Confessions of a drunk driver

[MRK]

Sorry for that wall of text. I typed that as I remembered it and just rolled with it. If you take the time to read it in full, I hope you read it in a Ron Burgandy style, not a research style.

I was reminded of the rich scent of mahogany throughout its reading and enjoyed it rather much.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I really like the OP, as it illustrates the inherent corruption and stupidity of involuntary government law.

 

[Michigan11]

I really like the OP, as it illustrates the inherent corruption and stupidity of involuntary government law.

It really has nothing more to do with who your attorney is, how much money you have to spend. While in my attorney's office I found two subjects littering his library. One subject - DUI. 2nd subject - Domestic Violence. That was it, and he also readily admitted he helps fund the judges. The prosecutors knows the good attorneys and they are all friends with each other. This lawyer was a friend of my family, who has used him for other matters in the past.

The real point goes much deeper though, it has to do with growing up, and the trouble many go thru, learning how to grow up. As Jefferson stated, he would rather have the troubles of freedom rather than the troubles of tyranny. I grew up in a small town, and I got into alot of trouble, and as the police state has grown, kids today and their families can't really "afford" to get into "any" trouble. A perfect society we have today.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Each one of these counts as 0.03. For a male it takes 1 hour to eliminate 0.03, for a female it takes 1.5 hours.

Also, not to encourage anyone, but there is a proven method of reducing how much you blow. If you curl your tongue up along the roof of your mouth so your exhale blows through the sides of your mouth, you will blow less. Significantly less. I was told this by a friend back in college, and years later tried it out once with a bunch of people with a breathalyzer machine at a bar. It takes a decent chunk off the numbers and could easily mean the difference between a dewey or not.

That's good info to save for a rainy day.

+rep

 

[chudrockz]

I used to drink. ALOT. And I used to drink and drive quite a bit. Now, I rarely drink. That being said, I can only recall a couple of times being drunk enough that I thought I was driving poorly. The way I used to do it, if I was okay to walk steadily to my car, I drove just fine. If I was in a condition where I would have driven like shit, I probably would have fallen over on the way to my car and passed out till the next day. I never understood how people could drink and drive, and be "all over the road" or running red lights, etc. I am quite sure I never did that, even while "intoxicated."

And I never got stopped or got a DUI in my life.

 

[brandon]

I used to drink. ALOT. And I used to drink and drive quite a bit. Now, I rarely drink. That being said, I can only recall a couple of times being drunk enough that I thought I was driving poorly. The way I used to do it, if I was okay to walk steadily to my car, I drove just fine. If I was in a condition where I would have driven like shit, I probably would have fallen over on the way to my car and passed out till the next day. I never understood how people could drink and drive, and be "all over the road" or running red lights, etc. I am quite sure I never did that, even while "intoxicated."

And I never got stopped or got a DUI in my life.

Same experience here. I haven't drove drunk in years now, but for a while it was happening once or twice a week. The amount of times that I actually had trouble driving good were very rare. I do think this is a skill that some people can learn and become quite good at. I've never had a DUI. I have had two at-fault accidents (I rear ended someone) and both times I was stone cold sober.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The OP's account doesn't sound like a night of crime to me.

A spirited night of adventure maybe.

I've had a few myself, before we turned into pussified, pansy ass, police/safety state.

Hunter Thompson would approve.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

 

[squarepusher]

That would have been hilarious if you killed someone.

 

[TheGrinch]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

Should we then issue licenses to the sight-impaired and wait for them to kill or harm someone to do anything about it?

Should we let off those who recklessly and needlessly discharge a firearm in public, just because they didn't kill someone?

Do you wait until a criminal who has a gun pointed at innocent people shoots them before you stop him?

This notion that drunk driving is a victimless crime is absurd. It is at very least grossly negligent and is a huge threat to the liberty and safety of those around you when you hop into a 2 ton hunk of moving steel without the motor skills required to operate it.

I've been there in the OP's situation before, but it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong jsut because he got lucky and didn't hurt anyone with his reckless drunken behavior.

 

[KingNothing]

Drunk driving is ridiculously stupid. Be glad that you got caught and punished, and that the penalty was not severe.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and a lucky break, and never do it again.

You're a member of a civilized society. Have some respect for the magnitude of that. Don't do things that not only put other people at risk, but also could make your loved ones lose someone they care about.

 

[KingNothing]

The OP's account doesn't sound like a night of crime to me.

A spirited night of adventure maybe.

I've had a few myself, before we turned into pussified, pansy ass, police/safety state.

Hunter Thompson would approve.

All he did was roll the dice. He was gambling with lives. The one and only reason that nobody was injured is that he got lucky.

You're an even worse person than I took you for if you're willing to just brush the stupidity of the action aside.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not trying to rehash this debate but what do you think should be done Grinch? I am a superb drunk driver. Then again, I regularly drink and am not affected as much as someone who only drinks on St. Patty's or New Years. The times I have almost died in auto-accidents I was not the driver and the driver was stone cold sober. Of the few near death experiences I've had two were just because the person was a horrible driver. I don't even think I could put into words the scenario so I'm not even going to try. The worst part about it [besides almost dying] was that my entire family was outside of the house in their driveway and they didn't even see it.

My whole thing is this, I'm a good drunk driver. I can pass sobriety tests virtually blacked out. I should not be arbitrarily labeled as incapable to drive just because some people swerve or what have you at .08. If I exhibit that I can properly drive at .09 I should be able to drive where I'm heading. Some people swerve or cause wrecks at .03. Some people swerve or cause wrecks stone sober. I would really love to do a driving course over the limit. Then when I flawlessly pass when I'm .24 they should put as much on my license to where I not be considered for a DUI under that point.

