Is There an Unfair Bias Against Drunk Drivers?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Okay, so you are fine with an occasional drink or two with dinner.

Suppose a buddy of yours meets you at a bar (how about Applebees). You guys are catching up on old times and order an appetizer. He has two drinks, you guys run out of things to talk about and disperse.

A cop pulls him over due to a tail light being out and can smell the alcohol (after all, he just finished having the second drink). Or perhaps it's one of those unconstitutional DUI check points - whatever. The point is the he wasn't getting pulled over due to irresponsible driving (which happens much more than most think). The cop pulls out his handy portable breathalyser and your friend blows a .081.

He will now be without a license for at least 6 months. He will pay over 3,000 in surcharges to get his license back (not to mention the actual fine and lawyer fees).

All this over two drinks at dinner. I don't know if you drink or not, but you'd be surprised how low .08 is as far as impairment. It's barely noticeable.


[edit on 22-6-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620

All this over two drinks at dinner. I don't know if you drink or not, but you'd be surprised how low .08 is as far as impairment. It's barely noticeable.

At 150lbs. 1 ice beer will put me about .08.

Now back in my drinking prime one beer was a warm-up for the other five.I'm not saying that is safe,just saying if you have a high tolerance .08 is pretty much sober.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Holy Moly GreenEyedLeo!

She was at .18?? Yikes! She was higher then he was...I also heard from another friend we went to school with who happens to be a famous announcer in the sports arena (what's with our class and sports I wonder? :lol that the girl he killed also had coc aine in her system, and was rumored to have been up going on more then 48 hours awake...perhaps if she'd not been impaired herself and well rested she'd have seen him coming, and if she'd had her seat belt on she wouldn't be dead as well. Very sad all around

reply to post by Sublime620


Yes Sublime that's a usual scenario here...also, if you refuse to blow here in Ohio it's an automatic 1 year suspension, no driving to work, nothing...zip...you're off the road for a year, they take your plates. I don't know what they charge you with in this case but I am sure they have a special charge just for this. And if you refuse to blow and they can prove you APPEARED to be impaired, you get slapped with the DUI on top of the charge of not blowing.

In the UK there is a mandatory 12 month ban for first a first time drink driving offence, and then 3 years ban for the second + fines and possible prison time.

Their is absolutely no excuse for drink driving and I completely agree with these punishments. Particularly in England where roads are narrower, less well organised and busier than those in most of the USA.

However, I don't agree with any kind of public branding, crime and punishment concerns the perpetrator, the victim and the government. Anything that might incite any kind of vigilante justice is far to dangerous (particularly for sex offenders, although I know that was only a side note of yours).

While you are at it why dont we just brand the people on their foreheads as well. Chip them as well so we always know where they are.

If a person is incapable of refraining from drinking while driving, they are addicted to alcohol. They are willing to risk jail or even killing Innocent people rather than wait for a drink.

If a person can afford to drink they can afford a Taxi. If they can't they have no business spending money on alcohol. Only Alcoholics spend money on alcohol they can not afford.

The only people who defend drunk driving are drunk drivers. Nobody else would.

OP,

If this were about Pedophiles, you would not have mentioned drunk drivers at all. Did you get your first DUI recently perhaps?

I drink on occasion. I've never had any problem finding a designated driver or calling a cab.

Since 82 the total of automobile fatalities caused by drunks has fallen from 60% to around 40%. From over 26,000 to about 15,000. All this is due to stronger laws and more aggressive enforcement. There is no argument to rationalize less punishment for what amounts to attempted murder every time someone who is drinking gets behind the wheel.

Too many children have been paralyzed, killed, burned alive, maimed and ejected from vehicles because of drunk drivers. I have seen a seasoned paramedic shake so bad on a scene that involved a child in a vehicular accident the IV needle kept bouncing off the childs skin like a crack addict was trying to give the little one an IV. He quit after that. The child is dead.

Make sure EVERYONE knows that they will be driving with a plate that brands them for life, but I say kudos for Ohio because the first time drunk behind the wheel could be a childs last time alive...or worse...Ive seen worse.

This is serious stuff here.




[edit on 22-6-2008 by LoneGunMan]

reply to post by jpm1602


wow perhaps you need a little breathing room. I mean all I was saying, (in a satirical form that is) is that what is an appropriate punishment for one side of the argument should be an acceptable punishment for the other side.

