DUI Laws that Encourage Driving Drunk

[Rapscallion]

Speaking of preparation, why do so many people drive to a bar? Doesn't take too much of what's available in there to be breaking the law when driving back.

Rapscallion

[PepperElf]

It comes down to personal responsibility. There are those who advocate installing breathalyzers in every new car as a tool to stopping drunk driving. I'm not one of them.

I agree... That is a BAD idea.

First of all, those are NOT cheap - why should I have to pay to get that device installed when I am not part of the problem in the first place? If I'm driving I won't have more than a couple of sips of alcohol and those sips won't be in my system by the time I get to the car.

Even if the government pays for it... I still have to pay for it in my taxes. so.. No. Waste of money.


Second. Some units do not register "Sober" if it's too cold outside. One of my former coworkers had this problem. He had a court-ordered breathalyzer in his car (he had to pay for it himself) for a year. During the winter, some mornings his car wouldn't start because it was too cold to register that he was sober.

This was Virginia where winter isn't so bad normally. Can you imagine the HELL in the north where winters are worse? How many people would be barred from driving simply because it was too cold for the machines to work... and none of them having done a damn thing to warrant having one in their car in the first place?

That's not right.

Speaking of preparation, why do so many people drive to a bar? Doesn't take too much of what's available in there to be breaking the law when driving back.

that's why my bf and I take turns on drinking. He knows I will get very relaxed if I drink (i mean a half glass or more) so he'll drive. and on the rare occurrences that he gets drunk I'll take the wheel and stay sober

and yes... i've driven to bars just to drink soda. but hey that's me.

[Panacea]

Sorry, I don't have the millions of dollars it takes to buy off a legislator.

Me, neither But people can and have successfully lobbied for changes in the law in the past. Why not again?

Not necessarily. Sometimes the only way to get a bad law repealed is to show that people will refuse to obey it. It's called "civil disobedience." Prohibition was repealed not because the powers that be realized it was a bad law, it's because people refused to obey it and it ended up causing more problems than it solved.

That would be fine by me, but these underage kids aren't drinking to make a political statement. They do it because they want to.

Even if he was nowhere near a car? That's a punishment that has absolutely nothing to do with a crime. And a victimless crime at that.

I actually don't have a problem with underage drinking. I think the laws are useless. But states are trying to control the problem of under age drinking and driving, which is HUGE. This is a tool in the arsenal. I'm not convinced it's a good tool, either. However, I do think that to have any teeth, laws must be enforced. These kids know the score when they get their licenses. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with the enforcement of this one . . . because they know the score when they get licensed.

What "public safety" is jeapordized by some 18-20 year old having a beer in a private place?

None . . . if he stays in the private place. He may not. He may decide to hop in the car and make a beer run at 2am before the liquor store closes and hit someone along the way . . . someone like me.

For this is precisely how I was injured in a drunk driving accident 12 years ago.

At the time, I had spent a late night gaming with Evil Empryss and her husband. She was still in the Air Force and lived on base. I left her house and was headed home when I saw headlights coming up very fast from behind. Before I had a chance to think, "Oh, shit he's going to hit me!" he had already done so . . . at 90 MPH (I was doing the speed limit of 55 MPH).

The rear end of my car bucked high up in the air and crashed back down to the pavement, causing the car to rock violently from side to side before I was able to regain control and pull over. How I didn't end up in a roll over to this day I will never understand. I'm just grateful, otherwise my injuries would have been far more serious.

As I jumped out of my car screaming bloody murder at the driver of the other car (my adrenaline was rather high at the time), who'd ended up in a ditch in the median (he hit me while I was in the right side lane), I saw someone take off into a field on the opposite side of the road.

I realized someone might be hurt because I could hear a woman start to scream. So I grabbed my EMT bag from the back of the car, and ran up. The driver's air bag had deployed, and a man's face was covered in blood but he refused to let me help him. I called 911. I asked who was driving, and the bloody man said the kid who ran off was. I asked whose car it was, the bloody man said it was his.

