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.
Wow, how quickly people judge others. Nice to know there are so many "perfect" people out there with no issues.
Put the blame where it belongs. Alcohol brings in tons of money and taxes at the expense of human beings. Why would anyone expect anything to change.
No doubt there is money for alcohol sales, driving offenses, dui's etc. Same will occur with pot and other intoxicating substances in states where criminal penalties for possession will be eliminated. But there still is some personal responsibility here and not just after the fact. A lot of drugs/chemicals lower impulse control, they don't necessarily manufacture behavior. One of the simple rules is don't drive. If the drunk can't accept that then they must and will accept any possible consequences.
Yes the industry markets 'the party' or 'good time'. But it takes customers who want to 'party' all the time. It's all about their gratification and recreational activity. Life is not a party. Alkies along with addicts are some of the most selfish people in the world.
Some drunks let alone addict are some best actors and grifters out there always trying to fool people and/or talk people into money and favors. If they can take the time and thought for their scams they can think they should not be driving. I thought California was a steering wheel lock/breathalyzer state I guess not. Did this known drunk talk someone into loaning them their car or did they have drive to work only privileges.
Wow, how quickly people judge others. Nice to know there are so many "perfect" people out there with no issues.
Put the blame where it belongs. Alcohol brings in tons of money and taxes at the expense of human beings. Why would anyone expect anything to change.
No one expects anyone to be perfect. But there is a big difference between not keeping your house or hair perfect or making a mistake when adding numbers and drinking while impaired. People who drive while impaired are committing a crime, so yes, it is appropriate for us to judge them and the legal system to get involved. Because they could kill or severely injure you or your loved one…and too many have in fact not killed you since you are reading this and hopefully not any of your friends or family, but they have killed and injured other “you’s” and other people’s loved ones. That second grade teacher who had a little too much wine at dinner mentioned in an earlier post is just as able to hurt someone with her lethal weapon the car as anyone else.
I will always remember going to a concert and hearing young women talking in the bathroom about taking an Uber since they knew they would be getting drunk. They were in their early twenties. I admired their good judgment and honesty. Perhaps a fifteen year old drinking for the first time doesn’t understand what alcohol will do to them. Everyone else does…and knows they are likely or at least have the possibility of drinking too much…and then still getting into their car.
I drove a buddy to an AA meeting. I'd never been to one. After the meeting, I needed a drink. I don't believe in the so called "12 steps" and have never seen an AA attendee, esp. long term, quit. I also attended "Al Anon" and it's "program" has you coming up with ways to live with someone who drinks. NO THANKS. As I've posted before, my sister right out of Univ. was killed by a drunk WALKING distance from where our parents were born in Canada. I took the keys away from an executive that THOUGHT he was stronger than me, less than two years after my sister was killed. He was going to drive fifty miles home when completely blotto. The other Commission members? They didn't have the balls to do take his keys away. He never forgave me. If he had killed someone, I'd have never forgave myself. A decade later when the big hammer came down, he never called, and could have. It's ON HIM as a pos. To paraphrase Keifer Sutherland in "A Few Good Men", drunks have no Code, and they ;have no Honour. (Honor the the USA).
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.
No doubt there is money for alcohol sales, driving offenses, dui's etc. Same will occur with pot and other intoxicating substances in states where criminal penalties for possession will be eliminated. But there still is some personal responsibility here and not just after the fact. A lot of drugs/chemicals lower impulse control, they don't necessarily manufacture behavior. One of the simple rules is don't drive. If the drunk can't accept that then they must and will accept any possible consequences.
Yes the industry markets 'the party' or 'good time'. But it takes customers who want to 'party' all the time. It's all about their gratification and recreational activity. Life is not a party. Alkies along with addicts are some of the most selfish people in the world.
Some drunks let alone addict are some best actors and grifters out there always trying to fool people and/or talk people into money and favors. If they can take the time and thought for their scams they can think they should not be driving. I thought California was a steering wheel lock/breathalyzer state I guess not. Did this known drunk talk someone into loaning them their car or did they have drive to work only privileges.
They could have bought a cheap car for cash and never registered it.
I drove a buddy to an AA meeting. I'd never been to one. After the meeting, I needed a drink. I don't believe in the so called "12 steps" and have never seen an AA attendee, esp. long term, quit. I also attended "Al Anon" and it's "program" has you coming up with ways to live with someone who drinks. NO THANKS. As I've posted before, my sister right out of Univ. was killed by a drunk WALKING distance from where our parents were born in Canada. I took the keys away from an executive that THOUGHT he was stronger than me, less than two years after my sister was killed. He was going to drive fifty miles home when completely blotto. The other Commission members? They didn't have the balls to do take his keys away. He never forgave me. If he had killed someone, I'd have never forgave myself. A decade later when the big hammer came down, he never called, and could have. It's ON HIM as a pos. To paraphrase Keifer Sutherland in "A Few Good Men", drunks have no Code, and they ;have no Honour. (Honor the the USA).
Everyone is different and different things work for different people. I dated an AA member for 3 years, he was 15 years sober by then thanks to AA, and I met a lot of people from his meetings (he considered them his brothers and sisters and they had many social events, etc) who were also sober long term because of AA.
They pretty much accomplished what they set out to do, which was to have much harsher penalties for drunk driving enacted. When that group formed, it was pretty much a slap on the wrist. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, a lot of people drove drunk and didn’t give it a second thought. It’s completely different now, and the penalties are harsh enough that most people do not drive drunk any longer. But again, an alcoholic or an addict it’s not going to weigh the consequences regardless of how harsh, before he drinks and drives. The addiction makes the decisions.
We have so many DUIs in my area, there are numerous lawyers that specialize in it!
Nothing would have prevented this. It is against the law to drive drunk, so that law did not deter the person, breaking it before did not deter the person from breaking it again, so I doubt more laws regarding alcohol and alcohol access would have stopped the person.
They are still around, but they went off the deep end years ago in my opinion. They even fired the founder because she was not radical enough for them, as MADD is full of people who really want to ban alcohol all together.
Why does it matter where the person got alcohol from? Does it make a difference if from a bar, liquor store, home made, or grocery store?
Had this driver been under the influence of narcotics...you can be sure, police would have went after whoever they got the drugs from, (no matter if its a doctor or a kid on the street corner).
We have so many DUIs in my area, there are numerous lawyers that specialize in it!
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.
Had this driver been under the influence of narcotics...you can be sure, police would have went after whoever they got the drugs from, (no matter if its a doctor or a kid on the street corner).
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???
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.
