Confessions of a drunk driver

[torchbearer]

we have to wait for them to harm others

Just say no to pre-crimes.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

I think we all agree on what reckless driving is. If you are swerving down the highway or going off the edge of the road then yes, you should be charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle. We have laws in place already, without the need for these DUI laws. And not having a limit while not abolishing DUI laws altogether is troublesome. A police officer could be sole reason you are arrested and charged. Sure, the charges might get thrown out but still.

I'd like to see a more reasonable approach. If a man goes over the line, he gets a ticket, if it seen that he is intoxicated to the point that he should not be driving, the car should be parked safely off of the road, and the man ought to be given a ride home. Ruining the lives of of young adults for a crime that basically everyone has committed does not seem like justice. Especially when he didn't swerve or exhibit any dangerous actions

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).

I agree. I think we have about the same position? Aside from maybe what ought to be done if someone clearly should not be operating a vehicle. And that I want to do away with DUI laws and use laws that are already on the books. Reckless op. etc.

 

[QuickZ06]

Thanks to all who shared there insight.

 

[Son of Detroit]

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.

Since when is not wanting to greatly endanger my life as well as the lives of others equal me being a government conditioned citizen?

I never had DARE, it's just common sense to not get behind the wheel of a heavy metal box going 70 mph in an altered state of mind. My parents have told me not to drink and drive, but that's them doing their job as parents.

As others have said, just because people are arguing against the action doesn't mean they're arguing for a "statist" position. I don't agree with random stops or checkpoints either.

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.

Notice I've never said anything about laws. Even if there were no laws, I would still consider anyone who drives under the influence of alcohol to be horribly irresponsible and would have zero respect for that person.

Just because you have the liberty to do something, doesn't mean you should do it.

 

[Son of Detroit]

If you're not even 21 yet you probably 1) can't hold your liquor very well

Is this a challenge?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.....

So does lack of sleep, certain medications, and certain medical conditions. Therefore, everyone must be tested for these things at checkpoints. Safety Uber Alles! Remain children forever! It's for your own good and the good of The Borg!

The future is so full of fail.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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).

Wreckless driving and endagerment are legitimate offenses. The issue is whether alcohol should make consequences worse. I say no. Distracted driving is statistically far more dangerous than drunk driving. Just put all dangerous driving under one "umbrella" with varying degrees. That avoids the precrime nonsense that comes with checkpoints and such. A reasonable compromise, I hope.

 

[phill4paul]

Wreckless driving and endagerment are legitimate offenses. The issue is whether alcohol should make consequences worse. I say no. Distracted driving is statistically far more dangerous than drunk driving. Just put all dangerous driving under one "umbrella" with varying degrees. That avoids the precrime nonsense that comes with checkpoints and such. A reasonable compromise, I hope.

In the spirit of compromise ( I know, I know ) What would all think about this possible solution.

As we know in most offences there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances that define sentencing guidelines. So here is my proposal.

DUI would not be considered a 'stand alone' crime. No check points, no nothing.
DUI would be considered an aggravating factor w/ regards to reckless driving/endangerment laws.
DUI as an aggravating factor could lead to harsher penalties and even court ordered treatment programs. Recurrence (recidivism) of DUI as an aggravating factor in multiple reckless driving/endangerment cases could scale to even harsher penalties reflective of current DUI sentencing guidelines.

Of course this is just an exercise in futility. The prohibitionists have already won and DUI law will never change at this point.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Would DUI be considered an aggravating factor for say, speeding, or improper lane change? I could see many instances where the officer would attest that the driving was reckless yet if a sober driver did the same, it would just be considered a moving violation. No turn signal and such.

 

[phill4paul]

Would DUI be considered an aggravating factor for say, speeding, or improper lane change? I could see many instances where the officer would attest that the driving was reckless yet if a sober driver did the same, it would just be considered a moving violation. No turn signal and such.

