Confessions of a drunk driver

[Anti Federalist]

"Alcohol related" in police reports and government statistics universally means caused by alcohol or alcohol was determining/mayor factor.

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.

 

[bunklocoempire]

It's been said to some extent already.

As I see it...

Fines are warnings attached with a monetary value issued by a third party. Supposedly to curb behavior and protect potential victims. Favors a third party and those who serve the third party.

Punishment is the actual price that is paid for goods when damaged or destroyed. With a third party deciding the cost of those goods -wouldn't ya know.

Each of those two things might be called a deterrent. The second one -punishment- is a stand alone deterrent.

Have we seen actual punishment remain reflective of the victim's "cost of goods damaged or destroyed" while curbing behavior and strengthening victim's rights to compensation, or have we seen fines (warnings) thrive and curb behavior while strengthening the state?

I've seen the latter with an erosion of the victim's rights. And any behavior that might have been curbed isn't curbed because of any fear of encroaching on another individual's rights but rather fear of the state.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I must have missed the list of victims that were surely posted by my Libertarian minded friends here.

Here's a list of victims.

1. The car wash owner whose scrubbers were most certainly damaged by ripping the ladder rack off which will need to be fixed. All automatic carwashes are clearly marked that cars with racks are not to be washed there.
2. The sign owner who will need to replace the sign. Seriously, you hit a sign! Dude, you weren't a little buzzed. You were smashed, and damn lucky.
3. The owner of the ditch he tore up when driving through it which will need to be restored and gravelled for proper drainage.

If this had been my son, he'd be getting a whoopin', and I would WALK him to each of the three owners to pay directly from his own money damages.

 

[Michigan11]

Alot of posts in either of two directions. My original post should be read in the right light, this didn't just happen yesterday, and I wasn't going around drinking and driving like that, being that drunk and driving was a first for me and it was because of that ex-girlfriend who lit my fire, so I had to get away, yet looking back I should have slept in my truck, but it didn't work out that way. Before this incident, I did occassionally drink and drive while having a few, but not much more than that. Like others have stated, and who does MADD think is going out to bars only to stay sober to drive their friends home afterwards.

Years before this disaster I remember a time when I was just getting into college, coming back from a party with a friend who was supposed to be driving us, instead we got lost along the way, after being served excess amounts of vodka with a splash of something. It was a Pontiac Bonneville, we were in and Steve drove us there, which took about 20 minutes, well after 2 hours of passing corn fields and rural houses along the way, we were getting pissed off and said what the fuck is going on here man, where the fuck are we? He didn't know and he was looking like he was going to be passing out soon, so I told him to just stop at the next house we saw. I get out and go ring the doorbell standing on some wooden porch platform, hoping to ask someone where we were at. Next Steve comes out and walks up to the porch and crashes over, gets back up, and I realize there is no damn way he is driving. So I drive, start making turns, and in about another 40 minutes we started recognizing the school again. We didn't know the area, we both just got there, and it was in semi-northern Michigan, once out of a town all the roads become the same scenery. As we're getting close, Steve throws up all over his side of the car, I didn't bother to look, but when we got to the gate, where they ask for ID to get in, they tell me to turn the light on, to see who is in the car. As I looked over, it looked like the interior was totalled. Sometimes plans don't always work out as you think. Should I have just parked the car and waited for the next cop to drive by and arrest us on the side of the road.

I never drove thru the scrubbers at the car wash, only the ones you pull into to spray wash, the height of the structure is what tore my "weekender" ladder rack and ladders off, but they were fastened with straps that allowed my truck to drag them around for a while. The ditch was typical, grass, half tubular shapped, nothing was destroyed except my truck. Sometime along the way, as I was lost, just as Steve above got lost, I began getting irritated as to my bearings and whereabouts. This caused me to turn here, then there, and start wondering which way to go next. Almost I imagine amnesia would be like, waking up driving in a vehicle. The sign I ran over at the end, could have been bent straight up again. It was one of those handicapped parking signs, one metal spike. I was driving a little fast but nothing outrageous on the roads, the cop wrote it up as 10 over in a 35mph, so I was going 45mph. Again I saw his headlights first, knowing at that hour of the night, it had to be a cop, and then the sirens. I wasn't totally oblivious to everything around me, I wasn't swerving on the roads or driving in the wrong lanes. Yet I should not have been driving, and I don't recommend it either.

