Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, DUI is a cash cow for a LOT of people, unfortunately. I've always been a bit cynical about that. For instance the shore town I lived in was a dry town, no alcohol allowed to be sold even in restaurants, not even BYO. So everyone goes over the 3-mile bridge to the next town over and drinks. Many people go over there to have dinner because they want wine with it, etc. If the cities were concerned with actually stopping people from driving under the influence, it would be very easy to have a shuttle that goes back and forth over the bridge every hour. In fact they already have those shuttles that take people to and from the boardwalk, all they'd have to do is put them into service at night. It wouldn't even have to be free, charge $5.00 each way.
But the 2 towns make a fortune from DUI. They just sit on the bridge and pull people over, like shooting ducks in a barrel. I once took my ex to court in the town over the bridge for DUI, after he had a couple of beers and got stopped. The courtroom was PACKED, all with people there for DUI. Every one of them had thousands in fines, some going to the state but a lot going to the municipalities. So say 40 people just in that one day in court, $7,000 apiece, multiply that by the entire summer, and IMO it's now become practically part of the budget and they need that money now as part of running the city. So again in my cynical opinion, they don't really have an interest in stopping it, just in profiting from it.
I lived in a similar area, California Delta.
Bar was on the other side of this bridge, but lots of people lived on the other side of bridge.
But local PD handled in differently - they had two patrol cars parked on the residential side of bridge - kind of a fair warning.
At closing time on the weekends the bar had a van and the only people who got DUI's were those who chose to cross the bridge, at closing time, knowing the PD was sitting there.
Bar was on the other side of this bridge, but lots of people lived on the other side of bridge.
But local PD handled in differently - they had two patrol cars parked on the residential side of bridge - kind of a fair warning.
At closing time on the weekends the bar had a van and the only people who got DUI's were those who chose to cross the bridge, at closing time, knowing the PD was sitting there.
SMH
But if they, as in the towns, are well aware that everyone from town A is going to town B to drink, why not make it so easy not to drive that no one does? IMO it's the money. Give huge tax breaks to the bars that have vans, put a shuttle into service, etc. It seems like they only want to catch people after the fact rather than prevent it.
Here is an idea. Every car has a breathalyzer installed. The driver must breathe into it before they can start the car. Blow .08 or higher and the car won't start. Intrusive, but it would reduce drunk driving.
Nice in theory.
Neighbor had his kid blow into the brealthyzer to start the car. Most folks can rig it with a balloon or other force air apparatus.
On topic: lost a cousin (19 -pre law), from a young lady who was partying at the beach.
She got three years prison and 5 years probation. Low and behold she shows up at one of our AA meetings. Life and time had changed her. She was seeking recovery . I couldn't be That member that embraced her. It was so hard though to sit and realize her entire life gets to be revised. My counsins' is gone permanently.
For the families that lose a person in such a way, it challenges the idea of 'what is the point??'.
Nice in theory.
Neighbor had his kid blow into the brealthyzer to start the car. Most folks can rig it with a balloon or other force air apparatus.
On topic: lost a cousin (19 -pre law), from a young lady who was partying at the beach.
She got three years prison and 5 years probation. Low and behold she shows up at one of our AA meetings. Life and time had changed her. She was seeking recovery . I couldn't be That member that embraced her. It was so hard though to sit and realize her entire life gets to be revised. My counsins' is gone permanently.
For the families that lose a person in such a way, it challenges the idea of 'what is the point??'.
So there needs to be a way to determine the identity of the person in the drivers seat. Again, it's intrusive, but if done correctly it would reduce drunken driving.
But if they, as in the towns, are well aware that everyone from town A is going to town B to drink, why not make it so easy not to drive that no one does? IMO it's the money. Give huge tax breaks to the bars that have vans, put a shuttle into service, etc. It seems like they only want to catch people after the fact rather than prevent it.
The drinker, those who want to voluntarily patronize a venue and consume intoxicating chemicals should be responsible for their own transportation. If a bar finds it more profitable to provide rides home that's on them.
But in away the drinkers and druggers that insist on traveling to get their high or buzz are extorting those sober to drive. It's like 'drive me home or I'll just do it myself and might get in accident killing someone'-the correct answer when one desires to travel for a buzz is no ride no travel period. You better drive me or else is extortion with threat of bodily harm from a vehichle crash.
And to top it off free rides wind up enabling the drunks and druggies. Part of the bottom for a drunk should be they get tired of having to walk to bars, drink at home or find themselves constantly trying to scarf up a ride and ask for favors. Should never make things easy for a drunk or druggie. It's not just about withholding money it's also about not doing favors for them period. Point is make them live their chosen lifestyle. They want it they facilitate and fund it.