OK. To be clear let me get my definition of reckless driving then..... And also in realization that it means something different in each state........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving

In United States law, reckless driving is a major moving traffic violation. It is usually a more serious offense than careless driving, improper driving, or driving without due care and attention and is often punishable by fines, imprisonment, and/or driver's license suspension or revocation.

So no, I would not consider it an aggravating factor for moving violations in the above scenario.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In the spirit of compromise ( I know, I know ) What would all think about this possible solution.

As we know in most offences there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances that define sentencing guidelines. So here is my proposal.

DUI would not be considered a 'stand alone' crime. No check points, no nothing.
DUI would be considered an aggravating factor w/ regards to reckless driving/endangerment laws.
DUI as an aggravating factor could lead to harsher penalties and even court ordered treatment programs. Recurrence (recidivism) of DUI as an aggravating factor in multiple reckless driving/endangerment cases could scale to even harsher penalties reflective of current DUI sentencing guidelines.

Of course this is just an exercise in futility. The prohibitionists have already won and DUI law will never change at this point.

+rep In a sane world, a judge and jury would look at the facts and testimony and make a reasonable judgement WRT fines and such...but that's probably not going to happen either.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

OK. To be clear let me get my definition of reckless driving then..... And also in realization that it means something different in each state........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving
So no, I would not consider it an aggravating factor for moving violations in the above scenario.

I could get behind it then. I'd be worried about police abusing their authority and drivers being labeled and convicted as reckless on their word alone but aside from that I think it would be ten-fold better than what we have now. Add in HB34's post about a judge and jury assessing each case individually as to the punishment warranted and I think it could work out.

For the children though, it is never going to happen.

 

[phill4paul]

I could get behind it then. I'd be worried about police abusing their authority and drivers being labeled and convicted as reckless on their word alone but aside from that I think it would be ten-fold better than what we have now. Add in HB34's post about a judge and jury assessing each case individually as to the punishment warranted and I think it could work out.

For the children though, it is never going to happen.

Well, this would certainly have been in line with what the founder of MADD had envisioned. The whole reason MADD was started was to get repeat offenders off the road. She left the organization after MADD's attention focused on changing drinking laws like raising the drinking age to 21.

 

[Shredmonster]

Fools who give up liberty. How I wished this country was 2 separate countries sometimes and you idiots leave the rest of us alone. Our side will have freedom and you guys go ahead and arrest people in your country for pre-crimes without them hurting anyone.

Why don't we just arrest everybody because everybody has the POTENTIAL to hurt other people be it negligence, intent etc...

Sound stupid ? That is what many here abdicate. You can apply your pre-crime arrest to anything. You might hurt somebody over the course of your life so why don't we just arrest your ass right now and get it over with ? To say this should apply just to drinking is shallow and a total cop out.

Gee lets arrest everyone because at some point in their life they will drive TIRED - look up the stats - way more accidents are cause by tired drivers.

The ignorant (and I mean that in a good way !) cannot separate the concepts of the law, of freedom and of liberty from their specific cause that being in this case drinking. Oh but we only apply pre-crime arrests to those that drink. Why stop there ? What about stupidity - the inability to properly judge speed, distance, cause and effect....
What about drowsiness ? What about medication ? What about texting ? What about radio distraction ?

And why stop at just driving ? Lets expand this everywhere to everything and everybody. Happy now ? Slippery slope anybody ?
And you people will be the first to bitch when YOU LOSE YOUR FREEDOM.

Unfortunately most people today don't have a clue as the the concepts and philosophy let alone knowledge of this country or real history to make any kind of judgement call based on rational thinking and sound principles.

Like I said there are lines you cannot cross and describe yourself as someone who believes in freedom and liberty no matter what your pet peeve is even if it means potential danger. You either believe in freedom or you don't there is no middle nor exceptions.

As others have mentioned if someone swerves we have reckless driving etc... But this thing has gone way way overboard to the point of unconstitutional entrapments and the like.

You think the government gives a shit weather you live or die ? Do you really ? DWI has become a business onto itself for lawyers and rehabilitation, psychologists, etc... Follow the money like always.