The laws are ruining kids' lives. And my suspicions are that it is solely motivated by money and not public safety. We will never have the numbers of how many millions of people drive drunk flawlessly each year. I suspect that the number of DUI fatalities are but a .001 of a percent of total times people have driven drunk yearly without incident. If you further broke down the DUI fatalities I am sure some of those were not the fault of the person 'driving impaired.' As I said earlier, some people are just shitty drivers. Sure it is not a good idea to drive shitfaced drunk. But at what point is enough, enough? I'd argue that we've reached that point long ago and that it's time we start questioning the real motives behind DUI laws. We should start with check points and per se DUI laws.

 

[KingNothing]

The legal limit should NOT be federally mandated (which is effectively the case) and it should not be .08. The numbers show that almost all fatal drunk driving accidents happen above .16, I believe. Should that be the limit then? I think it should be lower than .16, but I don't think society gains anything by lowering the limit from .1 to .08.

I will rage day and night against drunk driving, but I'll also criticize nanny-staters like MADD who are taking things entirely too far.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Drunk driving is ridiculously stupid. Be glad that you got caught and punished, and that the penalty was not severe.

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and a lucky break, and never do it again.

You're a member of a civilized society. Have some respect for the magnitude of that. Don't do things that not only put other people at risk, but also could make your loved ones lose someone they care about.

This is what I'm talking about. Your post illustrates perfectly my problem with 'society.' I haven't come close to harming anyone. I've driven on learner permits with a fifth in my system matching a cop speed for speed, side by side, when we were the only two cars on the road, flawlessly. I've taken 7-10 xanax bars, smoked more blunts than I have fingers, drank enough beer as to have to stop multiple times at various stores, and drove flawlessly for close to 20 hours straight. All over the damn state. Three beers and people want to claim I shouldn't be driving a car? Must be out their damn mind. My piss is above .08.

My near death experiences are from people who can't drive for shit. Sober drivers, who are more of a danger than I ever was. A guy literally almost hit us head on, as the driver of the car I was in pulled halfway into the other lane and froze up. The oncoming car was traveling 60 or so miles per hour and went off of the road. He dodged like 6 telephone poles and ramped a hill before coming to a stop. The most incredible thing I've ever seen. I'm surprised he left without 'having a word' with my brother in law. It was probably because he had been drinking. We were right by the camp grounds that is notorious as a party spot.

Everyone I know 'drives under the influence.' The unlucky ones have DUIs on their records. Tail lights out or license plate bulbs etc. The laws on the books are ruining lives and indoctrinating 'free' people into a massive surveillance, checkpoint, State.

For the record, I do not do any drugs. Stories are from my childhood years when I was young and dumb. I don't even smoke cannabis anymore.

 

[Anti Federalist]

All he did was roll the dice. He was gambling with lives. The one and only reason that nobody was injured is that he got lucky.

You're an even worse person than I took you for if you're willing to just brush the stupidity of the action aside.

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The legal limit should NOT be federally mandated (which is effectively the case) and it should not be .08. The numbers show that almost all fatal drunk driving accidents happen above .16, I believe. Should that be the limit then? I think it should be lower than .16, but I don't think society gains anything by lowering the limit from .1 to .08.

I will rage day and night against drunk driving, but I'll also criticize nanny-staters like MADD who are taking things entirely too far.

I'm of the belief that people driving drunk and getting into accidents is completely overexaggerated. There is no way to tell how many people 'drive drunk' and make it home without incident. All we have is the numbers for those who have had their lives ruined or those in accidents. With regards to the accidents I am sure some of the people that were 'drunk' were not at fault and I am also sure some were shitty drivers to begin with. I don't think it is really justifiable to have these, 'click it or ticket' campaigns (how some otherwise good drivers get pulled over and get charged with a DUI) or to have state highway patrol hiding behind bushes and on off ramps, or check points. I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom for safety. And that comes with me knowing that some person might be impaired and that there is a enormously minute chance that I may be killed by said driver. Whether or not alcohol caused it, they can discuss later.

I just don't like the attitudes of the majority of our supposed-to-be-rebellious people.

 

[ninepointfive]

.16 when you got to the station? that's nothing


edit: nothing for how crazy you were acting and driving. must be a lightweight

 

[chudrockz]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

Chudrockz approves, wholeheartedly. You saved me the trouble of typing up something similar. Thanks.

 

[Danan]

Should we then issue licenses to the sight-impaired and wait for them to kill or harm someone to do anything about it?

Should we let off those who recklessly and needlessly discharge a firearm in public, just because they didn't kill someone?

Do you wait until a criminal who has a gun pointed at innocent people shoots them before you stop him?

This notion that drunk driving is a victimless crime is absurd. It is at very least grossly negligent and is a huge threat to the liberty and safety of those around you when you hop into a 2 ton hunk of moving steel without the motor skills required to operate it.

I've been there in the OP's situation before, but it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong jsut because he got lucky and didn't hurt anyone with his reckless drunken behavior.

It doesn't even need to be a "crime" in order to be enforced. It can be enforced like the rule not to be drunk at a shooting range, or other places where being drunk, high, extremely sleepy, etc. is a huge risk to fellow human beings. Ideally you could make a property rights argument.

Without the government, on private roads, there would be nothing wrong with those rules and most likely they would be enforced too. The question of whether or not government is the rightful property owner, or the people "own" it, or nobody owns it at all, is a tricky one. But it's still the least of my worries that they enforce sensible rules that would exist anyway on "their" property, even if they shouldn't "own" it in the first place.

At least no responsible person should do it and certainly nobody should be proud of doing it and talk about it like it's the most hilarious thing on earth.