• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When will drunk driving be taken more seriously?

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
When a politician's loved one is killed?

I just read about a nun getting killed and two others seriously injured on Sunday morning when an ILLEGAL immigrant with two prior DUI convictions ran into a car into the Subaru these ladies were in. He was NOT allowed to drive.

Driver in fatal Va. crash had previous DUI violations

That same morning, we have a father and his three sons going out to see a movie. They never came home because some effing scumbag who was drunk driving killed them. KILLED ALL 4 of them. I am disgusted.

Florida family hopes DUI tragedy will help prevent others - CNN.com
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It doesn't matter how strict the laws get, people will always drink and drive. I am tired of MADD and other organizations like them trying to make getting from point A to point B more financially costly and difficult for the rest of us. Stop creating bureaucracy and all these permits for driving. The vast majority of the population know their limits and wouldn't put others in danger.

Laws that become more and more severe cannot save us from stupid people. It only makes life harder on everyone else.
 

jmh423

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
76
Reaction score
25
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
First offense isn't even a felony in my state.
The US has more people locked up per capita than any country in the world already. So much for the old "land of the free" crap. Making a simple DUI a felony would increase our lead in this dubious catagory. Fatal accidents are always tragic, but there is no reason to treat anyone who has a .08 alcohol blood count while driving as a felon or even a criminal. Especially if no personal or property damage is incurred. What we need here are less laws and less imprisoned citizens. Let's not turn this country into the USSR champ...
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You drive drunk, you lose your license for 6 months and your vehicle becomes state property. Perhaps that will make folks think twice before doing something this dangerous and this avoidable.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
You drive drunk, you lose your license for 6 months and your vehicle becomes state property. Perhaps that will make folks think twice before doing something this dangerous and this avoidable.
it won't prevent a thing, people are not going to be worrying about the potential consequences when they're drunk.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
it won't prevent a thing, people are not going to be worrying about the potential consequences when they're drunk.
Maybe. But the consequences may prevent them from doing it again... considering they will no longer have a vehicle.
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
If someone is caught driving under influence then fine them, take away their license and ban them for a period of time.
No second chances, everyone knows what the law is so ignorance is no excuse.
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If someone is caught driving under influence then fine them, take away their license and ban them for a period of time.
No second chances, everyone knows what the law is so ignorance is no excuse.
That begs the question of whether ignorance is ALWAYS at play, though. Or rather, of the law versus how much they drinked and the level of imparity they are under. One issue is that many people can really hold their liquor better than others and will feel perfectly fine [and in some cases may seem to do just as well as somebody who is merely buzzed when it may not even be the case].

Still, though, the "buzzed driving = drunk driving" thing is complete crap. Buzzed = buzzed / impared != legally drunk [.08 and above].
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It doesn't matter how strict the laws get, people will always drink and drive. I am tired of MADD and other organizations like them trying to make getting from point A to point B more financially costly and difficult for the rest of us. Stop creating bureaucracy and all these permits for driving. The vast majority of the population know their limits and wouldn't put others in danger.

Laws that become more and more severe cannot save us from stupid people. It only makes life harder on everyone else.
You can't be serious. MADD has done more to effect change in the "drunk-driving arena" than all other efforts combined. Your last sentence: "The vast majority of the population know their limits and wouldn't put others in danger," is the epitome of someone who thinks there's a difference in being drunk and having a nice buzz.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
it won't prevent a thing, people are not going to be worrying about the potential consequences when they're drunk.
Not true. The word is on the street. In Illinois, get caught drunk driving, and it's going to cost you $5K or more. You may or may not lose your license unconditionally on the first offense. We have checkpoints where they pull drivers over. They've been found constitutional. More people than ever are planning ahead when they drink. Dram Shop litigation is not unusual:
TheIllinois Liquor Control Act, also known as the Dram Shop Act, gives any person injured by an intoxicated person the right to sue the intoxicated person, the vendor or person who sold the liquor to the intoxicated person, and the owner of the premises at which the intoxicated person became intoxicated, if it is in the business of selling liquor for a profit. Essentially, if the business is responsible for causing that person to become intoxicated illegally, the business owner may be liable. This area of the law is known as Dram Shop Law.
Drunk/buzzed drivers kill innocent people every day. What a useless way to die.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,321
Reaction score
42,422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
When a politician's loved one is killed?

I just read about a nun getting killed and two others seriously injured on Sunday morning when an ILLEGAL immigrant with two prior DUI convictions ran into a car into the Subaru these ladies were in. He was NOT allowed to drive.

Driver in fatal Va. crash had previous DUI violations

That same morning, we have a father and his three sons going out to see a movie. They never came home because some effing scumbag who was drunk driving killed them. KILLED ALL 4 of them. I am disgusted.