All 3 of the remaining people were drunk off their asses. I didn't believe their story for a minute; the bloodied man (and owner) was the driver. All were underage.

Oh, and I wasn't the only vehicle involved. Flying wreckage from the drunk driver's car damaged another car heading in the opposite direction.

The Highway Patrol said they couldn't do anything because they couldn't prove who the driver was. I told them to ask the owner's CO to order him to tell the truth but they never did.

His insurance still paid for the damage, and my medical expenses (I ended up with a soft tissue injury to my neck, "whiplash" and continue to have neck pain to this day). And he did lose a stripe over the incident.

His buddies on base gave him hell, too: turned out he was in Evil Empryss's squadron, and she made her displeasure at his injuring her best friend quite clear.

This is why I have no problem with underage driver's losing their licenses if they are caught drinking, regardless of whether they are anywhere near a car or not. At that age, the brain hasn't developed enough to make good judgement calls to start with. Add alcohol to the mix, and you really have a powerkeg waiting to go off.

No, thanks!

Technically, that would depend upon the laws of the land. It's usually a set percentage, and how many drinks get you to that percentage depends on the type of drink, how much body mass you have, and how quickly your metabolism works.

But that's irrelevant, because they can haul you in without having to arrest you. And if they don't arrest you, they don't have to read your rights. In California, you can be held for 48 hours without any charges being leveled.

^-.-^

Most states in the US, the legal limit is .08. My personal observation of drunk drivers whose Blood ETOH we test as part of their medical care? 240 (which works out ot .24), or three times the legal limit.

Most states can hold someone up to 72 hours without charge, though a lawyer will often go before a judge and demand a charge or release if it is not done in a reasonable amount of time, so practically speaking it is rare for that to happen.

You're right they don't have to read you your rights if they arrest you. They only have to read you your rights if they plan to interrogate you, regardless of whether they arrest you or not. If there's no need for an interrogation, they don't need to give the Miranda Warning. However, most cops do in order to cover themselves in court later as it is hard to convince a judge they didn't plan to question someone they detained without charge.

Speaking of preparation, why do so many people drive to a bar? Doesn't take too much of what's available in there to be breaking the law when driving back.

Rapscallion

I don't have a problem with the existence of bars, because you don't have to drive to one to get there. You can take a cab. Or you can have a designated driver.

I agree... That is a BAD idea.

First of all, those are NOT cheap - why should I have to pay to get that device installed when I am not part of the problem in the first place? Even if the government pays for it... I still have to pay for it in my taxes. so.. No. Waste of money.

I agree. Honest citizens should not be penalized for the actions of others.

Second. Some units do not register "Sober" if it's too cold outside. One of my former coworkers had this problem. He had a court-ordered breathalyzer in his car (he had to pay for it himself) for a year. During the winter, some mornings his car wouldn't start because it was too cold to register that he was sober.

This is interesting. I didn't know this. However, it does not change my mind on the necessity of these devices for convicted drunk drivers. Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for your former CW on this. Sucks to be him; he shouldn't have been drinking and driving. His difficulties are self inflicted and he could have avoided them by not drinking and driving. Hope it taught him a valuable lesson, because that was the entire point.

[protege]

These kids know the score when they get their licenses. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with the enforcement of this one . . . because they know the score when they get licensed.

Actually, for some kids...losing their license is painful. That is, it can put a huge dent in their social lives. That is, no driving to school and having to depend on their parents for a lift...which kinda cramps one's style on dates

[Greenday]

I actually don't have a problem with underage drinking. I think the laws are useless. But states are trying to control the problem of under age drinking and driving, which is HUGE. This is a tool in the arsenal. I'm not convinced it's a good tool, either. However, I do think that to have any teeth, laws must be enforced. These kids know the score when they get their licenses. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with the enforcement of this one . . . because they know the score when they get licensed.

