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.
For an incredibly irresponsible activity that is highly likely to kill innocent people, I would say the punishment is not harsh enough. Everyone has the ability to control how much they drink (and to not drink at all). And if you decide to go overboard, you can call a cab. Deciding to drive anyway is a blatantly disregarding the lives of innocent human beings, and these people should be hit with everything possible.
While I'm perfectly fine with drugs that don't cause harm to others (destroying your life is your own decision), if there's one drug that should be banned, it's alcohol.
The only reason alcohol isn't banned entirely (and why prohibition failed) is that it is an incredibly popular drug, making enforcement nigh impossible.
First off, This is from page 1 of the thead.
You use an unsourced chart which quite frankly is pretty stupid as it gives no rationale as to it's scale but it's clearly some sort of "total volume" measure in that it has alcohol worse than heroin.
By that logic, instead of driving cars to work we should ban them and instead ride upon rabid grizzly bears.
Also, instead of having dogs for pets, we should ban them and instead have rattlesnakes for pets.
Complete and utter logic fail, wherever you heisted that graph and then non-sourced it.
[quote=rlrl;38170339]NY is especially tough. Normally if you are convicted of a non criminal offense infraction like harassment or disorderly conduct the record will be sealed (meaning if the defendant is fingerprinted for a job or license the record will not show up)
however, if youre convicted of a non criminal driving offense like DWAI (driving while ability impaired, less than a .08 BAC) NY will not seal the record. the only difference is that the fines and other punishments are not as harsh as they are with a DWI[/quote]
Sounds like a form of the "slightest degree" clause we have here where you can legally get popped for less that .08% based on the officers discretion. A clause that, obviously, a lot of people disagree with.
Last edited by Bruce Jackpot; 01-25-2015 at 04:13 PM..
You don't drive better after a few drinks. I run faster with a sprained ankle
1. You don't know me and you can't make any assessment at all! NONE!
2. You never drank with me, so you can't make any assessment! NONE!
3. The End. You lost!
Yeah! Stay home and drink. Stay OFF THE ROADS if you want to drink. What's so difficult about that?
Why do they serve alcohol to anyone at a restaurant/bar? I realize you are clearly a prohibitionist and if we had it your way, there would be no drinks anywhere, but you know, I live in the USA where at one time we believed in some freedoms. How about you move to some country that doesn't allow a wine with dinner and stay there. That would be great. We need less fear mongers like yourself in our country. Goodness, how did anyone survive the 70's and 80's? What great times they were. What happened? The bible belt is sure strong with their fear campaign. What boring lives people must lead.
1. You don't know me and you can't make any assessment at all! NONE!
2. You never drank with me, so you can't make any assessment! NONE!
3. The End. You lost!
You don't drive better after drinking and I don't have to know you to understand what alcohol does. I didn't lose anything to someone ignorant enough to think their motor skills improve with a few drinks
9,296 drunk driving deaths in 2011
3,331 distracted driving deaths in 2011
However, the talk about other causes of traffic fatalities (and injuries) is a deflection from the issue of drunk driving. Yes, we need penalties for driving and texting. That does not mean there should be fewer penalties for drunk driving.
But that is exactly the point I am making. Most people on here are fixated by the issue of DUI. I am suggesting that you need a holistic perspective on distracted driving and not just drinking. That is not deflection and it does not take away from the issue of DUI. But it does recognize that there are other issues to be dealt with.
If you get killed by a drunk, by a kid texting or by a senior who is no longer fit to drive, the end result is the same. You are dead. But that reality is uncomfortable to people because casting the net wider will necessarily bring more people's driving into question.
First time with no property damage or injuries, I don't think the consequences are too bad. I don't think it's even a felony in my home state of IL. I know a guy who has had 2, his wife has had 2.
His first didn't result in any property damage or injuries. He spent a lot of money, though.
Both of hers did not result in any property damage or injuries.
His second resulted in a felony and deservedly so.
His injuries from the second one: broken back, concussion, scrapes and cuts.
Her injuries from his second: broken collar bone, dislocated hip, concussion, scrapes and cuts.
She was out of work for 2-3 months and he was even longer. He thought that he would just get another misdemeanor, probation, fine, suspended license, etc. When the prosecutor came back with a felony charge, he changes his demeanor really quick.
At first he seemed to learn his lesson and was apologetic but now he's trying to play himself out to be the victim. He's just someone who was never accountable on his own. After the 2nd DUI, his family helped him with legal fees. The car was totaled and for some reason the insurance company paid it off. I was under the impression they would not if it was a DUI. His dad gave him his old car.
She didn't help matters either saying it was for political reasons they tried to jail him, alcohol does things to people, etc.
His license was suspended. He still drives, in fact, he drives around like someone does who doesn't have a suspended license. Drives to work, to the store, probably even drives to his AA meetings.
He said if the government didn't want people to DUI, they should ban alcohol. If they don't want people to speed, the car manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to make cars that go over the speed limit.
He only did 10 days but he has a felony on his record now. His mom is writing to the governor trying to get him pardoned. He's probably blown $30k+ on defending himself from the DUI's. IMO, it's his family that enables him because they keep coming up with money to keep him out of deeper legal trouble. How can he learn if he's always given a parachute?
If it were up to me: people like him with multiple DUI's should have their vehicles impounded and they would be thrown away in prison. They obviously don't learn.
Good people do not constantly make big mistakes like this which can lead to the injury/death of innocent bystanders in public.
I've asked him this question repeatedly. He refuses to answer. Must have been hella high! 0.20 or higher, perhaps?
When I was doing Grand Jury, our record for felony DUI was 0.341
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.
