Replies

So has humanity in general. It is part of what we face as a result of a certain couple partaking of the tree of knowledge.

What we do know is that prohibition created much higher volume of hardships than we see from alcohol. If you doubt that it would still “be happening” today, then just look at the WOsD and how many innocent people are shot on “accident” by the authorities....

I believe that all tragedy is heartbreaking for those involved, however I also know that we can not eliminate all tragedy. I would prefer to maximize individual freedom, while also maximizing individual responsibility. Therefore, if you are a good driver with .08 (or whatever) BAC and you do not cause property or personal damage to others, then have at it. If you are a bad sober driver that causes personal or property damage to others, then you have caused a tragedy.

Any driver that causes damage to others’ property or persons should be prosecuted equally. Drinkers or teatotallers, I don’t rightly care. I am more concerned with ACTUAL safety and accountability.

Until I see any clarification, I find it disgusting that we would celebrate the improsinment of anyone for life that has NOT caused personal or property damage.

I am not in any way a prohibitionist and I agree with you to some extent in that legal limits are now set too low, that a person barely over the limit who did not cause personal or property damages or didn’t even commit a moving violation in some cases and has no priors, faces punishment, both legal and monetary that are draconian. And I also agree with you that there are many drivers on the road who are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs but are dangerously distracted are potentially just as dangerous as a drunk driver; people who drive while texting, reading and sending emails or surfing the net on their smart phones for example. I actually observed a woman tailgating me on I-95 in rush hour traffic between Baltimore and Washington who was, and I’m not making this up, flossing her teeth, using her rearview mirror like a bathroom mirror and evidently steering with her knees! I’ve also seen guys with newspapers spread out over their steering wheel and once saw a guy passing me on the Capitol Beltway who was eating what appeared to be ramen noodles from a bowl and using chop sticks. As the comedian Ron White says “You can’t fix stupid”.

But I will say that while distracted driving is dangerous and should be punished when proven; the distracted driver is only dangerous while they are distracted. In other words, a driver texting (or flossing or eating ramen noodles) while driving is a danger (and very stupid BTW) while they are distracted or texting but one can reasonable assume they are not similarly impaired once they stop texting. A drunk or drugged driver however is dangerous from the minute they put the key in the ignition and the car starts moving until the time they stop moving, and one can only hope that their car does not come to a stop by hitting another vehicle or a pedestrian or a building.

This guy blew a BAC the equivalent of having 23 beers. This was not someone who was coming home from a cocktail hour with business associates after having a single glass of beer or wine or a martini and got pulled over for a broken tail light. And we are not talking about his 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th, DWI arrest but his 8th. The article doesn’t say so, but I can’t imagine that after 7 DWI’s and prior felony convictions, the guy was driving with a valid driver’s license (I think it’s also safe to assume he probably didn’t have insurance either), so suspending or taking away his license isn’t the answer. He got his 2nd DWI while still on probation for his first, so the threat of further jail time (he served a little less than two years in jail of a six year sentence for a DWI conviction in 2008) and further fines and more felony convictions evidently wasn’t much of a deterrent either. And goodness knows what other crimes he may have committed and been convicted of unrelated to drunk driving (again it’s an assumption on my part but probably not an unreasonable one given that someone with 7 prior DWI convictions is not likely a model citizen).

I honestly don’t know what should be done in a case like this other than what was done. Just because he didn’t cause a death or destruction of property previously doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a crime each and every time he got behind the wheel drunk – he is a repeat offender and I’m am all for stiff sentences for repeat offenders. It’s only a miracle that he didn’t injure or kill someone yet. But according to you, I guess that on his 8th DWI conviction, since no one was hurt and no property was damage, he should have been given yet another slap on the wrist, yet another fine, a little more jail time of which he would only serve a fraction of, sent to alcohol rehab yet again, another suspension of his license, ordered by a judge to never drive again or own a car, all in hopes that his 8th DWI will be his last. But if and when the guy has his 9th and odds are he will, and ends up killing someone or a whole family, the fact that he never killed anyone in his 8 previous DWI convictions will be cold comfort to the families of the dead or gravely injured.

Just the other week near where I live, a 77 year old man coming out of a bank drive through, for reasons not yet determined, sped over a parking barrier, through a fence, across a gravel embankment and crashed into a daycare center and into and through the room where 12 children had just finished having lunch and were floor mats were soon to be laid out for naptime. The driver and three children were injured, fortunately none of them seriously. But if I understand you correctly, the 77 year old man, who was not drunk, had no prior criminal record nor any prior driving violations, not even as much as a ticket, should be thrown in jail and we should toss away the key but the guy with 8 previous DWI convictions including several felony convictions should have nothing happen to him just because he hasn’t yet injured anyone? That the habitual drunk driver is not a safety concern? Is that right?