Drinking, I've learned over the years is something most people discover at different times and different ways, and some take it to an extreme, some learn from that, and some give up. I'm a typical clean cut individual that grew up in a very nice neighborhood, surrounded by fields and woods and lakes. Alot of freedom, outside all day doing stupid shit, around 12 we were raiding our parents liquor cabinets and riding around on mopeds. Younger we built a 6 story tree house, that others could see when going for walks, later becoming a hazardous site, because the parents were scared it was just too much. We liked to get beer and scnappes from the town drunk who would hang out behind the liquor store, and the last time we saw him, he was being pulled off in an ambulance just as we were all walking up to the store looking for him.

The point of alot of this, is that I have always enjoyed alot of freedom, and with freedom you tend to test the limits and get into trouble, not all but some do. I believe this is what Jefferson meant when talking about when he was saying he would rather deal with the problems that go along with freedom rather than the opposite extreme that we are in today. Look at old book stories, alot of them are about causing trouble, but nothing to crazy or bodily harming someone. It's part of life, and I have a much more open mind and opinion and strengths from having too much freedom, than living very restricted as I see kids being raised today, such as my own nieces who I sometimes think, wow how do they deal with such rules. But they are used to those rules, yet rebel in different ways I think. I don't know.

I bet everyone in here has some crazy stories, and can relate if you think about it, and we shouldn't be so knee jerk reactive when we read about things, and go "oh gosh that person could have been in serious trouble". Life isn't just about growing old and dying of a heart attack or being 93 and being misdiagnosed and wrongly having a pace maker put, only to find out from a family member while you were under the knife and out cold in surgery. Life is risk and danger, we need to embrace that, it's what a human needs to live and live properly.

 

[Barrex]

I am not going after you personally... We all make mistakes and behave little off from time to time. I am just stating general state of things and my point of view in general.

 

[KingNothing]

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.

Correct. The "alcohol related" stat is generally useless because it means that someone involved in the accident tested positive for alcohol. It does not mean they were drunk, the cause of the accident, or that alcohol even played a factor.

 

[chudrockz]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.

 

[Shredmonster]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.

BRAVO ! Couldn't have said it better myself. People are brainwashed and this is a PRIME EXAMPLE. Safety if you give up your Liberty. I have no words for these idiots as they are responsible for most of our loss of freedoms in this country.

There is a line that cannot be crossed ever under any circumstances. However people are too stupid to comprehend the founding principles. They just can't except that life is dangerous. And no amount of reduction in liberty is going to make life safe.

Look at all the rules and laws and people still commit murder don't they ?

People that truly cherish freedom and the Constitution and founding principles don't change liberties and rights under any circumstances as they are non- negotiable.

If you are driving and you are drunk you still have not hurt anybody. Most people don't. The average person is .28 when they get into a life threatening drunk driving related situation.
This is a FACT as my friend testified to the State when they were changing the law to .08. It is a joke.

The average person that gets into a life threatening drunk driving related situation has had 10 DWI arrests !

I am so tired of people not knowing the facts, being lied to and being brainwashed.

No I don't want people on the road at .28 but you know what ? - I am not gong to give up my liberties and freedom for without those what good are all your laws and limitations ? You either stick to your principles or you don't in which case you become the enemy.

 

[Son of Detroit]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.

 

[brandon]

If you're not even 21 yet you probably 1) can't hold your liquor very well 2) don't have much experience driving. Both of these change as you get older and driving under the influence becomes a lot less of a risk factor.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

 

[phill4paul]

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

We will be the last generation that kinda, sorta, actually tasted freedom. From here on out it will bubble boy cocoons for everybody.

