DUI discussion

[nickdrinkwater]

In some places it's not illegal to drink-drive.  I think it's Lebanon where if you are driving after drinking, you just put your hazard lights on and people give you extra room.

Maybe America should try that.

[Rupert]

Ha! I like it.

[Tave]

In some places it's not illegal to drink-drive.? I think it's Lebanon where if you are driving after drinking, you just put your hazard lights on and people give you extra room.

Maybe America should try that.

Wyoming allowed open-containers until recently. A lot of drive-through liquor stores that are also bars will still serve drivers a "cocktail-to-go."

[JWC]

I think it's Lebanon where if you are driving after drinking, you just put your hazard lights on and people give you extra room.

Must be a lot of Lebanese in my area then.  Seems I see someone driving around with the flashers on, for no apparent reason, about twice a week.

[the nameless one]

In some places it's not illegal to drink-drive.? I think it's Lebanon where if you are driving after drinking, you just put your hazard lights on and people give you extra room.

Maybe America should try that.

No, we shouldn't try that. Many US drunks can't even remember to turn on their headlights, and you know what to credit them with enough intelligence to turn on 4 ways?

[Rupert]

I think you meant "now", not "know". Also, you probably meant "want" instead of "what".

[Rupert]

Wyoming allowed open-containers until recently. A lot of drive-through liquor stores that are also bars will still serve drivers a "cocktail-to-go."

Ditto Montana. 

[NomisR]

I think we should just legitimize drinking, smoking and all drugs.  The more we try to criminalize drugs and alcohol, the more likely kids would try it and use it because it's "cool".   If something is perfectly legal to use, why would kids try it?  For fun?? Please.. they only do it to be cool.. just like kids under 18 to smoke... do u think people really like it at first???

I tried smoking once when I was.. 7 I think.. after 1 puff.... never again...  drinking never caught my attention because I was free to but was never interested..

[Minpin]

I think we should just legitimize drinking, smoking and all drugs.  The more we try to criminalize drugs and alcohol, the more likely kids would try it and use it because it's "cool".   If something is perfectly legal to use, why would kids try it?  For fun?? Please.. they only do it to be cool.. just like kids under 18 to smoke... do u think people really like it at first???

I tried smoking once when I was.. 7 I think.. after 1 puff.... never again...  drinking never caught my attention because I was free to but was never interested..

Seriously, I see stuff like this all the time at school. Kids will be dipping in class or smoking in the bathrooms. They do it because they think they are being badasses. If the legal limit was 14 the uses of these substances would drop drastically because they would no longer be badasses for using these things.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I think we should just legitimize drinking, smoking and all drugs.? The more we try to criminalize drugs and alcohol, the more likely kids would try it and use it because it's "cool".? ?If something is perfectly legal to use, why would kids try it?? For fun?? Please.. they only do it to be cool.. just like kids under 18 to smoke... do u think people really like it at first???

I tried smoking once when I was.. 7 I think.. after 1 puff.... never again...? drinking never caught my attention because I was free to but was never interested..

The first time I tried smoking, I thought it was delicious. No kidding.   

[Tave]

The first time I smoked tabacco was from a cigar and I enjoyed it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The first time I smoked tabacco was from a cigar and I enjoyed it.

First time for me was some generic brand cigarette. I really liked the taste. And the buzzzz.  I didn't even cough. I guess I just wasn't as sensitive as most people are. 

[Tave]

Ooooo, it's been years since I've gotten "the buzz"

[Eye of the Tiger]

Ooooo, it's been years since I've gotten "the buzz"

Take a break, then start again. You'll get it. 

[Rupert]

Seriously... I never did a drug 'cause the cool kids did it. I did drugs 'cause drugs are fun!

I'm all for legalizing just about everything, but for different reasons.

[bing_oh]

In some places it's not illegal to drink-drive.? I think it's Lebanon where if you are driving after drinking, you just put your hazard lights on and people give you extra room.

Maybe America should try that.

I can't imagine a law the defies the concept of individual responsability more. You guys realize that it's a lack of belief in individual responsability that causes so many law to be passed, right?

[Raza]

The first time I tried smoking, I thought it was delicious. No kidding.? ?

That's horrible.




Smoking is bad for you and anyone who smokes, sells cigarettes, buys cigarettes, talks to cigarettes, smells like cigarettes, or knows people who smoke, sell, buy, or talks to cigarettes should be locked up. 

[Raza]

Ooooo, it's been years since I've gotten "the buzz"

I don't smoke enough to get that tolerance.  I get the buzz every time.  And after a clove, I can't walk straight. 

