Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Drunk Driving Laws Are Absurd - Mark R. Crovelli

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Plus with a CDL our BAC requirement is much lower in most states then non-CDL holders. In Tn. with a CDL, DUI is considered at .04 versus .08 for a non-CDL driver. That doesn't matter if your driving a veh. with eighteen wheels or a veh. with two or four wheels at the time, if you have a CDL in your pocket.

Does that mean my 26 wheel 105,500 GVW would bring me down to a .02?

No a big thing for me anyway. I drink about a dozen beers a year.

Hey dude, go blow...............what a snob you are.

I've only had three interactions with American police in my life. One in Washington State - great cop - polite - a credit to his profession. One in Arizona - on a power trip - obnoxious - but nothing I'd write his superiors about. One in Californa - the kind of cop that makes people hate cops - power-tripping, rude, obnoxious looking to escalate the situation and totally unprofessional - a first class [bleep].

In a lifetime of dealing with B.C.'s RCMP members - nothing but professionalism.

Sorry, that my truthful recollection of events doesn't please you.

Interesting points of view from all. In this discussion we wrestle with a number of issues, such as presumed innocence and the mandatory roadblock, the type of penalty that should be assessed when one is determined to be drunk or impaired.

I would like to see statistical evidence that roadblocks are effective, however, I doubt that having everyone stop to prove their innocence is either ethical or effective. It may make better press than the time, effort and cost to administer. More to the point, officers should concentrate on any type of distracted or erratic driving, whatever the cause.

Given that driving at some level of blood alcohol is unacceptable, legally or ethically, I would like to see that percentage defined and adopted across the board. When infactions occur, my opinion is that the vehicle should be confiscated and the driver jailed, if found guilty, under the same laws governing the intent to commit manslaughter. If found guilty, the confiscated vehicles go to public auction with no remuneration to the owner or the driver.

While I appreciate BC Brian's love for the RCMP, my experience with them has been far less than professional or courteous. About what I would expect with any national police force regardless of country. In fact, allowing mandatory roadblocks could lead to other actions that impinge upon individual liberty, such as prohibiting cell phones or CBs, requiring helmets for bicyclists and motorcycle riders, mandatory seat belts, child restraints, CAFE, green vehicles etc -- all in the name of public welfare and public good. That is something most Nazis would approve.

Interesting points of view from all. In this discussion we wrestle with a number of issues, such as presumed innocence and the mandatory roadblock, the type of penalty that should be assessed when one is determined to be drunk or impaired.

I would like to see statistical evidence that roadblocks are effective, however, I doubt that having everyone stop to prove their innocence is either ethical or effective. I may make good press. More to the point, officers should concentrate on any type of distracted or erratic driving, whatever the cause.

Given that driving at some level of blood alcohol is unacceptable, legally or ethically, I would like to see that percentage defined and adopted across the board. When infactions occur, my opinion is that the vehicle should be confiscated and the driver jailed, if found guilty, under the same laws governing the intent to commit manslaughter. If found guilty, the confiscated vehicles go to public auction with no remuneration to the owner or the driver.

While I appreciate BC Brian's love for the RCMP, my experience with them has been far less than professional or courteous. About what I would expect with any national police force regardless of country.

Allowing mandatory roadblocks could lead to other actions that impinge upon individual liberty, such as prohibiting cell phones, requiring helmets for bicyclists and motorcycle riders, mandatory seat belts, etc -- all in the name of public welfare and public good. That is something most Nazis would approve.

I ran into a rude Mountie once. I don't think he liked Americans.

I'm a certified driving instructor and also a certified driver retrainer for the Rhode Island DUI offenders. In the town I live in, 3 teens hit a tree going 75 miles an hour. Two of the kids died. There was alcohol involved, and the driver was sixteen, driving at 3AM from party to party on his learner's permit. The State responded by passing this law. Now it is illegal for a person under 18 to have more than one passenger under 18 with them in the car (unless it is a brother or sister). The logic being groups of teens are more likely to get into drinking and driving situations. That same year, two more kids hit a tree (alcohol was involved) and one died. Also, a 22 year old girl hit a tree at 3AM and was killed - alcohol was involved. The following Summer, a minor with alcohol related offenses ran over his friend with a boat while water skiing and killed him. Alcohol was involved. Every one of these people knew the law. They knew they were breaking the law, and weighed the risks involved, their chances of getting caught and decided to go for it. I show a video of a 13 year old girl killed by a drunk driver on her way to the mall to every one of my classes. The driver knew he was drunk, figured he was close enough to get home, and drove home. He leaned over to pick up a cigarette off the floor, veered into another car and killed a Mother and a 14 year old girl. I've never seen a case where the offender didn't know the law and didn't know they were taking a risk. What I do see is people weighing out the risks, figuring they won't get caught and taking a chance.

A DUI should require a lifetime of alcohol treatment or a lifetime loss of driving privileges. Too many people get turned loose and kill innocent people. Then it's behind bars and too late.

We had 4 teenagers killed by a drunk driver last night. Ages 19, 16, 16, and 15. I wonder how their parents feel about drunk driving laws?

As an aside, I have an uncle who was arrested for drunk driving years ago. Needless to say, the penalties imposed made him see the light. I guess in this particular case, the laws didn't prevent the original offense, but they sure as hell prevented a second.

When I worked for a Canadian Company and was regional manager over Western Canada and the Pacific NW.. I have been thru those Road Blocks in Canada a zillion times...They certainly work.. don't know if I would support them stateside tho...

I don't drink alcohol period.. that is a choice, nothing less and nothing more...