So there needs to be a way to determine the identity of the person in the drivers seat. Again, it's intrusive, but if done correctly it would reduce drunken driving.
So is there a bank of people sitting somewhere watching videos of every American get in their car and start it??? And no one except the registered driver is allowed to operate that car? Are you serious?
This to me is a good example of what Ben Franklin meant when he said that famous line about being careful trading freedom for security. I think that's going way overboard.
The drinker, those who want to voluntarily patronize a venue and consume intoxicating chemicals should be responsible for their own transportation. If a bar finds it more profitable to provide rides home that's on them.
But in away the drinkers and druggers that insist on traveling to get their high or buzz are extorting those sober to drive. It's like 'drive me home or I'll just do it myself and might get in accident killing someone'-the correct answer when one desires to travel for a buzz is no ride no travel period. You better drive me or else is extortion with threat of bodily harm from a vehichle crash.
And to top it off free rides wind up enabling the drunks and druggies. Part of the bottom for a drunk should be they get tired of having to walk to bars, drink at home or find themselves constantly trying to scarf up a ride and ask for favors. Should never make things easy for a drunk or druggie. It's not just about withholding money it's also about not doing favors for them period. Point is make them live their chosen lifestyle and activities. They want it they facilitate and fund it.
Should be has nothing to do with it. My statement was about whether towns actually want to stop drunk driving, my opinion is they don't. Why shouldn't some of the vast sums they are taking in from DUI be used to actually help prevent DUI?
I'm not talking about drunks. I'm talking about people on vacation driving over a bridge so they can have wine with dinner, or have a couple beers while sitting over the water listening to bands.
What would be so awful though about making it easier for drug addicts and alcoholics not to drive though? I don't understand looking at it as "doing them a favor", it is to protect all of us. It sounds like you're advocating life be made as difficult as possible for addicts simply because they have an addiction. How is that helpful to society in any way?
If he was under the influence of a prescription drug, he'd be arrested but no one would go after the doctor or CVS. I don't think you're accurate at all that they'd go after the doctor. For what, legally dispensing a legal drug? You really think if he was high, they'd have investigated the person who sold him pot? I highly doubt that.
You really believe a liquor store that sold him a bottle of booze should have some responsibility here???
Funny you should bring that up, in a recent case in my area, this lady was involved in a car accident, somehow they determined she was under the influence of 'Oxycodone' and turns out, police arrested her doctor, an older doctor in a nearby city...they claimed he was giving her 'way too much' medication for her conditions.
Police said this doctor was giving her five 30mg Oxycodone tabs per day, they made a point to note that this was a girl in her early 20s. (the implication being why would such a young girl need so much strong painkillers).
So, they didnt arrest the doctor in relation to the car accident, he was arrested on dispensing narcotics inappropriately by the DEA.
Actually, now that I think about this, police violated her HIPPA rights in a huge way, informing the public how much medication she was being prescribed.
This makes my blood boil, so many lives are lost to drunk driving, but no one even dares to create tougher laws on access to alcohol or alcohol in general!......
Being told that one is held responsible as an adult at age 18 but is not able to partake in the rewards of being an adult at 18 isn't passing tougher laws?
As to the incident, well, that's irony.
When I lived in apartments, I always pictured a way I would check out is someone being careless with a gun next store, shooting it, and the round coming through the wall and taking me out. Me, the ultra careful one of guns buying it that way......but that is Fate!
Being told that one is held responsible as an adult at age 18 but is not able to partake in the rewards of being an adult at 18 isn't passing tougher laws?
As to the incident, well, that's irony.
When I lived in apartments, I always pictured a way I would check out is someone being careless with a gun next store, shooting it, and the round coming through the wall and taking me out. Me, the ultra careful one of guns buying it that way......but that is Fate!
Ask any kid 16-20 yrs old how difficult it is to obtain alcohol if they want it. LOL
I partied a lot when I was a teenager (unfortunately), At 47 yrs old I regret my behavior now, but at the time, I was just having a good time with friends, I cannot put into words how EASY it was to obtain alcohol as a teenager, the laws are the same today as when I was 16-20yrs old.
**Yes, I realize stores claim to be more strict about carding people for alcohol today...but hey, they claimed the same thing in the 1990s too. (Lets just say this, cashiers at stores that sell alcohol are sometimes in that same age range)...I will let you figure it out from there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