"What was it like when you were young grandpa?" "I'm forbidden from telling you, my child."

 

[Anti Federalist]

We will be the last generation that kinda, sorta, actually tasted freedom. From here on out it will bubble boy cocoons for everybody.

"What was it like when you were young grandpa?" "I'm forbidden from telling you, my child."

And, for so many reasons, that is just so goddamned sad, I could fucking cry...

 

[Barrex]

Not necessarily.

I've seen with my own eyes, police reports written up where "alcohol" was a determining factor, when it was not.

In one, I recall, it was written up as such, when the victim, who had done nothing wrong at all, was broadsided by a (sober) person who blew a red light.

I stand corrected. You got different way of statistics.



My last post on this topic (arrogant style):

It amazes me how many people use liberty as excuse to do anything they want and defend anything and everything. I am sad that so many of libertarians run to their favored tactics of insulting, spitting, name calling and derogatory behavior. Let me try it.

If you are no 100% agreeing with me then you are all cultist, more libertarian than you, creepy, gunner joe, petulant, too smart for science, arrogant, denial-ican, irresponsible, brainwashed, hardhearted, murdereous,drug using, pot smoking, corporate minions, pro slavery, would let old people and poor die from starvation, wannabe revolutionaries, naive, smelling of elderberries...

If you are against me then you truly dont understand what victimless crime, reckless&public endangerment mean. From some of your posts I doubt that some of you understand what liberty means. Sure as hell it doesnt mean "I do whatever the fuck I want".

Alcohol affects vision, reaction time, judgment, risk assessment, ability to divide attention, and induces blackouts, euphoria, unconsciousness,increased self-confidence, decreased Anxiety, shortened attention span, impaired fine muscle coordination, impaired memory and comprehension, delayed reactions, impairs senses.....

If someone is so drunk that he can not walk should be allowed to fire a gun? Drive? Should he be allowed to get on highway driving few tons 80mph? If you say "yes" then you got no idea what liberty is. If you say "no" then you are for stopping DUI. If you say "yes in that case but" then you are arguing a degree of enforcement.



AND I FUCKING LOVE ALCOHOL. MY FAMILY MAKES MOONSHINE FOR CENTURIES. I HAVE DRUNK EVERY ALCOHOL THING THAT IS DRINKABLE IN EVERY COUNTRY THAT I WENT TO AND I WAS IN A LOT OF THEM.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It amazes me how many people - even liberty minded people - are fine with stepping on rights in the name of combatting drunk driving. We now have DUI checkpoints, police using any excuse under the sun (or none) to stop people, etc.

So the constitution takes yet another beating. And I dunno how it is in other parts of the country, but in rural Minnesota I can genuinely say that inebriated driving as at an all-time, um, high.

Therefore, we're not even trading rights for "safety" from drunk drivers. We're just pissing away rights.

Exactly. How many millions of people a year drive drunk? There are what, 10,000 alcohol impaired deaths yearly? Seems perfectly reasonable to stop every single car on the road to ask what they are doing and if they have been drinking. Or to have states with DUI laws that have no set limit [the word of the cop is all that is needed] or laws that are such that you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you are in a fatal accident with any cannabis present in your system. [i.e smoked a couple weeks ago]

I really do not know how some people justify it.

 

[TheGrinch]

Barrex' post above was harsh, perhaps unfair, but has truth to it. Liberty does not mean you can just do what you want, it means you can do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on others. However, that doesn't mean we have to wait for them to harm others, to see that driving drunk is a huge threat to other's liberty and safety (I know some already want to respond, but read the whole post first).

It's as if you cannot take a stance on anything without someone acting like you're advocating for the current system. You're speaking to the flaws of the system, not the merits of the law itself.

I keep hearing, oh well it's such a small number, it's not any more negligent than any other negligence while driving, that is all just a cop out.

Standing for liberty also means standing against those who will infringe upon your liberty and safety by recklessly endangering your life. I don't see it as much different than firing off a shot recklessly and needlessly in public, you don't have to hit someone for it be grossly negligent and worthy of penalty.

