DUI discussion

[bing_oh]

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.

In Ohio, a parent, spouse, or legal guardian 21 years or older can legally provide his/her child or spouse with alcoholic beverages. The person being provided with the alcoholic beverages must remain in the custody and control of the parent, spouse, or legal guardian while under the influence, however. Realize that this only applies to a parent/child or spousal situation...it's still illegal to provide alcoholic beverages to someone under the age of 21unless they have that relation to you.

As for the child abuse thing, that's not necessarily true. If a parent were to get a 5 year old drunk, then I'd agree that it's child abuse. The same doesn't necessarily apply to your 17 year old child.

[rohan]

In Ohio, a parent, spouse, or legal guardian 21 years or older can legally provide his/her child or spouse with alcoholic beverages.

In Michigan that's "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" misdemeanor and if there is antoher minor there and drinking the parents can be cited also for "House Party" violation.  Kids don't legally ever drink here.

[bing_oh]

In Michigan that's "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" misdemeanor and if there is antoher minor there and drinking the parents can be cited also for "House Party" violation.? Kids don't legally ever drink here.

It's not a law that I agree with, personally. Even worse, some of our judges have a bad habit of interpeting that section of law to mean that a kid can legally drink with the permission of the parent and then go out under the influence without their parent present. So, we get more and more kids saying that they were drinking with mom and dad and the enabling parents back up the lie. It's particularly problematic in my area, which has a long cultural history of accepting underage consumption.

[JYODER240]

In Ohio, a parent, spouse, or legal guardian 21 years or older can legally provide his/her child or spouse with alcoholic beverages. The person being provided with the alcoholic beverages must remain in the custody and control of the parent, spouse, or legal guardian while under the influence, however. Realize that this only applies to a parent/child or spousal situation...it's still illegal to provide alcoholic beverages to someone under the age of 21unless they have that relation to you.

As for the child abuse thing, that's not necessarily true. If a parent were to get a 5 year old drunk, then I'd agree that it's child abuse. The same doesn't necessarily apply to your 17 year old child.

I knew it was something like that. Kinda funny how you can at any age except for 18, 19, or 20.

[bing_oh]

I knew it was something like that. Kinda funny how you can at any age except for 18, 19, or 20.

I don't follow... The same thing applies to 18, 19, and 20 year olds.

[JYODER240]

I don't follow... The same thing applies to 18, 19, and 20 year olds.

You mean a parent/legal guardian can you alcohol if you're 18,19, or 20? So basicaly you're still treated as a minor?

[bing_oh]

You mean a parent/legal guardian can you alcohol if you're 18,19, or 20? So basicaly you're still treated as a minor?

Yea, pretty much. Or you can marry an older woman and she can buy it for you.

[TurboDan]

thank god they dont enforce BUI like they do DUI

Ha, nothing like heat, humidity and salt water to get people drunker faster.  With the way most people operate boats these days (just yesterday, I saw a jet-skiier going full speed through about 75 boats on a cell phone) you gotta be shit faced out of your mind to actually get a BUI. 

Though I've never actually see it being done, from what I've heard, it's rare that someone will get pulled over (hailed) by the NJSP Marine Police or any of the local towns with police boats for BUI - rather, they'll go to popular anchorages and get people pulling out at a slow speed who they witnessed drinking a lot.  But, as I said, I've never actually seen it happen.  In addition, i suppose if the CG pulls you over for a safety inspection, and you're hammered, you're heading to the NJSP Marine station in cuffs.

[TurboDan]

Back on the topic of DUI...  I think the U.S. (and some other countries) have it worse because of the lack of public transport available.  Obviously, in US cities you never have to worry.  However, the US is a huge country and therefore cities are few and far between.  Most of the US is suburban, which means there are no public buses or subways, though there is a decently dense population level.  People do not want to take taxis in the US because they can't afford them.  I know that to get the the popular bar areas where I live by taxi, it would cost $50 (and we're only talking 6-7 miles).  Both ways.  That's $100 just for transportation.

