The drink driving laws are a form of tyranny

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I have a new idea:

Make drunk driving legal, if they can make it home, God bless them. BUT---

IF they hurt someone, it's a mandatory 3 year jail sentence, no way out, no exceptions

IF they KILL someone, it's mandatory LIFE in prison, no way out, no parole, no excuses

If that doesn't scare people then they deserve to go to jail. However most of them are not that impaired and do make it home and the cops and localities are only using the drunk driving laws to make money and it's not teaching anyone anything.

So while you're at it, make drugs and prositution legal, why is this any of anybody else's business? Legalizing them will cut down on the crime associated with them too.

Do the 3 above things and localities can get rid of about 3/4 of their police and detectives and empty out about 3/4 of their prison cells, making taxes lower for all of us!

How's that for a brave new world?

 

[Irvine511]

I have a new idea:

Make drunk driving legal, if they can make it home, God bless them. BUT---

IF they hurt someone, it's a mandatory 3 year jail sentence, no way out, no exceptions

IF they KILL someone, it's mandatory LIFE in prison, no way out, no parole, no excuses

If that doesn't scare people then they deserve to go to jail. However most of them are not that impaired and do make it home and the cops and localities are only using the drunk driving laws to make money and it's not teaching anyone anything.


How's that for a brave new world?

i guess it sucks to be the dead person.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

But you have to consider that the current drunk driving laws would not necessarily have saved the person, and that the person might not die at all because with the new laws the drunks may be too afraid of mandatory life in jail to take the chance.

 

[Irvine511]

But you have to consider that the current drunk driving laws would not necessarily have saved the person, and that the person might not die at all because with the new laws the drunks may be too afraid of mandatory life in jail to take the chance.

the point of the drunk driving laws is to prevent someone from driving drunk, or to stop someone who is driving drunk before someone is killed.

the laws you are suggesting only deal with the situation after someone is injured or killed. not a thought to prevention, just punishment.

 

[BVS]

I have a new idea:

Make drunk driving legal, if they can make it home, God bless them. BUT---

IF they hurt someone, it's a mandatory 3 year jail sentence, no way out, no exceptions

IF they KILL someone, it's mandatory LIFE in prison, no way out, no parole, no excuses

If that doesn't scare people then they deserve to go to jail. However most of them are not that impaired and do make it home and the cops and localities are only using the drunk driving laws to make money and it's not teaching anyone anything.

This makes no sense. That's like saying drive as fast as you can in front of a school until you hit someone...

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

the point of the drunk driving laws is to prevent someone from driving drunk, or to stop someone who is driving drunk before someone is killed.

So is the general idea, but it's not working that way. It's just a way to have a lot of cops sitting around and hiding looking for someone to harass and a way to get money for the localities and the stupid ineffective 'counseling' programs (remember my Dad and his 22 yr. old 'counseler' who only plays with her cell phone) They are looking for people who may be drunk, and sometimes test those who aren't. If they were really only waiting for blatant weaver who can't stay on the road, I'd buy it, but not as it is now. That may be the original intention, but not the way it's turned out.

the laws you are suggesting only deal with the situation after someone is injured or killed. not a thought to prevention, just punishment.

No. The prevention is, if they get caught, it's not a stupid counseling class and fines, but the reality JAIL for sure. That should go a long way in preventing the idiocy of driving drunk.


Because all they do is nag people to get fines, that shows money and not reaL prevention is the main goal of the laws.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

AnnRKey, you're crazy.

Strict DWI/DUI rules may not prevent the crime, but it certainly helps prevent non-alcoholics from doing it again.

Those who continue to commit the crime after being caught and going through the embarassment, humiliation and financial hit that comes along with it are alcoholics. They can not make a proper choice when it comes to alcohol.

If you want to argue that sentances for repeat offenders should come with mandatory counseling and rehab instead of extended jail time, you may actually have a point.

 

[Irvine511]

No. The prevention is, if they get caught, it's not a stupid counseling class and fines, but the reality JAIL for sure. That should go a long way in preventing the idiocy of driving drunk.

do you know anyone who would stop and say, "whoops! guess i better not drive drunk on the off chance that i kill someone, i'll go to jail for life."

no. most people who drive drunk mistakenly think they are more sober than they are, or are so fucked up they don't even give it a second thought. the point of police stopping drivers -- while, i agree, it IS annoying and i do think the police are much too happy to pull over a grandmother who had a hot toddy at the Christmas party -- is to weed out the potentially deadly drivers *before* they kill someone.

most people who do kill via drunk driving are already sentenced very heavily and absolutely vilified by society. it doesn't work as much of a deterrent, i see no reason why life in prison would make any whit of difference.

 

[anitram]

I have a new idea:

Make drunk driving legal, if they can make it home, God bless them. BUT---

IF they hurt someone, it's a mandatory 3 year jail sentence, no way out, no exceptions

IF they KILL someone, it's mandatory LIFE in prison, no way out, no parole, no excuses



How's that for a brave new world?

It's a really stupid idea and frankly goes against the principles of criminal law.

Arguably the most effective way of dealing with drunk drivers is to require breathalyzers to be installed in every vehicle so that you can't turn the engine on unless you blow below whatever the legal limit is. Of course there is the concern that a sober person will blow on your behalf, so there should be corresponding and VERY heavy sanctions imposed on such fraud.

No system would ever be perfect but that is true of every crime.