Florida family hopes DUI tragedy will help prevent others - CNN.com
It's already taken seriously. The punishments for DUI are hefty indeed. Well more than what they should be. At least when no casualties or property damage are involved. But let's be serious here. There will never be zero incidents of drunk driving; it's always going to exist on some level due to both cars and booze being legal in this country. I think people tend to freak out and over react a lot, especially in something as emotionally charged as drunk driving cases. And we've gone so far as to endorse things like check points (I know the SCOTUS says they're fine, but I don't see it as anything other than an illegal search), horrible amounts of fines, jail time, etc. Complete over punishment, and because of the money that goes to the State because of it, it's treated more as a fundraiser ticket than anything else.

It's sad that these people died, but those guys aren't going to go free after that. Both will most likely spend the rest of their lives (or a good majority of it) behind bars. What about that isn't taking it seriously? Do you want it stopped before it happened? Then make either automobiles or booze illegal. Otherwise note that it's going to happen. And just because it does doesn't mean we have to loose our heads and go MADD style crazy on it.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,321
Reaction score
42,422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Maybe. But the consequences may prevent them from doing it again... considering they will no longer have a vehicle.
I don't believe unlawful confiscation of property should be part of the punishment. They do that with drug offenses too, they'll take every bit of property they claim is related to it. But it's nothing more than State sponsored theft and nothing more. And I do not endorse the government stealing more of our money and property. No excessive punishment, that's it. We'll just have to deal with the consequences of being free.
 

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
327
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
"The vast majority of the population know their limits and wouldn't put others in danger," is the epitome of someone who thinks there's a difference in being drunk and having a nice buzz.
... and there isn't a difference? I mean, yes you can be severly impared even before being drunk, but to equate being on a light buzz after 1 drink and being drunk is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,184
Reaction score
21,089
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Alcohol depresses the central nervous system. That's why it has the effect it does. It follows that any intake of alcohol impairs the person's normal abilities. There is a case to be made for a total ban on drink or drugs for drivers. That removes any doubt, or temptation to extend a buzz to drunkenness. An automatic minimum ban of one year, plus a fine should draw a line in the sand of what is acceptable and the consequences of breaking the law.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It doesn't matter how strict the laws get, people will always drink and drive. I am tired of MADD and other organizations like them trying to make getting from point A to point B more financially costly and difficult for the rest of us. Stop creating bureaucracy and all these permits for driving. The vast majority of the population know their limits and wouldn't put others in danger.

Laws that become more and more severe cannot save us from stupid people. It only makes life harder on everyone else.
This response makes no sense.
DWI laws make NOTHING more costly to those who do not drink and drive. Except maybe insurance. Insurance companies may have to hike rates occassionally to cover their losses from covering folks in Hit and Run scenarios where the driver was a drunk driver.

So, MADD and other organizations aren't affecting your driving costs one damn bit. The drunk drivers however, are.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The US has more people locked up per capita than any country in the world already.
Irrelevant to this conversation. People don't go to prison for DWI except in the case of violating their probation or hitting a "habitual" level which makes them a felony (4 DWI convictions in 10 years in my state).

So much for the old "land of the free" crap.
And thank god for our government's persistance to ensure that your freedom doesn't infringe upon my rights or safety.

Making a simple DUI a felony would increase our lead in this dubious catagory.
Again, irrelevant.
Fatal accidents are always tragic, but there is no reason to treat anyone who has a .08 alcohol blood count while driving as a felon or even a criminal. Especially if no personal or property damage is incurred. What we need here are less laws and less imprisoned citizens. Let's not turn this country into the USSR champ...
Even when personal property damage IS incurred the penalty is usually not much more if at all severe.

Me think you don't know much about what you are talking about.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You drive drunk, you lose your license for 6 months and your vehicle becomes state property. Perhaps that will make folks think twice before doing something this dangerous and this avoidable.
Actually. In my state you lose your license for 1 year, but you get to keep your property.

The worst part of DWI punishments are the financial costs.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,285
Reaction score
50,283
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Not true. The word is on the street. In Illinois, get caught drunk driving, and it's going to cost you $5K or more. You may or may not lose your license unconditionally on the first offense. We have checkpoints where they pull drivers over. They've been found constitutional. More people than ever are planning ahead when they drink. Dram Shop litigation is not unusual:

Drunk/buzzed drivers kill innocent people every day. What a useless way to die.
Not sure, but I think this is the first time I have agreed with one of your posts. Excellent post.

