Article

Excerpt:
In other words, what the State and other logic-eschewing groups would like for us to believe is the following:

A. When a man is drunk, his "impaired judgment" makes him discount the possibility of getting into a horrible accident that might kill or injure him or someone else. As a result of discounting this risk, he is likely to go ahead and drive drunk anyway.

B. This same drunken man, who thinks he can cheat death on the highway, will suddenly see the light, shut off his engine, and walk home if the state merely threatens him with a stint in jail if he drives.

I thought it'd be an interesting perspective for folks who are accustomed to countering the "banning guns will end gun crime" argument.

Also from the same author: Drunk Driving Laws Cause Drunk Driving Accidents

All I know is I NEVER get behind the wheel if I've even had a TASTE.

I knew a guy who'd had one and only one at a Mother's Day party, and had a pedestrian step out from between two cars on the drive home that night. He never saw her, struck her, and she died. Turns out SHE was drunk, but they didn't know that until later.

Anyway, cops on the scene said if did not have alcohol on his breath, it would have been written up as a simple accident. He wasn't speeding or in any way driving unsafely. Instead, they took him away in cuffs.

As it was, he beat an involuntary manslaughter rap, and his insurance company paid policy limit to the victim's family.

But that one drink cost him a ton in legal fees, a lot of stress and worry during a time when he was also battling cancer, and just about landed him in the pokey.

Deterrence works, for me. If I drink, I don't drive.

I've heard it said many times from people who study such things - that the severity of punishment has no statistical relationship to reducing the crime.

That is to say, whether a drunk driving charge results in a one month suspension, a three month suspension, a one year suspension or a lifetime suspension - the places with the different penalties have the same amount of drunk driving - on average.

However - the perceived chance of being caught - has a huge affect on the amount of drunk driving arrests. In places that have regular roadblocks in all places and at all hours - we see a noticable reduction in the amount of people driving on the roads drunk.

In BC, where frequent road-blocks are the norm (during Christmas holidays and near New Years - one can almost bet they'll have to drive through at least one road-black on the way home) there has been a huge reduction in the amount of people driving drunk. In BC the feeling among many is becoming - "I'll get caught in a road-block - so I can't take the chance of drinking and driving".

While many (who don't study such things) believe that stiffer penalties on crime reduce criminal behavior - people who study such things say that the severity of the punishment bears very little, if any, statistical relationship to the reduction in criminal behavior.

One only has to look at America's "War on Drugs" to see the accuracy in that. Penalties for using and selling drugs in America are the harshest in the western world - and yet America has the largest amount of incarcerated people as a percentage of population. Therefore we can deduce that very severe penalties handed out for drug use in America are having little to no effect on reducing drug use.

As New York city found out - if you want to reduce murders in your city - ticket people for spitting on the sidewalk, not paying subway fares and for littering. Create a sense of pervasive law and order in your region - make people think - if I commit a crime here - I'll be arrested. Don't worry about the severity of the sentence - just make sure there is a public perception that breaking the law in a given location will result in a high odds of arrest and conviction.

I liked his idea of reducing or eliminating the red tape for taxi service to make them more affordable. Seems like that would have a bigger impact than reducing the legal limit to .00000002 or whatever. I wonder why the MADD folks aren�t all over this���.

Fortunately, road blocks are unconstitutional in Wisconsin.

When folks that are driving impaired and kill others, folks that are putting on make up, lighting up a cig, putting in a CD, looking for change in the center console, turning around to yell at the kids and reading while driving.................are all treated by the courts as felons and by the insurance company as risks, then maybe drunk driving will be looked at as something other than posturing by the 'concerned', and a way to make money for lawyers and the State.

if i had my way, the first time someone was caught driving under the influence, they would do 30 days in jail and lose their drivers license for 1 year. i'd have them do 1 year in jail for the second offense. i have absolutely no pity on anyone who drives under the influence.

IMO those who choose to drink and drive should be put so far back in jail that they must be fed with a pea shooter.

I am prejudice.

Hard for me not to be having lost two good friends to drunks driving.

BCR

and how do you feel about the cute gal in the car next to you putting on her eye liner while driving? Or the guy reading the paper? Want them put away too?

After 30 years of policing, I can tell you that when the incidence of drunk driving is high, injuries and deaths on the highway are equally high. Can't tell you the number of families I have met because of alcohol related deaths, both as a result of drunk driving and domestic violence.

In this day and age, with the educational material that's available and the designated driver push, anyone who drives drunk deserves jail . . . . . and flogging.

I no longer drin, but when I did i knew not to drive drunk. I knew that when sober.
The trouble was when I was drunk all that faded from memory.

I don't know why you'd be glad your State doesn't have road blocks.

I'm SO glad my Province not only has them - I'm glad we have a LOT of them!