As I've stated in other threads, I am against arbitrary limits and checkpoints (I am in the beer industry, and it's a real pain in the ass to have to always make sure I don't flirt with that absurdly low line, even though I know I'm fine)... If you simply went back to just dealing with those who cannot drive or walk in a straight line, then there would not be an overreach, and we'd actually be dealing with just the ones who have no business driving and are a very real threat to other's liberty and safety.

Yes, there are other kinds of negligence and accidents that can occur absent alcohol, but when you have a substance that when injested can cause you to not even be able to walk straight, then no, I do not see how you can be an apologist for them risking others lives because they drunkenly decide they're okay, when they're clearly not. What we need is to make a distinction between drunk reckless behavior and relatively harmless driving while drinking, not to act as if it's "no harm, no foul" if you're lucky enough to not harm someone (and yes, it is luck, when you're that intoxicated).

 

[TheGrinch]

Exactly. How many millions of people a year drive drunk? There are what, 10,000 alcohol impaired deaths yearly? Seems perfectly reasonable to stop every single car on the road to ask what they are doing and if they have been drinking. Or to have states with DUI laws that have no set limit [the word of the cop is all that is needed] or laws that are such that you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you are in a fatal accident with any cannabis present in your system. [i.e smoked a couple weeks ago]

I really do not know how some people justify it.

Again, no one here is advocating for the current overreraching revenue-generating system, but that doesn't mean that you can't advocate for fair DUI laws without being a hypocrite. As I've said many times, a sobreity test or car swerving all over the road should be the criteria (assuming no accident, in which case there could be added liability)

You guys are going to get nowhere if you simply dismiss others arguments because the current system (that we're not arguing for) is flawed, and even moreso if you act liek your "right to drive drunk" is something that others should accept.

Not to bring emotion into it, but rather experience: If the drunk driver who hit me going 80 had hit the front of my car instead of snapping my rear axle, I might not be sitting here talking to you today, so don't talk to me like I'm the enemy, like some of you want to.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Jesus, makes me sick how many people on here are bragging about their drunk driving experiences. I thought Ron Paul supporters were smarter than that. I'm not even old enough to drink legally yet and I'm more responsible with my drinking.

-I've had a lot to drink at a party? I stay with a friend or call a taxi to come pick me up. I'll get my car in the morning.
-If I know I have no option of staying with someone or getting a taxi, I only have 1-2 drinks and make sure I wait an hour or two before I drive.

It's not that hard, seems like common sense to me.

Even if there were no DUI laws like some are wishing for, I wouldn't even think of driving under the influence.

That is a very good idea. There is no leeway anymore. Under 21 and you must be what, under .02? Mouth wash or Nyquil can put you above.

I can drive drunk better than most people drive sober. [not bragging, just stating a fact] You know what's funny, I'm sure you have seen those 'drunk goggles' where you put them on and it simulates what it's like to be drunk. [not really, but that's what they say] Well they had their anti-drinking and driving camapign at my school with a golf cart and cones set up. It was around prom. I was already partying and driving from city to city at the time so I figured, what the hell, I bet I can drive their course. I put on the goggles and drove this golf cart perfectly around their little cone course. Fun times.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to drive drunk. It will cost you too damn much money if you get caught. That being said millions of people will drive drunk this year. Though there is no way to prove it I bet at least a hundred thousand people will drive drunk today. Yearly there are 10,000 or so alcohol impaired traffic deaths. Does it really seem necessary to you, that we have per se DUI laws and check points? That precedents have been set that under the guise of 'public safety' constitutionality does not matter. And everyone just complies. What the hell is wrong with Americans these days?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You're well conditioned and in full compliance, citizen.

DARE and all the rest did their job well.

When you're middle aged, you will be looking at what the new generation is putting up with and in full compliance with, how much freedom has been sacrificed for safety, and you'll shake your head.

We were shown accident photos of mangled cars and mutilated bodies when I was a child. I wonder if they still do that.