What some bars in NJ have done is actually provide transportation in Sprinter vans or even small buses.  Basically, if you've patronized the bar, they'll provide transportation.  People really take advantage of it too, and it's done a lot to ease DUI problems. Perhaps state/local ABCs should provide liquor licenses to certain types of businesses on the condition that they do something like this. 

[Tave]

Our University operates a transit system they call "Safe Ride." On Thurs., Fri., and Sat. nights a couple vans and volunteers spend their evening shuttling people between the bars and their houses. The system is completely free.

[dazzleman]

Our University operates a transit system they call "Safe Ride." On Thurs., Fri., and Sat. nights a couple vans and volunteers spend their evening shuttling people between the bars and their houses. The system is completely free.

I like that idea, and Dan's idea.  I think it's easier to accomplish in a university setting, where people are living in relatively close proximity to each other.

My town has had a SafeRides program, mostly for teenagers, in the past, but I'm not sure if it is still running.  It's hard to keep up the momentum with the volunteers required.

Does this program mean the school effectively looks the other way on the drinking age restrictions?  Obviously, most of their students aren't legal drinkers, but virtually all of them must drink.  In some cases, I think the 21-year-old drinking age could actually hamper safety efforts (not to mention that it makes drinking more attractive to those underage).

[Tave]

Does this program mean the school effectively looks the other way on the drinking age restrictions??

No it doesn't. The dormitories have strict substance-policies (nothing that will ruin your life, but they're going to hassle you if you get caught), and the college bars are serious about who they allow through their doors.



On the other hand, the city police are very understanding about house parties. They don't issue MIPs, and only break the parties up if they're loud and obnoxious. Even in that case, they send the kids home.



Of course since I turned 21, house parties seem to be a thing of the past. At least the full-on, 200 people, cars in the lawn and kids on the chandelier type house parties. I went to one last year, and it took 20 seconds for the utter immaturity to piss me and my friends off enough into leaving.

[James Young]

Let us not confuse popular techniques such as punishment with effective measures to reduce crashes caused by impairment due primarily to alcohol.

The population most involved with alcohol-caused crashes is already known to us because most of them have had multiple encounters with the judicial system.  Most of the LEOs here could name perhaps a dozen problematic cases in their own region.

Yet, to combat this phenomenon, we ignore that population and expand the larger population of potential arrestees by defining ?drunk? more broadly.  Obviously, this spreads resources too thinly, diverting attention from the problematic to the peripheral.

Punishment does not work for these problematic drinkers because alcohol consumption is not a simple choice (as espoused by the reactionary judicial system) but is much more complex and genetically driven, as new research tells us every day.  In short, punishment will not affect the problem because alcoholics will drink even as it kills them.

Our task should be to prevent the driving part of the ?drunk driving? equation.  New Mexico, with a huge population of alcoholics, is refocusing attention onto preventing the drunk from driving by using ignition interlocks that measure breath alcohol content or degree of impairment.  Results seem to be positive, certainly more so than the empty threat of punishment for behavior over which the alcoholic has no control in the first place.

[Raghavan]

Our University operates a transit system they call "Safe Ride." On Thurs., Fri., and Sat. nights a couple vans and volunteers spend their evening shuttling people between the bars and their houses. The system is completely free.

Our local Red Cross runs our Safe Ride here. You get community service hours for volunteering so lots of H.S. students do it.

[bing_oh]

The idea of free rides home for intoxicated people is always a good one but, in the end, it's all about individual responsibility. I'm a drinker myself and, when my friends and I (and it's usually a VERY good drunk by the end of the evening) go out, we always have a safe and sober way home. It's not just because most of the people I drink with are LE and a DUI will have serious ramifications in our jobs, but because we have responibility for our actions and know that finding a DD or a cab is the smart thing.

And, you can't use the lack of public transportation as an excuse for DUI in my book. I live in a cournty where we have no public transportation nor do we have a cab company...yet I and my friends don't drive drunk.

[bing_oh]

Let us not confuse popular techniques such as punishment with effective measures to reduce crashes caused by impairment due primarily to alcohol.

The population most involved with alcohol-caused crashes is already known to us because most of them have had multiple encounters with the judicial system.? Most of the LEOs here could name perhaps a dozen problematic cases in their own region.

