News, Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life'

[Fred314X]

When someone points out to Rep. Hale that drunkenness isn't considered a 'way of life' in many places, I wonder how long it will take him to issue a statement in which he 'clarifies' what he meant.

[DrJoey]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Not get themselves in the position in the first place. Trade favors as to who gets to be DD. Get a sober adult to pick them up. Make arrangements to crash where the party is, like I did back when I learned to drink.

This is a most imperfect world with many problems, but "I'm sh.tfaced and don't have a plan for getting home" tends to be a problem of one's own making. Which means it's not OK to endanger bystanders to resolve it.

While I definitely agree with you that people should be responsible, I have to consider that the consequences of drunk driving in LA are very different than in the middle of nowhere Montana. The only thing on the road in MT after 10 is your next meal or another drunk.

The 0.8 BA level, and 21 yr old drinking age should not be federal law.

[DrJoey]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Yes, what a way to separate the alcoholics from the non-alcoholics. Just like the smoking threads where all the smokers clamor to defend their "liberties".

While I do enjoy a drink on a rare occasion, I do not enjoy smoking anything, yet I will still stand up for people who choose to do either. It is about liberties.

The gov't shouldn't be controlling what its citizens choose to do. While people may not be making the best decisions, who am I to tell them what to do?

I can tell people smoking is stupid, and I do. I can tell people that drinking is stupid, and I do. I can tell people not to take drugs, and I do.

But really, their decisions are their own self-responsiblity. If Montana decides to not abide by the 0.8 laws in certain counties where they determine it to be safe then they should be allowed to do so. There probably wasn't much difference anyways within the past 10 years or so when most of those counties were 1.0 +.

[odinloki1]

Originally Posted by DrJoey

While I do enjoy a drink on a rare occasion, I do not enjoy smoking anything, yet I will still stand up for people who choose to do either. It is about liberties.

The gov't shouldn't be controlling what its citizens choose to do. While people may not be making the best decisions, who am I to tell them what to do?

I can tell people smoking is stupid, and I do. I can tell people that drinking is stupid, and I do. I can tell people not to take drugs, and I do.

But really, their decisions are their own self-responsiblity. If Montana decides to not abide by the 0.8 laws in certain counties where they determine it to be safe then they should be allowed to do so. There probably wasn't much difference anyways within the past 10 years or so when most of those counties were 1.0 +.

The problem is that the decisions of stupid people can have a negative impact on someone who does nothing wrong when it comes to drunk driving.

Self responsibility is a nice principle when you have complete control and you're the only one that is negatively impacted when you make a stupid decision, however drunk driving is not one of those things.

I'll reiterate my prior post on this thread. Some bus/taxi system would be cheaper than jail, and have less negative impact on people's lives, than allowing people to drive drunk because they drank and had other transportation options and then incarceration.

Its a simple question, of what system can have the least negative impact on people's lives and be a better economic alternative than what we have now.