However you dogooders take the bait hook line and sinker and are willing to give up your freedoms for safety. People never learn.

 

[Michigan11]

You know alot of regaining our freedom is going to be able to equate it in a perspective that is digestable for others that have never known such freedom. I still drool at my uncle's stories, of driving around hitting snow banks in the winter, with rear wheel drive grand prix, with tee tops, that I still remember as a kid. He was the opposite of what one might deem irresponsible, he was very together, and a bachelor most of his life, he's older now, and much more mediocre today with a wife now of ten years. My brother had an instance of driving into a neighbors drive way one night, and walking 100' to our house, only to wake up the next morning with a killer headache and regret, being the older brother. Those times are now long past, and my brother was always very responsible, and still is, he has subdued greately, rarely drinks, unless I"m around feeding him good quality beers of course. Back in the day, my father was a small town city manager of where I grew up, and today he says if only more of the local politicians would drink with each other, they might just get along. Yet you can't, you might get a dui, or thrown in a paper on the front page.

Many that have never or will never know the problems that come with getting arrested for drinking and driving, might want to talk with those older. Most of my friends I grew up with and have today, either have a dui or know others that do. It's a perspective to try to see in the right way, not something anyone is advocating to go out and do, nor is the other side of the equation advocating for these laws.

There is however a part 2, or deuce to my story, that involve further police involvement that deserves another thread. The law of this occurrence was of a different nature, however, and is a very dangerous law indeed. I may try to post that here soon.

 

[Wooden Indian]

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.

I misunderstood your other post... I can get behind your point here. The DUI arbitrary BAC number is a joke of a system placed in to law by overzealous groups like MADD. Finding someone impaired (alcohol, tired, crying, angry) while operating, swerving or displaying other signs of recklessness, should be (if needed to sleep it off) a night in the pokie with a fine for the paperwork and room/board.

Of course the current laws want to throw someone in a cage for extended stay and ruin them financially when there was no real victim, and that is the problem I have with the system. it's an emotionally driven, lobbyist written, piece of shit, and should not stand in a true society.

Caging a man and ruining his life over hypotheticals is asinine at best. Needless to say, any person that kills another could be charged for manslaughter (in my perfect World) for any negligent death caused on the roadway... alcohol related or not.

The man that killed my brother did 5 years. 5 years for taking the life of a child. Yet, get stuck with a shitty attorney, blow over by .01 and say goodbye to your reputation, your savings, you driver's license, and even your life as you know it.

Bull shit.

 

[brandon]

Is this a challenge?

lol well maybe you can I don't know you. I just remember when I was 19... getting drunk generally meant getting really sloppy, committing petty crimes, and losing control was kind of celebrated. When you're 30 it's a whole different experience. Getting drunk at 30 means sitting around talking with friends and not really showing any visable signs of intoxication until all of a sudden you spill your drink and everyone stares at you and then you go home. lol

 

[phill4paul]

lol well maybe you can I don't know you. I just remember when I was 19... getting drunk generally meant getting really sloppy, committing petty crimes, and losing control was kind of celebrated. When you're 30 it's a whole different experience. Getting drunk at 30 means sitting around talking with friends and not really showing any visable signs of intoxication until all of a sudden you spill your drink and everyone stares at you and then you go home. lol

Which really comes down to the minimum age drinking laws which lead to these actions. But, you will never see them role those back due to MADD.

 

[MelissaWV]

Confessions of someone who damaged property.

I would not really care what the root cause is. At least it seems like the bulk of the damage was to your own property.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Which really comes down to the minimum age drinking laws which lead to these actions. But, you will never see them role those back due to MADD.

Roll them back? Hell they're expanding them. More checkpoints and traffic stops. Anything over .02 for anyone under 21. That's one beer and drive and it will be hard to ever get your life back on track. Classes and jailtime, thousands in fines and court costs. It's sickening. As wooden indian stated,

[the system is] an emotionally driven, lobbyist written, piece of shit, and should not stand in a true society.

That sums it up nicely.