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.
Interesting. If you ever made this poor choice and got caught, I'd bet you'd disagree with that statement.
If a member of your immediate family was killed by a drunk driver, I bet you'd disagree with your stance too. As with many issues, there are two sides to the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Jackpot
Thousands in fines, possible jail time, loss of license, classes etc. That's no slap on the wrist for most people. Maybe for Justin Bieber and celebrities but most Americans, no.
States like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin appear to have more empathy then most. They actually "gasp" give people a more reasonable punishment. They want people to learn from their mistakes whereas other states seem to just want to shake you down for money and turn your life upside down.
Given the seriousness of the endangerment of lives, is this really out of proportion? What's a loss of three months of your life and $3,000 - $9,000? At least you are still alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Jackpot
Totally forgot about the interlock device, that's a requirement now here in AZ. For a first time offender, c'mon. And I hear it's expensive. Just another money grubbing requirement that makes peoples lives harder. I used to live in California, and agree it is just super expensive. Here in AZ it is cheap living and still close to CA.... check it out if you haven't.
Well, what's the alternative? No one is ever, strictly speaking, forced to purchase the device - you always are legally allowed to simply not drive at all.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. It is also operation of a potentially lethal machine. Because of the public safety impact, the public has every right to demand that someone who operates a vehicle must demonstrate that they can do it safely. I see no reason to consider ignition interlock unreasonable in this context, as one of a multitude of measures used to require those operating vehicles to demonstrate that they do not pose an unduly large risk of death to the bystanders and other drivers.
Consider, by analogy, other cases where safety devices or measures impose a significant cost. An example might be drug trials. They are expensive, and their cost ultimately is passed to the consumer, and yes, some people have trouble affording medications they need. Yet, despite these financial difficulties, we require drugs to be tested for safety in expensive animal studies and clinical trials, and rightfully so. Because the alternative - widespread death and disability caused by harmful drugs - is a greater evil.
Similarly, we as a society deem widespread death due to drunk driving to be a greater evil than the cost of ignition interlock.
Finally, every single driver has the choice to avoid ignition interlock and its costs by simply not driving drunk in the first place, so it is not as though we are creating "victims out of people who did everything right". If you drink and drive, you made a huge error.
I am all for harsh punishments for idiots who drive drunk. Anything that gets people to pause and reconsider getting on the road is a good thing. Unfortunately, most states have useless drunk driving laws.
Again, it is not a "mistake." It is a deliberate choice. There is absolutely no reason for it to happen at all other than making the deliberate choice to do so. The consequences are not something that happens to an otherwise "good" or "innocent" person. They happen to someone who made the deliberate, conscious choice to endanger the lives of other people.
It's not hard to end up DUI level, especially for women. For me, one drink will put me over. I think there should be tiers of consequences depending on how much over the limit you are, whether it's a first or repeat offense, and whether there was any damage.
It's not hard to end up DUI level, especially for women. For me, one drink will put me over. I think there should be tiers of consequences depending on how much over the limit you are, whether it's a first or repeat offense, and whether there was any damage.
Or what about, if one drink will put you over, simply not driving? If you're impaired you shouldn't drive, whether you're a man or a woman. "Tiers of consequences" will only encourage people to test the limits.
Again, it is not a "mistake." It is a deliberate choice. There is absolutely no reason for it to happen at all other than making the deliberate choice to do so. The consequences are not something that happens to an otherwise "good" or "innocent" person. They happen to someone who made the deliberate, conscious choice to endanger the lives of other people.
It is not "just a mistake."
Have you ever driven while sleep deprived? Or sick? Or when you were particularly emotional or distracted?
If so, you can go ahead and hop off that high horse of yours, because driving under those circumstances is just as 'dangerous' (if not more so) as driving after having a drink or two.
Last edited by ohhwanderlust; 01-23-2015 at 05:27 PM..
If one is under the influence of drink or drugs and drives, it is a choice, and I would guess that it was not the first occurrence, they were just lucky and didn't get caught...if they get pulled over, there is a price to be paid, and, I am all for it, infact, I think the laws and punishments are too lenient.
It's not hard to end up DUI level, especially for women. For me, one drink will put me over. I think there should be tiers of consequences depending on how much over the limit you are, whether it's a first or repeat offense, and whether there was any damage.
Again, it is not a "mistake." It is a deliberate choice. There is absolutely no reason for it to happen at all other than making the deliberate choice to do so. The consequences are not something that happens to an otherwise "good" or "innocent" person. They happen to someone who made the deliberate, conscious choice to endanger the lives of other people.
It is not "just a mistake."
Most people probably don't intend to drive drunk. If I drink 6 beers and a shot over 5 hours I will be fine, but over 4 hours I would be borderline. At 4.25 hrs I would be fine.
What's the difference between .078 and .082? 15 minutes and a DWI.
Most people probably don't intend to drive drunk. If I drink 6 beers and a shot over 5 hours I will be fine, but over 4 hours I would be borderline. At 4.25 hrs I would be fine.
What's the difference between .078 and .082? 15 minutes and a DWI.
And that's why you should be responsible and not even get close to the limit before driving.
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.