I'd quote more stuff but it all comes down to the same argument. The punishment has NOTHING to do with the crime. You shouldn't pull someone's license for a completely non-driving related incident. It makes no sense. It's like executing someone for smoking weed: drastic overkill.

You then went off on a tangent about how that kid could end up driving. Ok, if he does drive, suspend his license. But if you find him in the living room having a beer, how does suspending his license make any sense? What does driving privileges have to do with the crime committed?

[Panacea]

I'd quote more stuff but it all comes down to the same argument. The punishment has NOTHING to do with the crime. You shouldn't pull someone's license for a completely non-driving related incident. It makes no sense. It's like executing someone for smoking weed: drastic overkill.

You then went off on a tangent about how that kid could end up driving. Ok, if he does drive, suspend his license. But if you find him in the living room having a beer, how does suspending his license make any sense? What does driving privileges have to do with the crime committed?

Actually, I went off on a "tangent" about how such a kid did end up driving! And how I was injured because of it, and continue to suffer pain because of it.

These laws are about prevention, and the penalties are supposed to have teeth. As protege pointed out, losing a license is a painful penalty for a teenage, and actually more productive for society than jail or a fine (that they probably can't pay) would be.

[protege]

As protege pointed out, losing a license is a painful penalty for a teenage, and actually more productive for society than jail or a fine (that they probably can't pay) would be.

In some cases, the fine really wouldn't hurt the teenager all that much. Many kids are spoiled brats...especially in the 'burbs, and depend on their parents for cash. Guess who would *really* be hit with the fine? Yep, the kid wouldn't learn anything, except that their parents are nothing more than a cash cow. That's probably why underage drinking involves losing one's license. They want to hit the kids where it hurts.

[Greenday]

Actually, I went off on a "tangent" about how such a kid did end up driving! And how I was injured because of it, and continue to suffer pain because of it.

These laws are about prevention, and the penalties are supposed to have teeth. As protege pointed out, losing a license is a painful penalty for a teenage, and actually more productive for society than jail or a fine (that they probably can't pay) would be.

So how would suspending a kid's license prevent him from driving drunk in the future if he was just caught having some drinks with friends? At most, he might wait to drink until he's 21. He didn't drink and drive so the penalty wouldn't be associated with drinking and driving.

[Andara Bledin]

These laws are about prevention, and the penalties are supposed to have teeth.

And yet, they obviously don't work. Your own experience is proof.

These kids were in the military, even, where there are even more punishments for doing stupid shit, and yet, they went ahead and did them, anyway.

And still, the deterrent involved actually pushes kids who otherwise would chose to stay put to end up behind the wheel. Because staying at a raided party will definitely get their licenses yanked, but if they get behind the wheel, they have a chance to get away clean. That is a serious flaw that goes far outside the intentions of the law.

^-.-^

[bara]

Punishing some one for what they could do is a bad idea on many levels. Its a slippery slope id rather not go down.

As for the teens losing thier liscence. I dont have a big problem with that. By breaking one law they are showing a disregard for the rules. I dont beleive its a lack of judgment teens are (barring some medical issues) capable of making informed decisions. When they show they are not willing to then they should be punished so that the possible destruction is limited.

But if some one who is old enough to drink is sleeping it off in thier back seat then they should not be arrested. I can see making them take a cab home or something if they are on private property and the property owner has a problem with it or some other factor that makes sleeping it off in your car unsafe (high crime area).

On the other hand, revoking peoples liscence doesnt keep the really bad ones from driving anyway. I would like to see harsher punishments for drunk drivers, especially habitual ones. But if some one is being smart and sleeping it off, let them alone.

[Panacea]

So how would suspending a kid's license prevent him from driving drunk in the future if he was just caught having some drinks with friends? At most, he might wait to drink until he's 21. He didn't drink and drive so the penalty wouldn't be associated with drinking and driving.

Because it would teach him laws have teeth, and that society is serious about alcohol related offenses. He already has to wait until 21 to drink. But if he drinks underage, he might have to wait until age 21 to drive.