What I was sayin in my own unique humorous sort of way is actual laws that have been used in human history to curb crime. A yellow licence plate is just a modern day version of the scarlet letter A that was brandished by young women found to commit adultery.

Please do learn to take a obviously satirical post in the manner in which it's prescribed. Offense being taken in such a way is shameful :shk:

If I have made your iggy list then that makes me happy.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Well I guess I will have to spell it out, for the 10th time it seems like

It's about the ridiculously stiff penalties for a traffic misdemeanor...and why DUI is targeted and other crimes as bad and way worse, are not targeted. And about WHY that is, I used pedophiles as an example since some of those crimes are also misdemeanors, yet pedophiles are just as dangerous if NOT more so then the people drinking and driving.

Child molestation and sexual assault is the most rapid growing violent crime in the U.S.
About 1.3 million children are sexually assaulted each year
There are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America
250,000 to 500,000 child molesters reside in the U.S. today
* The average number of victims per molester is about 117
* Men who molested boys average about 150 victims each
* More than half are under the age 35

www.childmolestationlaws.com...



www.nytimes.com...

So 1.3 million kids a year are molested, and there's roughly 43,000 alcohol related deaths.

So why is there no huge campaign against against the molesters? If each person who got drunk behind the wheel and had 117 victims or wrecked into 117 cars, I could understand the difference. But they don't. So why your personal outrage at the drinkers who drive and NOT the child molesters Blaine? What about plates for the sex offenders? Or do you believe that a first time DUI traffic misdemeanor is actually worse then a child being molested? String up the first time DUI offenders but heck, let the molesters have their privacy when they are driving around, trolling the playgrounds.

And no I didn't just get a DUI, if you had read my first post opening this thread, I decided to make this thread because I am seeing so many of these license plates on the roads in my city.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by LateApexer313]

reply to post by LateApexer313


Drunk driving is a serious issue, but at the same time, you shouldn't brand anyone for a crime.

Line up DUI's...here's your gold star....here's your scarlet letter...

reply to post by LateApexer313


Don't get me wrong driving is truly a privilege, however anyone can make a mistake one time and should be given penalties, but not humiliated as scum of the earth. There are three laws now when it comes to driving and drinking. One for the rich, one for the poor, and one for those in law inforcement. Nevertheless alcohol is the most prolific drug and is glamorized by society. It is everywhere and law inforcement watchs and waits around corners from bars. It is big revenue for city and counties.
We have the science I'm sure to develop a safe recreational substance with little side effects but there is no market for playing nice. As for driving and drinking. Once, spend the night in jail, pay a fine, and probation. Twice in a five year period, spend the night in jail, jail is overcrowded as it is and this still should not be considered criminal behaviour, pay a larger fine and require an interlock device installed for driving only to work and back. Third time in a five year period liscense is revoked for one year, and community service and the humiliating plates put on the car for one year after liscense reinstatment. Fourth time? then they probably need long term rehabilitation and deserve what they get.

Considering that a single drink in some cases can cause impairment, I believe the alcohol limit should be 0 drinks but with enough margin for perfume etc and false positives (which can always be tested for later).
If you are driving it's about safety and getting point A to point B... not making the chances that you (and/or someone else) won't get home etc higher than it should be - for your social benefit of having a drink.

I ride a motorcycle and will not drink before getting on the road, soft drinks and water for me. On a high powered twitchy machine like mine you need your wits about you - run into some diesel on the road, stones, mud, plant matter that you havn't noticed/seen because of impairment and you're on your arse and into a barrier/oncoming concrete truck/cliff. Hospital time if you're unlucky and dead if you're even more unlucky... if I make a mistake I pay... no crumple zones and 'she'll be right' on a motorbike.

MINIMIZE RISKS is the key here for safe transportation - alcohol does NOT minimize risk to you and others at all.

Oh, sorry whatukno. I fail to see the humor in people's lives being changed forever for blowing a .9 at a checkpoint. Irregardless of functionality or years of good record.
Fired, loss of income, inability for healthcare, blackballed from jobs. While the cops who pull them over go out with the boys end of shift to the blue shirt tavern for a night cap.
Shoot, I dropped my girlfriend off after a date one night and I saw a CPD (in his uniform) in his civi car so messed up I wanted to beep at him and offer him a ride.
Your style of satire is not humorous. To me at least. But your spelling has improved dramatically.
Kudos!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

What other class of individuals this deathly dangerous would we tolerate?

