Montana has a deadly culture... (Missoula, Red Lodge: transplants, sales, how much)

[organick]

[quote=AQHA;11308567]Non-violent drug offenders are not killing anyone, drunk drivers are.

I don't use drugs, I wouldn't use them even if they were legal. Lord knows I used my share in high school but I gave all that foolishness up when I decided to make something of myself. Do I care if others smoke a little pot? Nope, it doesn't hurt me. Drunk drivers kill or injure a lot of innocent people. I'm all about people being able to do what they want to do just so it doesn't hurt others. This hurts others.



I was making that exact point, maybe it did not come across correct. I fully agree with you. Someone sitting home and getting high on whatever, including alcohol does not affect me until they get in a car. Then it endangers me and my family. My point was if you are going to imprison someone for having a bag of whatever but being no danger to anyone than why do we not imprison people who basically threaten the life of evey person they pass on the road. It makes no sense.

[organick]

Originally Posted by Reziac

Before you cry for heavier anti-drunk-driving laws, remember that 990,000 Montanans did NOT drink and drive that day.

And we don't want to make laws so restrictive on the relatively tiny percentage of ne'er-do-wells that it impacts the freedoms of the responsible -- doing so is the road to tyranny (as Calif is well down the road to demonstrating).

It's the same basic issue as gun control. 3000 gun owners shot and killed someone last year. But 150 MILLION gun owners killed no one. Despite this, many cities and states restrict gun ownership and carry rights, under the theory that this will eliminate the few irresponsible or criminal gun owners. But as we know, it doesn't work that way -- rather, it destroys everyone's rights, while affecting the perps not at all.

Alcohol is no different. A few will drink and drive no matter how heavily we penalize them. But don't let that fool you into believing checkpoints and interlocks on ALL vehicles is the answer. (And remember that police occupied in manning checkpoints cannot patrol the streets.) There is no perfect answer that doesn't destroy the rights of the citizens as a whole, hence there will always be a few unfortunate and sometimes deadly incidents.

But remember that giving up YOUR rights will not stop someone else from being a danger to those around him.

How do equate drinking and driving to a right you are giving up??? There is no giving up of rights by saying people should be punished for driving drunk. I think my RIGHT to be same way outweighs your right to drink and drive.

[organick]

Originally Posted by Reziac

It comes down to personal responsibility. If you go out and shoot people, or go driving on a public road while drunk, you failed at personal responsibility and should pay accordingly. I don't have a problem with that. (I don't see how riding your horse, or your car for that matter, on your own property while drunk hurts anyone but possibly YOU.)

What I do have a problem with are draconian laws meant to "prevent" such crimes. One has been floated that would require breathalyzer interlocks on all cars -- this is no different than requiring trigger locks on all guns. People are either responsible enough to use something that has inherent dangers (cars, guns) or they're not. You can't legislate responsibility; all you can do is punish those who failed at it, after the deed is done (punishing before the deed is the essense of thoughtcrime).

Rational people will say "Doing that is dumb, look at the consequences!" Irrational people won't, or think the rules don't apply to them, and punishing the rational people won't change that. And unless we lock everyone in Safety Bubbles, sometimes the irrational people are going to hurt the rational people.

BTW a good friend of mine was killed in a head-on collision, 18-wheeler came around a bend in the wrong lane and made tinfoil of her little car. So yes, I know what it's like to get that call.

your argument is flawed in that you must allow the crime to happen before doing anything about, lets be realistic....people are not responsible all the time, especially after drinking alcohol. If you wait until someone is shot or hit by a drunk driver it is too late for that innocent person.

[organick]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

How far you have to drive has nothing to do with it, if you can't get home safe then don't drink at the bar, drink at home.

Since you guys just want to throw out random numbers here is the actual data from the national safety commision. Note that the number of deaths is based on drivers with an blood alcohol content above legal limits.

Recently, The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a report showing that 12,998 people were killed nationally in 2007 by drunk drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher. The good news, however, is that the state-by-state drunk driving fatality figures show that 32 states reduced their drunk driving-related fatalities in 2007—a 3.7 percent decrease in drunk driving traffic fatalities from 2006. This includes a 15 percent decrease in fatal crashes involving underage drinking drivers, which is the most progress shown by any age group.

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by organick

[b]I was making that exact point, maybe it did not come across correct.

Your point came across very well, i understood what you were saying.

Originally Posted by organick

My point was if you are going to imprison someone for having a bag of whatever but being no danger to anyone than why do we not imprison people who basically threaten the life of evey person they pass on the road. It makes no sense.

I agree. It's like this joker who killed the couple this summer. He just crashed again.... he's a ticking time-bomb. He has no regard for your safety or mine. The thing is, if you ask most of these people, they'll tell you they can drive just as good with "a few beers" as they do sober.

Originally Posted by AQHA

[i][b]"An East Helena man facing two felony counts of vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol was jailed over the weekend on another drunken driving charge.

[TouchtheShore]

I'd have to agree. I love a drink here and there and I did my share of partying, ah to be young-er and foolish-er again. But honestly the drunk driving is and has been ridiculous in Montana since I can remember. Damn, I can't think of too many people I used to work with that didn't have a DUI.

There are a few things that come to mind if I ask myself why there are so many drunk drivers in our area. Logically I'd say...

A: Lack of night life. People drive from house to house, to find good party's instead of staying at a club, then walking to the street to a bar or another club. It's really a lack of things to do PERIOD but mostly a lack of things to do in one area... people get drunk, they get bored, they leave.

B: Lack of public transportation. The public transportation in Helena is really minimal, how many taxi drivers to we have? 4? lol

A lot of it does have to do with the distance between things here tho, I think. Because some people drive all the way back in to their houses from a party/bar and even if a Taxi is available, it won't take them as far as they have to go if their house it outside of town.
You know and after someone gets a "buzz" at the bar there's no club to go hang out at or no place to go dance... so what do they do? They either keep drinking or they drive home ... or walk around Wal-Mart eating the deli chicken ...