Yet, to combat this phenomenon, we ignore that population and expand the larger population of potential arrestees by defining ?drunk? more broadly.? Obviously, this spreads resources too thinly, diverting attention from the problematic to the peripheral.

Punishment does not work for these problematic drinkers because alcohol consumption is not a simple choice (as espoused by the reactionary judicial system) but is much more complex and genetically driven, as new research tells us every day.? In short, punishment will not affect the problem because alcoholics will drink even as it kills them.

Our task should be to prevent the driving part of the ?drunk driving? equation.? New Mexico, with a huge population of alcoholics, is refocusing attention onto preventing the drunk from driving by using ignition interlocks that measure breath alcohol content or degree of impairment.? Results seem to be positive, certainly more so than the empty threat of punishment for behavior over which the alcoholic has no control in the first place.

You're confusing the overall DUI problem with the problem of repeat offenders. While theyn are connected, they are different problems that must be delt with in different ways.

I'm not going to say that we don't have our share of "regular customers" when it comes to DUI (I have a guy who's at different stages of his judicial proceedings for three separate OVI's...all mine...within less than three months). But, don't assume that they are the causes of all, or even most, DUI crashes. They aren't. In my experience, most DUI crashes involve people without past DUI arrests. That's not to say that they don't have a history of DUI, just that they've never been caught. But, in the end, I strongly suspect that most DUI offenders fall into that catagory (ie, people who regularly drive drunk but have avoided arrest).

Dealing with repeat offenders differently than first-time offenders through things like ignition interlocks is a smart thing to do, but you don't ignore the majority of the problem to focus on a small percentage of the worst offenders. I have regular customers for domestic violence...people who know me by first name when I walk through the door and whom I have extensive knowledge when it comes to past history...but I don't focus on them exculsively and ignore a call of a domestic because I've never delt with the people involved in the past. Realistically, wouldn't it be smarter to focus on first-time offenders with the hopes that early intervention could prevent them from becoming regular customers?

[dazzleman]

The idea of free rides home for intoxicated people is always a good one but, in the end, it's all about individual responsibility. I'm a drinker myself and, when my friends and I (and it's usually a VERY good drunk by the end of the evening) go out, we always have a safe and sober way home. It's not just because most of the people I drink with are LE and a DUI will have serious ramifications in our jobs, but because we have responibility for our actions and know that finding a DD or a cab is the smart thing.

And, you can't use the lack of public transportation as an excuse for DUI in my book. I live in a cournty where we have no public transportation nor do we have a cab company...yet I and my friends don't drive drunk.

I do worry that in the idea of providing rides home for drunks is a further undermining of personal responsibility - that people then get the idea that it is up to other people to provide a way home for them when they are drunk, rather than up to them to make the arrangements themselves.  Then when there is no ride available, they have a ready-made excuse for driving drunk.

There is always that tension between personal responsibility and practicality, in some cases.  Our legal system has, in my opinion, encouraged a way of thinking that seriously undermines personal responsibility.

[GoCougs]

I do worry that in the idea of providing rides home for drunks is a further undermining of personal responsibility - that people then get the idea that it is up to other people to provide a way home for them when they are drunk, rather than up to them to make the arrangements themselves.? Then when there is no ride available, they have a ready-made excuse for driving drunk.

There is always that tension between personal responsibility and practicality, in some cases.? Our legal system has, in my opinion, encouraged a way of thinking that seriously undermines personal responsibility.

I 100% agree. If you have both the finanical and mental capacity to get sauced at a public watering hole, you most certainly have both to arrange for safe transportation once the party is over. It really isn't that hard of a thing to do.

[Rupert]

I'd be curious to know, bing oh, if most people you pull over that end up getting a DUI got pulled over specifically to test for DUI because their driving was drunk-looking, or if you pull them over because they made an illegal turn and they end up above the limit.

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

But, don't assume that they are the causes of all, or even most, DUI crashes. They aren't.

According to NHTSA, that?s just not true.? The overwhelming percentage of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes have had previous encounters (usually multiple) with law enforcement.? Further, they have also usually manifested other alcohol-driven self-destructive behavior such as divorce, loss of employment or non-driving legal issues .

