe in checks and balances right?
"Alcohol-related fatalities also dropped significantly in 2003, the first such decline since 1999, as more states adopted laws that allowed them to prosecute drivers at .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) and above."
"The fatality rate on the nation's highways in 2003 was the lowest since record keeping began 29 years ago, the U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta announced today. The number of crash-related injuries also dropped to a historic low in 2003."
I guess you would then be saying that just another BUSH administration official is telling lies then right?
Now to be fair, this decrease is due to several factors. Only one of which is that this is when all 50 states went to .08. Technology in vehicles also play major roles.
Please remember that not all people die in crashes and that hurt people matter too. When only discussing fatality you leave a major section of people out.
Baxter will have you turn off your air bags, http://www.motorists.org/issues/airbags/disconnecting.html
wants no laws against cell phone use while driving.
http://www.motorists.org/issues/cellphones/policy.html
opposes daytime running lights,
http://www.motorists.org/issues/cellphones/policy.html
opposes roadblocks, BAC, and even claims impairment begins at.15 when studies clearly show impairment for many functions is evident at.08.
The there is this: "We support increased penalties for repeat offenders, but maintain that rehabilitation be the primary goal in all but the most severe cases."
That sounds like something Hillary Clinton would say! Punishment doesn't work but "rehabilitation does" right? That is about as liberal as it gets.
Noone can 'rehabilitate' a persons own choices.
And then we have this :"We do not support age-based BAC standards (e.g., "zero tolerance") for persons under 21 years of age"
This says he (and the group he is president of) Thinks it is improper to punish KIDS for underage drinking or for underage drinking and driving. WOW.
"The current .10% BAC, now employed in most states, represents a lowest common denominator approach. "
A bit out of date there eh?
"Certainly there are many ways such "studies" can be constructed to yield "results" far different from what the actual data show."
I will agree with that statement and add to it that it works both ways.
What is evident in both sides attempts is the simple fact that lots and lots of people are killed and seriously harmed with life lasting injury as a result of drinking and driving, especially at at BAC levels above .08.
You wanna drink and drive or anyone else wants to no laws will stop it, only their own personal choice will stop it in the end.
Take the deaths of persons throught the year as a result of terrorism. The very same arguments made opposing the Fight against drinking and driving can be made to argue against fighting terrorism. I think that offers a valid comparison.
On 9 11 Everyone saw up front and personal the dangers of allowing terrorism to go unchecked. The 90's saw truth go unnoticed by many people. Attack after attack went on unopposed. Look where it lead.
I offer that .08 BAC in combination with officers in the field making the judgment calls to take such a test is indeed "taking the fight to them" as we do in regards to terrorism today.
Drinking and driving with levels above .08 is shown to be dangerous and it is showing its effectiveness in helping to drop the number of deaths and injuries on our nations highways.
People argued against the dangers of terrorists and they also argued against going after them. Just as people argue today against curbing driving above .08.
"The Boston University study compared the first five states to lower their BAC limit to .08 (California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont) with five nearby states that retained the .10 limit. The results of this study suggest .08 laws, particularly in combination with administrative license revocation, reduce the proportion of fatal crashes involving drivers and fatally injured drivers at blood alcohol levels of .08 and higher by 16% and those at BAC of .15 and greater by 18%.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Limit.08/PresInit/science.html
"Proponents of the lower BAC standard point to the 3,732 who died in alcohol-related traffic crashes last year involving drivers with a BAC less than 0.10 percent."
http://www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/97issue3/globe9703_p22.html
Although this article is a bit old and takes a stance I do not agree with when it comes to BAC I found this number interesting. Funny how when it is changed from a % to a number we see that MORE people died as a result of UNDER.10 than died on 911, and we take notice of the major difference in outlooks on those deaths.
Is this simply because they all did not happen at the same time? Would people see Osama and al qaeda as less of a problem had he planned operations that killed over 3000 people throughout the year rather than on one fateful day?
I would offer that when looking at the 90's ( and even before) that is EXACTLY what happened. 17 soldiers on the USS cole wasn't enough. Beruit wasn't enough. Somalia wasn't enough. WTC in 1993 wasn't enough. Kobar towers wasn't enough. (9 11 sure was though wasn't it).
I find it very interesting that the argument many times centers around .08 and .10. I find it very interesting that the number for .08 to .10 reflect so closely to those on 9 11 as it goes to deaths. I find it shocking the difference in perspective used to argue one way for .08 to .10 and the other way for 9 11 when it comes to responses to those figures.
"propaganda provided by the clowns at MADD."
How exactly do you call what I have shared in this thread propaganda? Maybe you used a bit of a broad brush there.
Drinking WHILE you drive, WOW you take it to a whole other level. I oppose that 100%.
So enthralled with a beer that you cannot wait ten minutes to get home? I would offer that speaks to an addiction.
You drink a beer at work and drive home, I have no beef with that. As a member of MADD just said that to you, your former statement shows you indeed painted with a broad brush.