[edit on 2008/6/21 by GradyPhilpott]

Army Generals!

Wow that is nuts. I have never seen that plate thing done before. If I got a DUI there and they wanted me to slap those plates on, I would move out of state. Here in TX almost everyone I know has at least 1 if not 2 DUI's. A night in the can and few hundred dollars is the most I see happen. I never have got nailed, knock on wood. I tend to only drive drunk on private property, road hunting rabbits. After that we usually pass out in the back of our trucks..Cops too

reply to post by Sublime620


Then my friend deserves what he/she gets, very simple i'm afraid. I woudln't drink and would be able to go home in my car, safe in the knoledge i am not breaking the law or risking the life of another person. Well i'm driving a car theres always risk, but i mean i havn't increased that risk by being irresponsible.

Oh and if it was my friend, i'd try and give him/her a lift home instead of letting him/her get into a car. That's what friends are for remember, looking out for each other

[edit on 23-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Lets say, a cop stops by his budies house on his way home from work. Drinks two beers watching the fights then goes home to his family. Does he deserve a yellow plate because he is LEGALLY DRUNK?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
If a person is incapable of refraining from drinking while driving, they are addicted to alcohol. They are willing to risk jail or even killing Innocent people rather than wait for a drink.

Addicted to alcohol means you would NEED alcohol. Trust me... I don't NEED alcohol but yet I've driven after drinking. If I was addicted I wouldn't have a 24 pack sitting in my fridge that's been there for 2 weeks and only taken about 6 from it. Explain how I'm addicted to alcohol yet I've averaged 1 beer every 2 days? I thought "addicted" means I would need it, rather than occasionally want it...

If someone has one beer (or glass of wine) at a restaurant and drive home they would be considered drunk by cops and they would get their DUI even though they can still drive just as fine as they have before. I don't see why somebody not affected by a small amount of alcohol should be punished just because he has drank. Though, I guess the only way to really be caught is if that person were thought to be drunk by cops (ie. swerving, bad driving). My argument is more along the lines of you saying someone who is not affected by alcohol until after multiple beers is an alcoholic if they drink one beer and then drive.

You are also risking killing innocent people by just driving your car. You're telling me ALL traffic fatalities are caused by alcohol? It's less than 40% of them, so please stop trying to make it out as every time someone drives drunk they kill somebody. I live in a college town and this last school year you know how many innocent people were killed by drunk drivers? Less than 11. (Info from 2003 where these 11 fatalities included alcohol and/or drugs) When you compare how many times people drive drunk here... 11 is a VERY TINY number.

I could go on forever about this. I could bring up how people talking on cell phones are just as deadly as drunk drivers but how they don't get a bad rap. None of my arguments are meant to say that drunk driving is perfectly fine and should be legal... but rather than people who are capable of driving fine but have some alcohol in their system shouldn't be punished, or at least not as harshly as those that can blatantly not control their car or are impaired.

I will also add that the worst I've ever been drunk and driven... still wasn't as bad as a few of the times I have driven while being fatigued... but yet that is perfectly legal and I wouldn't have gotten in trouble if I had gotten pulled over. What am I trying to say here? People driving drunk isn't miles away from causing the worst driving... and is in fact the 3rd most common cause for accidents, behind drivers being distracted and fatigue.

reply to post by jpm1602


But I think that police should not be immune from this law as well. An officer in fact should be held more accountable for such actions. IMO.

A public official needs to set the standard for behavior. If they cannot perhaps they need a special licence plate or worse.

The same goes for child molesters and sexual predators. These people if we are to outcast people who endanger other's lives with drunken driving by forcing them to display the crime they commit and thus subjecting them to harsher scrutiny should be made to display the same.

Perhaps any crime committed needs to be displayed via a special tag or licence plate. Someone gets a speeding ticket. The plate they must be forced to buy should reflect their lead foot. Someone is convicted of theft perhaps a licence plate displaying that crime should be displayed.

All is fair supposedly right? If we are to hold someone that chooses to go out and get plastered then get behind the wheel thereby endangering others by this reckless and irresponsible behavior, than others should be held just as accountable as well.

(and please don't make me get into the whole grammar/spelling nazi thing)