Dealing with repeat offenders differently than first-time offenders through things like ignition interlocks is a smart thing to do, but you don't ignore the majority of the problem to focus on a small percentage of the worst offenders.

When you use the correct set of assumptions, i.e., that the repeat offenders are the problem as demonstrated by NHTSA and independent academic data, concentrating on them is exactly what you do.?

I don't say this just to be disagreeable but because I believe it is critical that we base our policies on fact rather than faith or conjecture.

[Soup DeVille]

I 100% agree. If you have both the finanical and mental capacity to get sauced at a public watering hole, you should most certainly have both to arrange for safe transportation once the party is over. It really isn't that hard of a thing to do.

Fixed it for ya Cougs.

Except maybe the financial part. You'd be surprised how many buck-a-shot bars there are around here.

[TurboDan]

And, you can't use the lack of public transportation as an excuse for DUI in my book. I live in a cournty where we have no public transportation nor do we have a cab company...yet I and my friends don't drive drunk.

It's not an excuse, but I can tell you it's a reason why people choose to drive while intoxicated.  The cab companies, basically, take advantage and charge outrageous rates for taxi service, which leaves people in the position to make the poor decision to drive drunk.  Is it an excuse?  Course not.  But it's an unfortunate reality

[Tave]

It's not an excuse, but I can tell you it's a reason why people choose to drive while intoxicated.? The cab companies, basically, take advantage and charge outrageous rates for taxi service, which leaves people in the position to make the poor decision to drive drunk.? Is it an excuse?? Course not.? But it's an unfortunate reality

...or they live in a city which just doesn't have a taxi service. The plus side of that is usually those cities are small enough to walk across. Been my MO for the summer, and while I'm at school I live close enough to downtown that I don't need to worry about it.


When cab rides are $50, you're easily spending twice what you would if you didn't take one. I don't know about anyone else, but that's not realistic for me, which means sober friends are a must.


I met a dude with an eyepatch last night who called himself Wild Bill. He was fucked up and lived 50 miles out of town, so he grabbed a sleeping bag out of the back of his truck, slung it over his shoulder, and walked off to find his friend's front lawn (at least according to him). Hopefully he didn't just fall asleep in some random person's yard. I suppose I should've checked the Po-Po report this morning: can't be too many Wild Bills.

[bing_oh]

I'd be curious to know, bing oh, if most people you pull over that end up getting a DUI got pulled over specifically to test for DUI because their driving was drunk-looking, or if you pull them over because they made an illegal turn and they end up above the limit.

It varies a great deal. There are plenty of people who I arrest for DUI where the initial violation is what would be considered a "DUI violation" for most people (left of center, no headlights, etc). Then, there are plenty of people who I end up arresting for an initial violation that wouldn't be considered "DUI-related"...just average violations that happen to result in a DUI because of indicators I notice after contact with the driver.

That being said, I see where this is going, especially in the context of this debate. Someone's going to say that a lack of indicators of impariment in driving that results in a stop reinforces the argument that per se DUI levels aren't necessarily a direct indicator of impairment level. I'm going to nip that argument in the bud with a little explanation of DUI enforcement for all of you non-LEO's who are reading this thread...

First, realize that, just because the reason for the initial traffic stop wasn't a "DUI indicator" doesn't mean that there weren't indicators. Usually, an officer doesn't follow these violators long enough to see indicators of DUI. We're talking about officers on patrol who see a violation and stop it, discovering that the driver has indicators of DUI during personal contact. That doesn't mean that the officer wouldn't have seen indicators of DUI in the person's driving if they had followed them for a period of time, just that they didn't observe their driving for long enough to see those indicators. An officer's not going to ignore a violation so that he can watch for other indicators of intoxication through driving patterns...the best way to identify an intoxicated driver, after all, is personal contact with the driver.