 

[bigjohn2441]

"drunk" driving here in the VI is tolerated and almost never enforced. funny that we have to wear seatbelts and cant talk on the phone while driving, but pounding a beer while driving is fine.

i drive home what would be considered over the limit in the states pretty much every time i go out, which isnt very often.

i guess the max speed limit on the island being 35 and very low traffic after dark has something to do with it.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Arguably the most effective way of dealing with drunk drivers is to require breathalyzers to be installed in every vehicle so that you can't turn the engine on unless you blow below whatever the legal limit is. Of course there is the concern that a sober person will blow on your behalf, so there should be corresponding and VERY heavy sanctions imposed on such fraud.

that'd be nifty, actually. we have all this other technology in vehicles, surely something like this could be put in a car?

 

[mysterious_jen]

alcohol interlock devices are fitted here for repeat offenders and are pretty effective. they propbably will become part of cars in the future, like ABS, and airbags have become.
quite frankly im glad we have mandatory brethalyser tests and drug testing when you get pulled over, and hoon drives can have their cars impounded on the spot. fantastic. sadly we still lose around 300 people (in victoria ) a year in road accidents and thousands more are horrifically injured.
drinking driving and speed are usually factors involved.
i think most aussies would happily see more cops and booze buses out there if it means pulling the piss heads off the road so the rest of us can get home in intact to see our families.

 

[anitram]

alcohol interlock devices are fitted here for repeat offenders and are pretty effective. they propbably will become part of cars in the future, like ABS, and airbags have become.

Same here.

 

[financeguy]

Australia has really got mad into the political correctness in recent years. Why don't they just ban grog altogether and have done with it?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Quite unrelated to booze but when I am out on the er, Australian, highways, driving at the speed limit of 100km/h, everyone - and I mean everyone - overtakes me. Which means the majority are substantially exceeding the legal speed limit at all times. Not a cop in sight.

How's that for political correctness, guys?

 

[financeguy]

Personally, I like to drive my Corvette at 37 mph in the fast lane.

YouTube - I'm an Asshole by Dennis Leary (Uncensored)

 

[Angela Harlem]

Australia has really got mad into the political correctness in recent years. Why don't they just ban grog altogether and have done with it?

Crazy, isn't it? We enforce seatbelt laws, helmets for motorcycle and bicycle users, have intolerably low drug and alcohol laws which encompass many aspects of socialisation - such as drink driving, possession of prohibited substances, purchase restrictions of alcohol which include no consumption in public places, purchase only within certain times of the day, and overall restrictions to any intoxicated person.

I don't know how we all survive such restrictive laws.

 

[HyperU2]

alcohol interlock devices are fitted here for repeat offenders and are pretty effective. they propbably will become part of cars in the future, like ABS, and airbags have become.

Too much revenue would be lost.

 

[financeguy]

Crazy, isn't it? We enforce seatbelt laws, helmets for motorcycle and bicycle users, have intolerably low drug and alcohol laws which encompass many aspects of socialisation - such as drink driving, possession of prohibited substances, purchase restrictions of alcohol which include no consumption in public places, purchase only within certain times of the day, and overall restrictions to any intoxicated person.

I don't know how we all survive such restrictive laws.

Indeed. Boiled frog analogy, etc.

 

[financeguy]

Too much revenue would be lost.

I think that's the only reason why the big government types don't lobby to ban it outright. If they were consistent, they would do this - but never expect consistency, or indeed basic integrity, from big government lobbyists and their lackies.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Why is revenue raising such a sour point anyway? There's only one way to avoid it.

 

[HyperU2]

Why is revenue raising such a sour point anyway? There's only one way to avoid it.

The fines are disproportionate to the danger.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The fines are disproportionate to the danger.

How so? Literally, how so? They're not comparable - fines vs drink driving dangers, let alone disproportionate. Money happens to be a handy way of giving people a quick slap.

 

[financeguy]

What's consistently ignored is that driving is dangerous FULL STOP.

A large metal object careering along at 40+mph near to people is highly dangerous, FULL STOP.

Statistically, 'drink' driving is only slightly more dangerous than sober driving. And a bad, sober driver is usually more dangerous than a good, drunk one.

Incidentally, if Australia has such a tight approach regarding drink driving, and yet drink driving is still killing hundreds a year, or whatever, then it seems to me either that the policy is questionable or that the statistics are being tampered with.

The whole moral hysteria around drink driving reminds me of the debates regarding passive smoking. They never mention the dangers of fumes from automobiles - much more dangerous than passive smoking. As a non automobile owner, I demand the right to bitterly complain about the feckless, reckless automobile owners polluting my precious air.

Let's cut the bullshit hypocrisy, and ban cars, tobacco and booze and have done with it.

 

[HyperU2]

Speeding kills far more people than drunk driving but the DUI fines are ten times as much.

 

[financeguy]

Speeding kills far more people than drunk driving but the DUI fines are ten times as much.

Which neatly vindicates one of the larger points made in the article linked to in the OP - moral hysteria has replaced rational analysis regarding justice policies in the area of road traffic.

 

[anitram]

Speeding kills far more people than drunk driving but the DUI fines are ten times as much.

I actually don't believe that is true, at least in this jurisdiction.

If you drive 50km over the speed limit, you are liable for a fine up to $10,000 in addition to having your vehicle impounded and your licence suspended immediately.

There is no such corresponding fine for drunk driving.

 

[BVS]

Too much revenue would be lost.

Um, they do require these by repeat offenders in many states...

I think that's the only reason why the big government types don't lobby to ban it outright. If they were consistent, they would do this - but never expect consistency, or indeed basic integrity, from big government lobbyists and their lackies.

Ban what, alcohol outright? What are you talking about?

The fines are disproportionate to the danger.

Not for those of us that understand the numbers.

 

[phillyfan26]

It doesn't make sense to justify your drunk driving argument by saying that other crimes aren't being punished enough.

 

[HyperU2]

Ok, drunk driving is being punished too much.