[JYODER240]

I think we should just legitimize drinking, smoking and all drugs.? The more we try to criminalize drugs and alcohol, the more likely kids would try it and use it because it's "cool".? ?If something is perfectly legal to use, why would kids try it?? For fun?? Please.. they only do it to be cool.. just like kids under 18 to smoke... do u think people really like it at first???

I tried smoking once when I was.. 7 I think.. after 1 puff.... never again...? drinking never caught my attention because I was free to but was never interested..

I think if you're under 18 a parent/legal guardian can give you alcohol. But it's considered child abuse if the minor becomes intoxicated.

[Raza]

I think if you're under 18 a parent/legal guardian can give you alcohol. But it's considered child abuse if the minor becomes intoxicated.

I don't know how it is in the People's Republic of Ohio, but in Pennsylvania, that's not true.  If you give a child alcohol, the child has broken the law, and so have you. 

[JWC]

I don't know how it is in the People's Republic of Ohio, but in Pennsylvania, that's not true.  If you give a child alcohol, the child has broken the law, and so have you. 

Same in North Carolina.

[BartsSVO]

I think real DUI is a very serious matter that should be dealt with severely.

OTOH, I deplore this nannyish approach that our society takes to these issues.  We acknowledge that drunk driving is a problem, and that the vast majority of the DUI crashes are caused by people with a BAC over a certain level; let's say for argument's sake that that level is 0.15.

So instead of targeting those who drive at that BAC level with severe penalties, we lower the BAC level at which it is illegal to drive.  This is the same approach we've taken to speeding -- we say that people who drive at 100 mph on the highway create danger, so we make the speed limit 55 mph, and criminalize nearly everybody in the process.

The lower the BAC level is at which driving is considered DUI, the more socially acceptable DUI will be, and the harder it will be to separate borderline people with truly dangerous drunks and target the dangerous drunks with meaningful penalties.  This is exactly where our nannyish approach to speeding has led -- speeding tickets are something that people laugh at and joke about with their friends, and few people are embarrassed by them -- and I fear we're going down the same path with DUI, as we cast a wider net for violators rather than target the right people.

Our society has a major case of ADD, and seems unable to look at issues broadly.  Instead, we deal with the issue du jour, and ignore other similar issues that are causing the same problem.  An example of this is all the distractions that are built into modern cars, and the fact that so many people 'multitask' as they're driving.  I don't mean to sound sexist, but I think this is a bigger problem with women than men.  I think that distracted drivers, drivers who aren't paying attention to the road because they're putting on their makeup, shaving, eating, talking on their cellphones, etc. are as big a problem as those who are driving with a marginal BAC level.

I don't mean to condone drunk driving, but there isn't some magical point where a person goes from being sober enough to be considered a safe driver to being a dangerous drunk.  It's something that happens gradually as BAC increases, so maybe it would be a better idea to at least have graduated penalties, rather than the approach we have now.

My thoughts exactly. I would add that in order to obtain a DUI conviction for someone who blows less than .10, you have to prove impairment as well. That would effectively eliminate the ability for politicians to kiss up to certain groups that would like to see us return to prohibition, but at the same time would not make it look like they're being weak on DUI.

If you get convicted under that scheme, then the first offense needs to be a mandatory 6 month suspension with NO provisional license allowed. Basically, if you're stupid enough not to call a taxi or friend, or have a DD, then you you get to face the choir, so to speak, with your employer, etc.. IMHO, this would probably be substantial enough to make most social drinkers think twice before getting behind the wheel of a car.

[BartsSVO]

QUothe Wikipedia:

It looks like the law fucked itself in that case. It's a shame. Now the speed limit is just a number. A number that never changes.

But it used to be something more like this:

A person . . . shall drive the vehicle . . . at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation . . . so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's because there are actually still a ton of laws in the books that are completely subjective in nature. But, it seems like as soon as something becomes a big issue, some politicians feel like it needs to have a specific value assigned to it, even if they pull it straight out of their asses.

I just hate it when you happen to be doing something completely reasonable, but then the law comes around a fucks you because you exceeded a specified value that is supposed to apply to every situtation. You're right, we are fallible humans, and we make fallible laws, so we can't pretend that they're perfect.

It's not like I have answer to all the world's problems, I'm just complaining here. I really hate laws and politics. I just want to live my life and not be hassled.

It really wasn't a problem with the law per-se, but rather law enforcement and our (US) society's obsession with a numerical speed limit. Of course without a numerical limit it also makes it difficult for every podunk PD that has an interstate running through it to raise revenue from over-zealous enforcement of said limit. Not to mention the impact on the insurance industry's bottom line.

