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 ...
Wow!! I wish I could have stated it that way. I'll bet pretty soon the illegal BAC will be .05.
Did I say it should be illegal? I think people who spend hours everyday in front of the TV have a serious problem too, but I would hardly suggest that it should be outlawed.
To the people whose loved ones they kill, they're no different from terrorists. They don't really give a damn who they kill, because if they did, they'd never get behind a steering wheel after they've been drinking. Why don't you ask the New Jersey mother who police came upon sitting on the roadside last summer, cradling the head of her decapitated 6 year old daughter, who'd just been killed by a drunk driver? Do you suppose she would have felt worse if the little girl had been killed by an Islamowacko homicide bomber?
There is a new group forming called DAMM. (drunks against mad mothers)
My concern is that the continual lowering of the BAC is going to erode the social stigma of drunk driving. I can remember when driving drunk was not that big of a deal to many people, kind of a "boys will be boys" attitude, even on the part of police. I do think that the rightfully directed social disapproval directed at drunk drivers has been very beneficial in reducing the incidence of impaired driving. With the continual lowering of the BAC, and the resulting arrests of people who probably are not impaired (as most would define it), I am afraid that once again it will become an "everyone does it" type of event.
I have not seen any studies, but it seems to me when I read about accidents caused by drunk drivers, they fall into one of two categories. Either the driver's BAC was "nearly x times the legal limit" or he/she "had been charged with driving under the influence x times in the past two years" or something to that effect. I just don't see a lot of accidents caused by drivers with a .03 BAC! I really do think that the social disgrace associated with a drunk driving charge has been a powerful force in reducing the rate of such driving, and I hate to see that diminished. For that reason, I just don't think these proposals are likely to be that effective long term.
No, I asked a question and even if you're intervening on someone else's behalf, you're supposed to answer it.
So here we go again: are YOU really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS?
I'll tell you what, let's go with your hypo. Let's ask the victim of the average drunken driver what they think, and we'll ask the victim of the average terrorist what they think. I'm pretty sure the victim of the average drunken driver will be silent--because I would take bets that the average drunken driver makes it home scot-free, and nobody is killed and there is no victim. And it probably happens in your neighborhood every day. What these laws do is harshly criminalize behavior that so many people get away with, and they lose respect for the law entirely as a result. And it doesn't solve the problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't be HARSH, not at all, but where we are it should at least solve the problem.
They can have my liquor when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Thanks for the clip. I downloaded it and emailed it to my home address, to be converted to mp3 and enjoyed with my girlfriend and a few stiff drinks.
You got that right, Tex.
Cheers! (glug!)
I doubt that YOU can have a good time, whether with or without alcohol.
Always have a sober driver
___________________________________________________
This is what Air Force members are expected to do.
Laugh if you want, Blue, but since my one air trip since 9/11, I have lost any and all desire to fly to where I need to go.
Want to see a dictatorship in action on American soil? Easy - just step into any large airport in the country, and you lose your 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights - just by setting FOOT in the BUILDING.
Anymore, I'll drive. I don't have to worry about being singled out for a cavity search, I can say what I want as loudly as I want, I can smoke all I want, and I can carry weapons.
And as for roadblocks, liberty-loving people should feel sick over them because their continued existence throws the presumption of innocence and the freedom to be secure from unwarranted searches right out the Constitutional window.
"Those who will trade Liberty for Security deserve neither!"
If he had killed a family he would be responsible for killing a family. However, he didn’t kill anyone, so he isn’t even slightly responsible for killing anyone.
His actual crime was to increase the public’s risk from his driving. I understand why that is considered a crime, but in fact people do that legally all the time. They drive when they are exhausted, they talk on the phone, they don’t concentrate on the road. The presence of these drivers on the road increases everyone’s risk, yet our legal system rarely touches them. Yet in this guy’s case, the legal system destroyed his life.
I suppose I agree with the author of the article. I believe that drunk driving should be illegal, but the recent MADD inspired punishments seem excessive and inappropriate. In particular, first-time DUI offenders should be permitted to drive to and from work.
I would have thought it was put in to dispell complaints (possibly valid) of officers arresting people for DWB. On the other hand, the 0.08 nonsense is just plain wrong and should be abolished.
A just society shouldn't focus energies on punishing someone who does something a teensy weensy bit bad while ignoring people who do things many times worse.
Compared with all of the other things that may affect a person's driving, the effects from a 0.08 BAC on a typical person are within the realm of statistical noise. Though some effort may be made to measure them, there are so many confounding variables (e.g. someone is more likely to drink after a long day than before one) that meaningful measurements are impossible.
Given that there are many things people do which pose a bigger risk (e.g. thinking about their upcoming date with a boy/girlfriend, or the movie they just saw, or the discussion they just had, or whatever; not to mention putting on makeup, eating a gyro, driving while sleepy, etc.) I see no legitimate basis for prosecuting drivers for a 0.08BAC.
Indeed, I see no basis for prosecuting anyone for DUI unless there was some basis, prior to the police involvement, to suspect them of it (e.g. they were seen to be driving incompetently, or they got into an accident, or something).
To the other lovers of liberty and sanity on this thread; Don't let the jackbooters get you down. FreeRepublic has a larger number of government worshippers than you'd think given just the name and stated goals of this site.
It's sad, really, the sheer number of people in this country are just plain scared to death of freedom.
True, unfortunately.
It's sad, really, the sheer number of people in this country are just plain scared to death of freedom
Exactly right.
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.