If we're going to try and get it under control I don't know that harsher laws are going to do much, they may do more harm than good. An intoxicated driver doesn't think about those things... or much of anything for that matter. What we need to do is attack the source and create better public transportation, more places for adults to hang out and "kick back" without getting shwasheded, more places for kids to have fun and socialize without having to resort to partying, drugs or alcohol. I think if we had establishments for younger people where they could hang out, dance, play pool, skateboard, play b-ball and interact they wouldn't be going off looking for drugs and alcohol and at least we'd keep them off the roads. Guys we don't even have a half way decent Mall here in Helena. There's no place for these kids to socialize, and a lot, if not most of the drunk driving accidents involve high school aged kids.

Driving drunk is a lapse in judgment and a selfish act ... these people get in to a car being 10x more likely to get in to a wreck, to hit a child, to kill themselves ... do you really think a harsher law is going to make them stop and call a cab? I know the people that do it, and that will never stop them.

[MTSilvertip]

Originally Posted by organick

your argument is flawed in that you must allow the crime to happen before doing anything about, lets be realistic....people are not responsible all the time, especially after drinking alcohol. If you wait until someone is shot or hit by a drunk driver it is too late for that innocent person.

Now THAT is a flawed argument!!

That is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Nazi Germany, imprisioning you for what you MIGHT do.

A crime that has not been committed cannot be a crime because it hasn't happened.
If you wish to use advertising such as the anti Meth campaign or the current "Don't drink and Drive" infomertials that already exist, fine, but you can't predict what any individual may or may not do.

Punish the offender for what they have done, not what they may do. Yes, it will be too late for the innocent victim, but to punish someone for something they haven't done flies in the face of our entire judicial system.

I have far too much experience in this area.
I serve on a Volunteer Fire/Rescue Department and have been the one to pick up pieces of several people who were driving"Under the Influence". Not just drinking, but recreational drug use or abuse.

The calls I hate the worst are the ones where the driver killed themselves, their passangers or someone else because they were talking on a CELL PHONE.

Drunks and stoners are usually out between Friday evening and through Sunday afternoon, Cell phoners are on the roads 24-7 and have just as little regard for human life as any other offender. I consider it worse because they are not under the influence of any foreign substance to cloud their judgement, just their own arrogance so that they won't pull over, do their talking, then drive.

Studies in Great Britan and the United States have confirmed that talking on cell phones is just as bad as driving under the influence.

If you are going to ban something, ban those miserable phones!!!!

[Montana Griz]

Originally Posted by AQHA

Non-violent drug offenders are not killing anyone, drunk drivers are.

Think about this:

The Carbon County judge was recently arrested for DUI, so were the judges from Ravalli County and Custer County. The commissioner from Flathead County and the one from Beaverhead County were both arrested for DUI. The Flathead probation officer was nailed for DUI not long ago, so was Miss Montana herself!

To me the above says it all..........to the average guy on the street, the 'thought process' goes like this: "Hey, if these people in positions of authority, and other positions of public trust can get away with a 'wrist slap' after getting a DUI, why should I be worried about possibly getting nailed while driving under the influence. (My daughter, a school teacher has had me speak to some young groups over the years, about the possible disastorus effect of driving after drinking and possibly combining it with anger and speed.. If my experience can save just one youngster from injury or death, and not have a mother receive the phone call my mom got....I'll feel I've helped.
__________________________________________________ _______________
The following is not being posted to 'blow my own horn' or to elicit any type of recognition......it is being told to show the never ending "life altering negative effects" of being a passenger in a vehicle being driven by someone who had been drinking.

August 23rd 1951...10pm, in a rural area in the northern midwest. I age 19, accepted a ride home (5 miles)..one small town to another.. from a guy (age 22), I had met just a couple of times. He had his ex girl friend in the front seat and told me to get in the front seat next to her. Un-beknownest to me was the fact that he was angry at her and had been drinking. In a couple of minutes, I became aware of his condition...... but it was too late!

He was speeding, (witnesses said over 90 mph), angry at her and lost it on a curve......we hit a tree in the middle of the driver's door (1949 ford convert--top down). They were both killed on impact. Alcohol, anger and speed obviously are a deadly combination. I lived due to the fact that their two bodies acted as energy absorbing "cushions". I also had run an "air-hammer" all summer (working my through college), which had me in prime shape. I woke up 22 days later, in an 'oxygen tent', in a full body cast....having sustained 2 fractures to my pelvis, 4 vertabrea, left shoulder, shoulder blade, collar bone, left arm, 5 ribs, 3 fingers, cracked sternum, crushed right knee, a major concussion, many stitches and several transfusions.

5 months and 6 days later I left Highland Park Hospital (still in a partial body cast) and 29 pounds less in weight. Later that year (1952), after months of P. Therapy, I went back to college and graduated 1955.

2 deaths and 3 families altered for life, due to driving after drinking, anger and excessive speed.............a preventable situation.

If anybody wants me to talk to their kid(s) about what can happen, due to alcohol, and how you live with the related negative effects for the rest of your life.....I'd be happy to do so.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by seven of nine

Maybe if the owners of the establishments are held responsible for the actions of those they pour for...

The money follows action IMO.

come on, now you want to blame the bar owners for people paying for their own drinks.

whats next, blaming taxpayers for making people go on welfare?

[CatherineFrances]

Montana has one of the HIGHEST vehicle insurance rates in this country due to drunk drivers and under or NO insurance drivers.

It is not just my opinion (I have a great driving record and many discounts.) and independent and one company insurance agents have told me this too.

Catherine