The level of Drunk Driving is dramatically down in the USA compared to the 70s...

problem we have in Oregon, if they pull over a Mexican that is a dozen sheets to the wind, the state police are supposedly not allowed to detain them, for even that...

from what I have heard from local State Troopers here in S. Oregon, a very high percentage of drunk drivers they pull over are Hispanics...of course the major problem is that they know the same laws don't apply to them that apply to Americans.. except when the perp is an American with a Hispanic name...

Had a good friend who was killed sitting at a stop light, in a new VW Bug that was about 2 weeks old, when some drunk ran the red light and hit his car head on, trying to avoid another vehicle that had the right of way....this was in Massachusetts..
The guy who hit Jimmy's car, was in an old 53 Buick, ( this was in 1971)... he had had his licenses pulled in Massachusetts 7 times for drunk driving, plus they found licenses from 6 or more other states in his possession, and several of them had been pulled for drunk driving convictions...

Jim was an athlete, with a 4.0 average and was 20 yrs old when he died..

our college only had 1200 kids in it, but in 1971 alone, there was 5 kids who went out and got themselves killed drunk driving... not counting Jim and one other that was killed by other guys driving drunk...

what a loss....for the last two...

the other 5.. well I had no pity for them, only their families..

why people drink and drive, or use drugs, I'll never understand.. it is just plain stupidity...

And becoming more so by the day.

Who told you that illegal Hispanics don't get charged for violation of DUI laws? We hammer them in this state, like everyone else. We have Spanish speaking court interpreters. They get explained the situation in their own language and understand the sentence they receive.

I think it's stupid to drink and drive, the blood level standard for what is drunk these days is absurd.

The National level for Driving While Intoxicated is 0.08%. MADD lobbied for years to get it lowered from 0.10% and they succeeded. To get to 0.08%, you have to consume one drink (defined as a can of beer, 5 oz glass of wine or ounce of spirits) for about every 60 pounds of body weight. Your body eliminates a drink an hour so, you have to drink an average 180 pound man has to drink 3 drinks in 1 hour, 4 in 2 hours, 5 in 3 hours, 6 in 4 hours. For someone to drink that amount of alcohol and believe they are competent to drive is what is absurd. More than 2 drinks a day or 14 drinks a week (whichever comes first) is the definition of an alcoholic. That is where drinking can impair health. That's scientific fact I'm required to teach in my class. Such is life.

Fortunately there is no blood alcohol limit for posting on the campfire. Otherwise we'd have to routinely imprison about 40% of the posters.

Hey.leave me alone.

Everyone - myself included - knows of tragedies wrought by drunk drivers. Friends, relatives, associates that have died or been maimed needlessly.

But, I do not see the necessity to incarcerate and financially rape someone who has a beer or two and slips into the .08 BAL range. This has become a HUGE revenue source for states that actively pursue it. Arizona recently tightened up its laws and as a result is making a significant amount of income from less-than-drunk drivers.

My biggest beef with these high-profile roadblocks is that our local law enforcement agencies claim not have the resources to investigate your day-to-day felony thefts and drug trafficking, but make feel-good public announcements of the amount of overtime they invest in this method of enforcement.

I have absolutely no problem with ridding the road of genuinely drunk drivers - I ride motorcycles and am therefore quite vulnerable to out-of-control drivers - but feel the federal .08 is absurd. Feed the genuinely drunk drivers to the dogs for all I care, but cut the two-beers-on-the-way-home-from-work folks some slack.

0.08% BAC is not absurd. I've got films of the Rhode Island State Police doing controlled tests, providing drinks, having operators blow a .08 and operate a motor course. Watching people drive over the cones and over the paper people cut outs makes me feel like 0.08% is more than "impaired." I know people who have been drinking all their lives. I know someone who was raised suckling off his Daddy's still and they can drink enough to be double, triple the legal limit and still function relatively normal. People who have built up a tolerance through lots of drinking will insist they're fine and can still drive, but they're still impaired. They just don't know it. I am 260 and can drink 4 1/2 drinks to be legally 0.08% After 4 1/2 shots of Jim Beam, I'm not getting into a car and risking killing someone.

As part of my job, I tell this little girl's story. I've met her parents and think of her just about every day and the reason she lost her life.

http://www.kdmf.org/

I've had a number of times that I've driven drunk and survived, with a few it was a wonder I could even see. It wasn't right and I'm not very proud of it. I'm not the first to do it, and surely will not be the last. Most of these instances were in the past year, most of them being over the course of the summer. Granted, I don't do it anymore because I barely even drink.

Cutting back on going to the bar has made my life a lot better in many ways. Now if I'm drinking, about the max I'll have is two beers, and I'll wait a while before climbing behind the wheel. Even better if I have someone with me to drive who doesn't drink. I've never been stopped at a DUI checkpoint, though I know folks who have, folks who have ran away and got caught, and friends who have crashed and got messed up bad. Was one of the first on the scene when two friends smashed into a couple light poles after being hammered, it wasn't a pretty sight.

Also, my best friend got a DUI last Saturday. He's an idiot. He has a severe problem with alcohol and acts like a moron when drunk. He gets belligerent when someone takes his keys to drive him home. I've had him almost jump out of my car and have had to physically fight him. I don't feel much sympathy for him, especially when he didn't even care much when I said one day he'll kill someone innocent. I hope he goes to jail. His old man is the same way, he got a DUI on Friday. His career is likely over, as he drives big rigs for a lumber company. Maybe one day they will learn.

BCBrian makes a good point. Increasing the odds of getting caught will be better deterrence I think, as opposed to stiff fines. It worked for me.