As I recall we had an assembly where a man came and spoke about running over a kid. I believe it was a part of his sentence. We had a different assembly where a father came and spoke about his daughter who was killed by a drunk driver.

It ran pretty deep. DARE started at around 3rd grade and you better not question the DARE officer. In 5th grade, I believe, I asked if marijuana caused cancer and he said in no uncertain terms that smoking marijuana will kill you. I was taken out of class afterwards and questioned as to why I asked. I was just curious. I got yelled at for asking stupid questions, or whatever his reason was. He then made a habit to drive around my neighborhood after that. He'd stop me everyone now and then and ask me stupid questions. They ended up taking a drug dealer's car and he upgraded. Drove around in style on 24'' rims. He was replaced by a short little midgety prick with a crew cut. This DARE officer was on a power trip. Grabbed me by the back of my neck a few times and routinely tried to fight me. Searched my locker dumping everything out, not finding anything, and then walking off. It was simply because he did not like me. So I picked all of my shit up off the ground and got my locker situated. He was fired for inappropriate contact with a female student. Groped an 8th grader, IIRC. After all the years of him telling me that I'd never amount to anything I really wanted to find him so I could laugh at him. True story.

I'm glad to see tax dollars going to fund such a useful program. Almost as useful as drowning rhesus monkeys in smoke, or lobotimizing [or was it just implanting electrodes?] '******s' in Lousiana State Penetentiary.

Here's an interesting read of a man many have not heard of, Dr. Robert Heath. It is his study that they flaunt as showing that marijuana kills brain cells. They never mention his other studies though. [not to mention that that study was so damn flawed it really is amazing some people still source it]

Dr. Robert Heath

 

[TheGrinch]

We were shown accident photos of mangled cars and mutilated bodies when I was a child. I wonder if they still do that.

As I recall we had an assembly where a man came and spoke about running over a kid. I believe it was a part of his sentence. We had a different assembly where a father came and spoke about his daughter who was killed by a drunk driver.

It ran pretty deep. DARE started at around 3rd grade and you better not question the DARE officer. In 5th grade, I believe, I asked if marijuana caused cancer and he said in no uncertain terms that smoking marijuana will kill you. I was taken out of class afterwards and questioned as to why I asked. I was just curious. I got yelled at for asking stupid questions, or whatever his reason was. He then made a habit to drive around my neighborhood after that. He'd stop me everyone now and then and ask me stupid questions. They ended up taking a drug dealer's car and he upgraded. Drove around in style on 24'' rims. He was replaced by a short little midgety prick with a crew cut. This DARE officer was on a power trip. Grabbed me by the back of my neck a few times and routinely tried to fight me. Searched my locker dumping everything out, not finding anything, and then walking off. It was simply because he did not like me. So I picked all of my shit up off the ground and got my locker situated. He was fired for inappropriate contact with a female student. Groped an 8th grader, IIRC. After all the years of him telling me that I'd never amount to anything I really wanted to find him so I could laugh at him. True story.

I'm glad to see tax dollars going to fund such a useful program. Almost as useful as drowning rhesus monkeys in smoke, or lobotimizing [or was it just implanting electrodes?] '******s' in Lousiana State Penetentiary.

Here's an interesting read of a man many have not heard of, Dr. Robert Heath. It is his study that they flaunt as showing that marijuana kills brain cells. They never mention his other studies though. [not to mention that that study was so damn flawed it really is amazing some people still source it]

Dr. Robert Heath

Worth noting that where I lived, it was a low-crime area, so the police got revenue from harassing teenagers, even had an "Underage Drinking Task Force", I shit you not, so I hope you don't think my advocating for fair DUI laws means advocating for police abuse.

I have personally told an officer no he couldn't search my car, and he retorted, " I was just being polite, I'm going to do it anyway". If only I'd been brave enough to call my parents rather than let my buddy get arrested for pot, possession, but nonethless, I realize full and well how they use these kinds of things to their benefit. I just disagree that it changes the merits of standing against truly drunk driving.