As a result - we have far far fewer drunks on the road now than we did 10, 20 and 30 years ago. Our roads now are so much safer. Our courts ruled (correctly in my opinion) that the loss of privacy from having police road-blocks was more than out-weighed by the societal benefits of getting drunks off the road.

I know of too many lost lives due to drunk drivers - including my best friend and long-time hunting buddy.

The only change I'd like - is to have more of them! If you aren't breaking the law - you have nothing to fear from a road-block!

On further deliberation - pertaining to what I wrote - thought I'd better add:

Perhaps I feel this way about road-blocks because 99% of the time I'm dealing with the R.C.M.P. (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) when I get pulled over - and I have the utmost respect for the way 99% of them conduct themselves. True professionals.

My few dealings with American police have left me with a distinctly different impression about the way they conducted themselves.

My pregnant teen-age bride was killed by a drunk driver. Drunk driving is not an excercise of "freedom." Arresting officers aren't "brutal instuments" of the state. Quoting some jerk-off about how it is depriving some one of their freedom of action is vile. The more time drunk drivers spend incarcerated or off the streets not driving preferably for a loooooong time is a positive. I know there are those amongst you that have lost loved ones, relatives and friends to drunk drivers and must think and feel the same way I do.

I'm all for five year prison sentences for second offenses. Prison may not rehabilitate, but thats five years of a drunk NOT putting us at risk.

This statement, in any of its many forms, is completely invalid unless you accompany it by its unspoken second half: "...as long as the government is not corrupt."

But of course the government is always corrupt.

My pregnant teen-age bride was killed by a gun. Guns are not an exercise of "freedom." Arresting officers aren't "brutal instruments" of the state. Quoting some jerk-off about how it is depriving some one of their freedom of action is vile. The more time gun owners spend incarcerated or off the streets not shooting preferably for a loooooong time is a positive. I know there are those amongst you that have lost loved ones, relatives and friends to guns and must think and feel the same way I do.
_________________________

To equate second amendment rights with drunk driving or vehicular homicide sure doesn't give legal gun ownership a ringing endorsement.

I disagree.

I have never been stopped at a road-block - by a government.

I have - many times - been stopped by the RCMP - Canada's national police force - checking to see if I've been drinking and driving. Every one of them receives para-military training -in one location - while they learn their job - and they are renoun the world over for their professionalism and their courtesy.

Their road-blocks have resulted in a huge reduction in the amount of people drinking a driving - and as a result - a great reduction in the amount of needless deaths and injuries due to people engaging in that criminal act.

To pretend that some anarchist utopia - with no law-enforcement would be better - is absurd.

I'm proud of Canada's national police force - and proud of the job they do.

I hope they set up even more-road blocks in the future - to protect me and my children - from those who practice criminal behaviour.

I do not have even a taste within 24 hours of driving but my truck is a little bigger and a lot heavier than most. I get caught with a DWI and I am dome for life.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.

You won't find me driving down the Interstate after I've had anything to drink, but I won't say that I haven't had a beer or two out on the backroads. I've been dumb before when I was younger, but I'd like to think I'm wiser these days. Drunk driving is stupid and deadly. A beer and a burger at the neighborhood joint, that's not drunk driving. Just my opinion.

The absolute worst memory of my carrer is a result of a drunk driver. About 20 years ago, I worked a head-on collision between Sabine Pass and Port Arthur. A drunk had just left a bar and struck the family of seven, headed to Sabine to drop off Dad, head-on as he rounded a curve. Both cars stopped in their tracks, at a combined speed of about 150mph. The only survivor was a five year old girl, who had terrible injuries, including loosing her face.

The incident didn't bother me (to bad)until I met the little girl again, two years later. The family had filed a civil suit against the bar for serving a drunk and letting him leave. She hugged me and told me I was a her hero. I just felt helpless and am still bothered about it.

I can't even imagine. I wasn't at the crash scene 2 nights ago when the teens got killed but I saw the pics. We all have horror stories. There have been more than a few over the years and I thankfully can't remember them all.

The laws may not prevent some people from committing the first offence, but I think they work to prevent a second offence for many. The hard core addicts are hopeless and won't change no matter what you do to them.

Perhaps I do not understand the probably of being over .08 - I was told by a local LEO that my 185-lb carcass would test over .08 after consuming more than one beer per hour. That has become my limit, period. Perhaps this is for the best, as I would hate to find out the hard way I was .08.

As for not liking the current DUI/Impaired laws and penalties, I must state I am not a bar owner nor have I ever been arrested for anything - and do not intend to be incarcerated, least of all for a low-rent DUI/Impaired/Whatever.

I will freely admit this threat HAS altered my perception of enjoying an afternoon beer away from home - good, bad, ugly or whatever, times have changed. Also, I always make it a point to never, ever drive with even one beer in the tummy after dark -- my theory now is that The Devil comes out at sunset driving a black-and-white car, and he will capture you and cause you to lose your freedom and wealth.