The other thing is non-violation indicators of DUI. Let me give you an example of that...weaving within the lane of travel is an indicator of DUI, but it's not a violation of law in Ohio, so I cannot (according to court rulings) stop a vehicle just for weaving. I need a violation to stop the vehicle, even though he's giving me indicators of DUI. So, when he makes a turn without signaling, I stop him for that violation. It's called a pretextual stop, and it's perfectly legal. But, statistically, it would appear that I stopped this person for a non-DUI-indicative violation and then discovered that he was DUI during the course of the stop. In reality, the driver was giving me plenty of DUI indicators in his driving, but the indicators weren't violations of law that I could legally stop for. So, statistics can be deceptive.

[bing_oh]

According to NHTSA, that?s just not true.? The overwhelming percentage of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes have had previous encounters (usually multiple) with law enforcement.? Further, they have also usually manifested other alcohol-driven self-destructive behavior such as divorce, loss of employment or non-driving legal issues .

When you use the correct set of assumptions, i.e., that the repeat offenders are the problem as demonstrated by NHTSA and independent academic data, concentrating on them is exactly what you do.?

I don't say this just to be disagreeable but because I believe it is critical that we base our policies on fact rather than faith or conjecture.

Perhaps, but to base enforcement totally on statistical data is a dangerous game. Anyone who's taken a statistics class knows that any statistical data can be manipulated. Did you know that, statistically, I can PROVE that ice cream causes murder? It's true. I can show you, statistically, that ice cream sales and murder rates rise at almost the exact same rate. Now, realistically, its the change in seasons the warmer weather that causes increases in both ice cream sales and murder rates but, depending on how you interpet the statistical data, you can actually prove statistically that ice cream causes murder.

Using numbers to try to foreshadow and react to human behavior is usually a losing game, because humans tend to be highly unpredictable and illogical creatures.

[Tave]

Perhaps, but to base enforcement totally on statistical data is a dangerous game. Anyone who's taken a statistics class knows that any statistical data can be manipulated. Did you know that, statistically, I can PROVE that ice cream causes murder? It's true. I can show you, statistically, that ice cream sales and murder rates rise at almost the exact same rate. Now, realistically, its the change in seasons the warmer weather that causes increases in both ice cream sales and murder rates but, depending on how you interpet the statistical data, you can actually prove statistically that ice cream causes murder.

That's correlated data, which by itself is worthless. It doesn't "prove" anything.

But I agree it would be foolish to only base DUI enforcement on previous-record cases. It's a logical fallacy. The previous offenders had to have had their first offense at some point, so there was a point in their life at which they hadn't been in trouble. If you only targeted repeat offenders, you wouldn't have anyone to target in 30 years, because no newbies would be getting in trouble.

[Soup DeVille]

I think you guys are confusing the terms "only targetting" and "concentrating on."

[Tave]

I think you guys are confusing the terms "only targetting" and "concentrating on."

I was exaggerating for effect, but my point is still valid. The data James cited only exists because LE works the way it does now. Someone had to make the first arrest on the previous offenders. If we change the way we enforce the law as drastically as he's proposing, then his data becomes meaningless (or at the very least, less relevant).


Personally, I think having patrolmen looking for erratic behavior is sorta the point of traffic enforcement, and I fail to see what James' alternative would be. In fact I don't think he's offering any. At best he's proposing we use more ignition-devices for previous offenders, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Beyond that, what could we do differently?

[Soup DeVille]

I was exaggerating for effect, but my point is still valid. The data James cited only exists because LE works the way it does now. Someone had to make the first arrest on the previous offenders. If we change the way we enforce the law as drastically as he's proposing, then his data becomes meaningless (or at the very least, less relevant).


Personally, I think having patrolmen looking for erratic behavior is sorta the point of traffic enforcement, and I fail to see what James' alternative would be. In fact I don't think he's offering any. At best he's proposing we use more ignition-devices for previous offenders, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Beyond that, what could we do differently?

As long as you were exaggerating for effect, I have nothing really to add.

Perhaps we could make it illegal to sell alcohol to people with 3 or more DUIs?

[Tave]

How do you "target" previous DUI offenders? Put their names on a registry and have a patrolman pull them over everytime they recognize the plate number? Give them a sticker that says "I drive drunk all the time" and force them to attach it to their vehicle?

The only reasonable way I can think of is to pull their license, or install and ignition device, but we're already doing both of those, so what's his point?