I quit drinking 4 years ago, and quit drinking and driving about 10 years before that. Never got a DWI before that, but that was just my good fortune.
I still do not agree with the DUI laws...and detest MAD, but if I hadn't lost my license...I'd probably still be drinkin.
Hear hear. I don't either. What's funny is both of us are reformed drinkers and almost perfectly fit the profile of someone who support MADD. But neither of us do.
My problem is that after doing a good job of getting seriously drunk drivers off the road, they didn't quit while they were ahead and instead went after anyone who drinks at all.
They are a lot like the post-1965 civil rights movement...ruined by success.
"I think video cameras in police cars is a good idea for a lot of reasons."
Good point and I agree totally, I would offer that cameras on traffic stops protect the officer and the person(s) stopped equally. Microphones too.
"To refute your argument does not demand I supply alternate one."
Refute means to prove false. A simple statement that is not qualified in any way is hardly refuting.
"If you suggested that the best way to defend the US was to provide everyone with a 1971 Ford Econoline"
Susimple fact that TSA nailclipper searches do nothing to prevent another 9/11. re you can say it, but it doesnt prove anything." " TSa has nothing to do with it"
LoL OK.
I would go along with Air marshalls being on everyflight and be armed to the teeth. If Everyone is allowed to carry on a plane, that is a recipe for disaster.
Terrorist would LOVE less security for more easy operation, they love to operate unopposed and unhindered. You know like they had in the 90's. How many attacks in the 90's again?
"Ah, you flail desperately for some form of distraction again. My point was that I can try the silly guilt-by-association game "
It was you that flailed desperately and your hitler anaolgy failed miserably.
Ilike watching you squirm about it now.
"Let me just see if I can get you to clarify that statement first: the degree of intent to harm or actual harm is irrelevant, only that there is intent to harm at all, or a disregard for the fair to good odds of harm occuring, that is enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent. Do I characterize your position properly? Please correct if I'm not right there."
Terrorist do not care who they harm with the actions they take. When you have too much to drink and make the choice to drive, you do the very same thing. Total disregard of the harm that comes to others.
"enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent."
Showing truthful similarities is hardly claiming equivelence. It is what it is, a comparison of similarities.
Truth hurts don't it.
Driving when you have had too much to drink is shown to harm and kill people. People chose to do it anyway.
Some call it unintended damage when they crash when they knew the risk before hand. This makes it intentional on that level. They knew the risk and took it anyway.
Terrorist are akin in their actions in this way. They want to kill infedels and even though they know the risk of blowing them up endangers fellow muslims, they do it anyway.
Both after they do it attempt to justify what it is they did. They rationalize and spin and try to create a cloud that seeks to muddy the waters to absolve themselves of the personal decision they made to take the action they did.
Can you show me where that statement of similarity is inaccurate?
"most drunk drivers don't actually cause anyone else to be hurt or killed,"
Think about that for a minute. The more drunk drivers the more people WILL be harmed or killed.
" I would bet that the most likely victim of drunk driving is the drunk himself."
It would be nice if it worked out that way but it sure doesn't.
"because the average drunk hurts nobody at all."
Does the average jihadi hurt many people?
"one is clearly far more dangerous to people than the other."
So you think that lessens the danger presented by drunks?
Look at the numbers per year killed by both. Take a good look.
"I would bet dollars to donuts you haven't any idea what a valid argument IS."
You would lose that bet.
dumbass? fool? OK.
"there are much better ways to stop drunk driving than lowering the bac to a ridiculous one-drink level."
Seems to me that is what I asked you for, and seems to me you said that isn't worthwhile and you didn't need to do so.
Go on with your bad self and come back when you grow up and can talk without calling names like dumbass and fool.
Absent an appology I will no longer post to you. Others are willing to talk in more civilized ways and are far more worth the time to do so.
"Some people who have been up for two hours, had three cups of coffee, and think there ready to go, are still more hazardous than some people at .12 BAC."
This is a very good example of how .08 affects all people equally under the law. SOME doesn't cut it when you speak about 'blind justice" right?
"When government tries to legislate character, they've crossed the line!"
That is a fair statement. But see they have to protect my rights as much as they protect everyone else's. This demands a balance be struck. The elctoral college reflects a balance of two opposing views that both bring valid arguments to the table.
This is why I find .08 a valid balance. It is a line of seperation that applies to all people equally, social drinkers can have a few and still drive in the proper timeframe and other drivers can be protected as well as they can be without removing the ability of others ti drink and drive responsibly.
I would suggest that audio/video recordings could provide an even better indication of a person's ability or inability to drive than a 0.08BAC.
What were the different states' policies on licence revocations for grossly intoxicated motorists at the time, and how did those policies change? If the states that put in the 0.08 standard simultaneously made harsher their policies for dealing with drivers who were above 0.10, the reduction in fatal crashes by those who habitually drive severely intoxicated could easily account for the entire observed phenomenon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.