It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RANT
A 77% increase in arrests is NOT a success. That's a failure of the system. "Drunk" driving deaths haven't changed! They've just ruined twice as many lives over potential "future crimes."
Originally posted by sigung86
Having seen these types of senseless deaths, and people who are repeatedly bounced for DWI/DUI, and don't lose their driving privileges (privs, not rights), I am all for losing your license for life if you are dumb enough to get into a situation where you just have to drink and drive.
Originally posted by RANT
They don't want to stop drunk driving; they want to PUNISH it.
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by sigung86
Having seen these types of senseless deaths, and people who are repeatedly bounced for DWI/DUI, and don't lose their driving privileges (privs, not rights), I am all for losing your license for life if you are dumb enough to get into a situation where you just have to drink and drive.
And the misinformation continues. Nobody gets "bounced" now. Everybody is punished. Severely. And even when they do everything they're supposed to do including jail, house arrest, hundreds of hours of community service, tens of thousands of dollars on treatment and re-education, years and years and years without a licence, jumping through hoop after hoop, all of which is contrary to what they were told at sentencing (for a punishment not to legally exceed 3 years), many find themselves in a system with no resolution, nobody in charge, and nobody to turn to. So much of the "punishment" is outsourced now to private probation agencies, AA, a state complicit psychiatric industry, "interlock" shops and a DMV that can't figure out if it's part of the public service or a penal system, that long after a sentence is "served" and every single party involved agrees you have paid your debt above and beyond the terms of sentencing and deserve a license again, there's simply no one in authority to figure out how to enforce their own laws. It's that cluster#ed.
I'm not talking about people that legally have their license revoked for life. That's fine. They probably killed somebody and are in jail anyway. Or people that drive DUI again WITHOUT a license. I'm talking about law abiding US citizens in their 5th, 7th or 10th year of a 3 year suspension still jumping through hoops with no end in sight because they blew .1 at a "check point" outside the TGIFriday's in Cobb Country, Georgia last millennium and nobody at the DMV knows how to work the one-way national database Mother's Against Drunk Drivers set up to prevent "loopholes." After so long, you're not looking for loopholes. You don't belong there. There SHOULD be a solution. Every agency involved thinks so. No matter what those not involved (yet) might think.
Originally posted by sigung86
I think, Rant, you missed my point. Drink - Drive - Lose your license. End of story.
Originally posted by sigung86
I don't know how many different ways to say it.
Muzz wrote:
Well, I can't say that I support drunk driving, BUT on the other hand I can't say that I support an orginization such as MADD. Being a Firefighter/Paramedic I see people who make the decision to drive drunk die, or become paralyzed, or smash mommy's and daddy's beamer around a telephone pole(I work in a college town.). People have the freedom to drink as much or as little as they deem fit. But they should have to pay the price for doing so. MADD may have been a good orginization at it's inception, but now it's overstepping it's boundries. I think that there should be more done to curb the current trends, I picked up a totally wasted 14 year old girl the other night who went to a party for the sole purpose of getting blasted. Well, she was taken off to some room after getting drunk and was sexually assaulted. Now that's a problem. If MADD was fighting things like that, ok, that fine with me. Plus people driving drunk and destroying their car is just job security for me. LOL. Peace Out. -Muzz
Eternal wrote:
Sh*t F*ck.
I hate this country is so #ing stupid with all their gay laws.
And i heard that new drinking laws where the might raise the drinking age to 24.
And they wonder why there is such a problem with drug!
Debra Bolton spent months fighting a DUI charge. In D.C., a blood alcohol reading of .01 can result in arrest. (By Susan Biddle -- The Washington Post)
Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 12, 2005; Page A01
Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.
She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.
Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.
As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."
Neither the police department nor the attorney general's office keeps detailed records of how many people with low blood alcohol levels are arrested. But last year, according to police records, 321 people were arrested for driving under the influence with blood alcohol levels below the legal limit of .08. In 2003, 409 people were arrested.
Although low blood alcohol arrests have been made in other states in conjunction with dangerous driving, lawyers, prosecutors and advocates of drunken driving prevention said they knew of no place besides the District that had such a low threshold for routine DUI arrests. In Maryland and Virginia, as in other states, drivers generally are presumed not to be intoxicated if they test below .05. Nationwide, .08 is the legal limit -- meaning a driver is automatically presumed to be intoxicated.
Fair acknowledged that many people aren't aware of the District's policy. "But it is our law," he said. "If you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance."
much, much more....
Breath alcohol values following mouthwash use.
CONCLUSION--The decay of BrAVs following mouthwash use is sufficiently rapid that mouthwash use would not pose a realistic threat to the accuracy of blood alcohol determinations by breath analysis under normal circumstances. Use of mouthwash immediately prior to breath testing, as might occur in the car or workplace in a mistaken attempt to hide the smell of alcohol or other substances, may, however, significantly increase the measured BrAV.
Originally posted by bodebliss
I'm sorry Rant, I've never had a DUI and anyone who I know who has had one deserved it.
I was nearly killed twice by drunk drivers. You will get no sympathy here.
Everytime I see a drunk weaving thru traffic I wish I had a cell phone. I would have reported them and this is a state(Ohio) that has enacted every M.A.D.D. suggested law.
I salute M.A.D.D.'s effort to rid the world of alcohol impaired drivers.