To draft a better DUI law

The Boston Herald ^ | 11/5/05 | Randy S. Chapman

[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.

[elkfersupper]

It took me 6yrs to quit drinking, after I had lost my license...

I don't drink either, although I didn't have to put up with your punishment.

I just don't like getting caught up in the checkpoints, which are clearly designed to just get us used to the idea.

[BlueStateDepression]

" I'll drink and drive if I want to."

With an attitude like that I hope you get what it is you are asking for and that you do not hurt anyone but yourself.

BUT I suppose you do agree with terrorists when they say "Ill blow people up if I want to"

Sad....very very SAD.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Sounds good to me. The world would be better off if alcoholic beverages didn't exist. The carnage, both on the roads and in domestic violence, that stems directly from drinking alcohol, is way out of proportion to any benefits it provides. Anyone who can't have a good time without drinking alcohol has a serious problem IMO.

[elkfersupper]

Sure, I like raodside safety checks. They are akin to metal detectors at the airport.

Exactly. Which is why I and most other freedom-loving people despise them.

[dfwddr]

I think you either missed, or ignored the context of my post. YOU were suggesting the paper was calling for prohibition. I was trying to point out it was calling for different DUI laws. If you only consume alcohol within a 3 foot radius of a car, then yes, this could be interpreted as prohibition. I see that as quite a stretch.

[Utah Binger]

Tsk, Tsk. Some idiots really believe MADD. Sounds like you too are one of them.

[TexasTransplant]

Pay Day!

(On a bit of a sidebar, Secretary at City Hall recently informed me that after Perps are arrested and stolen property has been recovered that it is up to me to keep checking with the PD to see if my property is with any of the recovered goods and that after 30 days of recovery, identified or not it belongs to them, for them to auction off) How quaint, sounds like just another arm of the Mafia to me, why the hell did I go through the hassle of waiting for the stupid detective to finish his dunkin dough-nuts and submit a detailed list of items stolen?

(Bunch of Worthless Dickwad seatbelt ticketing tax collectors)

[elkfersupper]

If you only consume alcohol within a 3 foot radius of a car, then yes, this could be interpreted as prohibition.

Most of the U.S. I've never even seen public transportation, much less let myself be herded onto it.

[BlueStateDepression]

Well you take it a bit further in your position than I do.
Taking away the booze isn't how to solve the problems it creates....I think the best way to deal with it is to have valid punishments. Removing driving privliges is a great start, personally I advocate mote time without a license(along with jail time for driving ona suspended or revoked) as opposed to steeper dollar amount fines.

As it pertains to domestic violence, I think the best case there is for people on the recieving end of that to bail, instantly.

[microgood]

I am not sure what problem that is suppossed to be solved by this, but it sure isn't Drunken Driving. It is kind of like going from .1 to .08, no reduction in drunken driving, just more harassment of law abiding citizens.

What frustrates the nanny state is that they cannot stop the habitual drunks who blow real high and ignore all the laws anyway, so they tighten the screws to those who they know will obey the law. It's extremely childish and extremely ineffective as well.

[BlueStateDepression]

OH YES freedom loving people oppose airport security.
BWAA HAHAHAHAHA

OK

[BlueStateDepression]

I see it as quite a stretch also. I agree with your call on this. My post was directed at elf.....observing a recent thread that we had a similar discussion about this topic.

[Utah Binger]

What frustrates the nanny state is that they cannot stop the habitual drunks who blow real high and ignore all the laws anyway, so they tighten the screws to those who they know will obey the law. It's extremely childish and extremely ineffective as well.

Hear! Hear! Really pisses me off to hear all the bleeding hearts list all their talking points about this subject. Most of them are probably born again idiots and dumb bastards.

[elkfersupper]

OH YES freedom loving people oppose airport security.

I still fly. I just quit flying commercially in 1992, right after it started getting silly.

And yes, I do oppose the current level of airport security.

[TexasTransplant]

Most accidents in the home happen in your bathroom, new helmet laws needs to be enacted, and all safety checks will be routine and unannounced.

If you wish to opt out of the routine safety checks (all for your protection) you may pay a one time fee and the government will install cameras throughout your home and yard and all infractions will be noted and you will be billed monthly.

It is all in the name of Safety. (If you are a member of a certain select group and feel that this notice was sent to you in error, bring it to work with you and you will be paid for the time it took you to read it and your name will of course be removed from the list of usual suspects)

TT

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I notice nobody ever talks about why blood alcohol levels have been used to charge "drunk" drivers.

BAC was put in place because a large portion of the folks stopped for DWIs passed all of the field agility and other tests, and had to be released, even though the officers could smell/tell the subject had been drinking.

Now if we are interested in "safe" driving why would you arrest someone who was driving OK?

Oh yeah, they "might" get in an accident. So in the interest of public safety we must make it easy for the officers in the field to arrest those drivers suspected of DWI.

I'm not really against using BAC as a standard, but, it is a legitimate question, by reasonable people, to ask just exactly what is "drunk"?

This is the one situation I agree with arresting folks if there is any doubt, because this, (DWI), is a matter of life and death.

[elkfersupper]

they cannot stop the habitual drunks who blow real high and ignore all the laws anyway

Well, they can. But that takes work, and doesn't generate any revenue.

[Utah Binger]

doesn't generate any revenue.

Exactly!

[elkfersupper]

This is the one situation I agree with arresting folks if there is any doubt, because this, (DWI), is a matter of life and death.

Driving, flying, boating, skating, skiing, swimming, bathing, etc., etc. is (are) also a matter of life and death.

[LibertarianInExile]

"ECLIPSE!"

Sammy is popular with some folks on this board.

Others simply think of the man as better off dead.

I prefer to ignore that latter crowd anyway.