And yet, they obviously don't work. Your own experience is proof.

These kids were in the military, even, where there are even more punishments for doing stupid shit, and yet, they went ahead and did them, anyway.

And still, the deterrent involved actually pushes kids who otherwise would chose to stay put to end up behind the wheel. Because staying at a raided party will definitely get their licenses yanked, but if they get behind the wheel, they have a chance to get away clean. That is a serious flaw that goes far outside the intentions of the law.

^-.-^

Actually, what happened to me happened before laws yanking licenses simply for drinking under age were enacted. In this case, the kid could easily have stayed on base . . . he left to buy more beer.

The idea that it is OK to get behind the wheel to get away from the cops is completely indefensible. It is never OK to endanger the lives of others for your own selfish reasons, and the law should not be changed on that basis.

Change it for other reasons, but not that. It sends entirely the wrong message.

[Andara Bledin]

Because it would teach him laws have teeth, and that society is serious about alcohol related offenses. He already has to wait until 21 to drink. But if he drinks underage, he might have to wait until age 21 to drive.

That's making the massive assumption that a kid who ignored one law won't ignore another. And we already know from experience that having laws on the books won't save lives. After all, it's illegal to drink and drive, and yet, that didn't stop the idiots who hurt you.

Actually, what happened to me happened before laws yanking licenses simply for drinking under age were enacted.

But drinking at that age was already illegal, as was driving while under the influence, and he was already under the threat of military punishment, as well. One more law to be broken wouldn't have done a damn thing to stop any of them.

The idea that it is OK to get behind the wheel to get away from the cops is completely indefensible.

Absolutely true. However, the law, as it stands, ends up making it more profitable for those already breaking the law to break another rather than just stay put, which is the whole problem.

Potential consequences will always be more attractive than guaranteed consequences.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

You shouldn't punish someone for a crime they didn't commit. Also, believe it or not, not every teenager is a spoiled brat that will get off the hook thanks to a parent. I would have been forced to pay such a fine myself, as would many others. Community service could work as well...make 'em volunteer for a rehab program so they can see first-hand the effects of alcoholism.

I do think minors should be allowed to have a drink in their own home if supervised by parents/guardians. I do think that 21-older college students should be allowed to keep alcohol in dorm rooms. I also think that if a fraternity or sorority is caught serving alcohol to a minor, they get their charter pulled for at least a year and all current members are kicked out permanently. Let's pass measures that will focus on keeping kids safe and curb binge drinking instead of padding pocketbooks.

[PepperElf]

This is interesting. I didn't know this. However, it does not change my mind on the necessity of these devices for convicted drunk drivers. Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for your former CW on this. Sucks to be him; he shouldn't have been drinking and driving. His difficulties are self inflicted and he could have avoided them by not drinking and driving. Hope it taught him a valuable lesson, because that was the entire point.

O yes, I totally agree that convicted drunk drivers should be forced to do this - and at their own expense.

Just like my coworker was.


I'm ONLY against the notion of forcing it into every car and thus punishing innocent people with a device that they didn't earn... and one that might malfunction and remove their right to drive when they're perfectly sober.

But if some one who is old enough to drink is sleeping it off in thier back seat then they should not be arrested.

Provided they have not engaged the engine or inserted the key. Backseat or not they can get ticketed for operating the vehicle under the influence.

Best to throw the keys under the seat if you're going to do that.

Although really they should plan ahead. I mean it's not as if they went out and drank by accident or tripped and and a beer fell in their mouthes...

[MadMike]

Actually, I went off on a "tangent" about how such a kid did end up driving! And how I was injured because of it, and continue to suffer pain because of it.

And the fact that the guy was underage is incidental. It could have easily been the 50-year-old that I posted about.

I keep hearing "I support the punishment because it's the law." What if the law stated that driving one mile over the speed limit was punishable by death? Would you support that as well? At some point, the law goes too far.