[Tave]

It really wasn't a problem with the law per-se, but rather law enforcement and our (US) society's obsession with a numerical speed limit. Of course without a numerical limit it also makes it difficult for every podunk PD that has an interstate running through it to raise revenue from over-zealous enforcement of said limit. Not to mention the impact on the insurance industry's bottom line.

That's one part of the story. The other part is it makes it more difficult to prosecute legitimate offenders.

Like I said before, when deregulation in Montana happened, everyone and their dog was in the courtroom fighting speeding tickets, even if they completely deserved the ones they got. It created chaos, and in the end, motorists have themselves to blame for the renig of that law. Not politicians, not police departements, not insurance agencies. Greedy individuals are the reason the system didn't work.

[BartsSVO]

That's one part of the story. The other part is it makes it more difficult to prosecute legitimate offenders.

Like I said before, when deregulation in Montana happened, everyone and their dog was in the courtroom fighting speeding tickets, even if they completely deserved the ones they got. It created chaos, and in the end, motorists have themselves to blame for the renig of that law. Not politicians, not police departements, not insurance agencies. Greedy individuals are the reason the system didn't work.

What constitutes a legitimate offender? What happened in Montana is the police departments continued to write people up for the same speeds they did before the repeal of the 65 mph limit. If I was written up for doing 85 on a relatively deserted 4 lane interstate, very few people outside of the speeding ticket industry would argue that speed was somehow dangerous.

Yes, there were the small minorities who were coming to Montana to stretch the limits of the law and if they were driving with little regard to those around them, then I'm sure they got what they deserved. But calling someone who was doing 80 mph abusing the law is laughable. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has done a little more research on the situation in Montana and see how many of the tickets being written were below 90 mph. God forbid someone get somewhere quickly!

[Tave]

Yes, there were the small minorities who were coming to Montana to stretch the limits of the law and if they were driving with little regard to those around them, then I'm sure they got what they deserved. But calling someone who was doing 80 mph abusing the law is laughable. I'd be interested to hear from someone who has done a little more research on the situation in Montana and see how many of the tickets being written were below 90 mph. God forbid someone get somewhere quickly!

And yet you weren't interested to hear from someone who lives there and lived through the controversy. How interesting.


No one was getting written up for 80 in good weather in light traffic. No one.

[Tave]

What constitutes a legitimate offender? What happened in Montana is the police departments continued to write people up for the same speeds they did before the repeal of the 65 mph limit. If I was written up for doing 85 on a relatively deserted 4 lane interstate, very few people outside of the speeding ticket industry would argue that speed was somehow dangerous.

That's not what happened, and the limit was 75. You can still do 80-85 on most stretches of Montana interstate and not have a care in the world. I drive over 80 and have never had a problem driving through south-central Montana, the area of the state where high-speeds are the safest (excluding the area around Lodgegrass and Crow Agency, don't speed through the Indian reservation ).


Hell, my buddy was picked up for doing a tick over 100 a few years ago and got a $20 dollar ticket

Edit: might have been $40, but still you get the point.

[Tave]

My mistake Bart, it seems Montana went to its no limit at the same time Wyoming raised ours to 75. I thought there was a period before unrestricted speed where they had a 75 limit too. My bad.


The rest of my post stands.

[Tave]

For reference Bart, the specific case that precipitated the law being changed involved a man caught doing 85 on a two-lane mountain highway north of Missoula (as far as I can tell ).

Could his car handle it? Maybe, but you can't fault the trooper in that situation. He wasn't preying on anyone. You can't expect to do 85 on a two-lane and not be questioned. The man appealed the conviction all the way to Montana's Supreme Court, and they overturned his conviction and ruled that "reasonable and prudent" violated due process of the Montana constitution. After that, it meant that there was theoretically NO speed anyone could drive and be ticketed for, so the legislature was forced to come up with a number.

If the guy would have took his 85 on a TWO-LANE like a man (and it probably was a paltry fine to begin with), then the rest of us might still be enjoying unrestricted limits on Montana highways today. At least until some other asshole came along and pulled a similar stunt.

[Tave]

And the plot thickens! It seems Mr Stanko, the man who appealed his speeding ticket in Montana's Supreme Court, is no stranger to civic controversy (if who I'm reading about is the same Rudy Stanko). The man is a freemen nut-case, who has a long history of obnoxious lawsuits and despises government.

http://w3.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups346.html

Evidently he's also the founder of a racist church. How charming.



But the worst part of the whole mess: he's a resident (or was) of my town.



Here's the actual case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MT&vol=97&invol=486


Here's an essay on the subject of the "basic rule:"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MT&vol=97&invol=486




I want to make it clear: I don't know for sure if the Rudy Stanko who ruined Montana golden days is the same Rudy Stanko, 'hate-mongering freemen bigot,' but it seems like a distinct possibility.