Some one who is falling down drunk does not have the judgment to know not to drive, but those are not the only drunk drivers. Personally, I kinda agree with CC's position, but extended. second offense, 2 years suspended license, 30 days in jail, and major fine. Third offense 1 to 5 years in prison, and you never drive legally again.

People who drive under the influence have no respect for the safety of others, so I have nor respect for them.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That begs the question of whether ignorance is ALWAYS at play, though. Or rather, of the law versus how much they drinked and the level of imparity they are under. One issue is that many people can really hold their liquor better than others and will feel perfectly fine [and in some cases may seem to do just as well as somebody who is merely buzzed when it may not even be the case].

Still, though, the "buzzed driving = drunk driving" thing is complete crap. Buzzed = buzzed / impared != legally drunk [.08 and above].
Impairment effects people differently.
In my 4 years of policing I have arrested nearly 200 DWI offenders.
Ive seen folks "sloshed" at .09... and Ive seen people who are BARELY failing the field sobriety tests at .18.
As my PBT (portable breath tester) is my equipment, Ive also experimented on myself.

I'd never pass field sobriety driving at a .06, which is UNDER the limit.

My state's DWI law has an and/or section in its elements. Impairment can be proven, or a person can have a BAC of .08 or higher. If you have a .06 BAC on officially recorded breath instrument (not a PBT) and an officer can still testify to your signs of impairment (at the time of driving) then you can be convicted.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't believe unlawful confiscation of property should be part of the punishment. They do that with drug offenses too, they'll take every bit of property they claim is related to it. But it's nothing more than State sponsored theft and nothing more. And I do not endorse the government stealing more of our money and property. No excessive punishment, that's it. We'll just have to deal with the consequences of being free.
I agree AND disagree with your statement.

In many cases I disagree with taking a house or a car in relation to drug offenses. But not in all cases.

When it comes to DWI. I don't agree with taking a vehicle on the first offense.
When I DO agree with taking property is when an individual is under driving suspension because of a DWI and that person gets behind the wheel drunk and drives, while suspended, and while drunk again, and gets caught. In this situation, it is obvious that being ordered not to drive is not working, so I believe that the state should sieze the vehicle at that point, to prevent/hinder them from doing so again.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
When a politician's loved one is killed?

I just read about a nun getting killed and two others seriously injured on Sunday morning when an ILLEGAL immigrant with two prior DUI convictions ran into a car into the Subaru these ladies were in. He was NOT allowed to drive.

Driver in fatal Va. crash had previous DUI violations

That same morning, we have a father and his three sons going out to see a movie. They never came home because some effing scumbag who was drunk driving killed them. KILLED ALL 4 of them. I am disgusted.

Florida family hopes DUI tragedy will help prevent others - CNN.com
I semi agree iwt everyone else and semi agree with you.

Responders, in my opinion, don't take it very seriously - I do.
My ex called me from a bar once, drunk as a skunk, and told me he was going to drive home because his friends ditched him - I called the bar to tell them not to let him, they didn't seem concerned and/or he was already gone - so I called the cops . . . they didn't give a damn and actually didn't understand just *why* I cared and *why* I might wnat to risk my husband being tossed in the clink.

Since then he's been squelched with 2 DUI accidents/jailtime . . . obviously my concerns were *not* out of a place - everyone else's lack of give-a-**** certainly wasn't *there*
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
... and there isn't a difference? I mean, yes you can be severly impared even before being drunk, but to equate being on a light buzz after 1 drink and being drunk is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
The thing about impaired driving is that it is that... IMPAIRED driving.... not DRUNK driving. There is a difference. The term "Drunk" is generally defined by folks in a way that puts it WELL beyond the statutory description of "impaired".
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's already taken seriously. The punishments for DUI are hefty indeed. Well more than what they should be. At least when no casualties or property damage are involved. But let's be serious here. There will never be zero incidents of drunk driving; it's always going to exist on some level due to both cars and booze being legal in this country. I think people tend to freak out and over react a lot, especially in something as emotionally charged as drunk driving cases. And we've gone so far as to endorse things like check points (I know the SCOTUS says they're fine, but I don't see it as anything other than an illegal search), horrible amounts of fines, jail time, etc. Complete over punishment, and because of the money that goes to the State because of it, it's treated more as a fundraiser ticket than anything else.
The only time "horrible amounts of fines, jail time, etc." happen from a checkpoint stop is if one blows over the legal limit. That's called driving drunk. I should know. I've done my share. Don't do it anymore. I was lucky. So were scores of other people on the road with me.

... and there isn't a difference? I mean, yes you can be severly impared even before being drunk, but to equate being on a light buzz after 1 drink and being drunk is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
By the time a person feels the buzz, in most instances, he/she's impaired. One drink isn't going to make most people blow over the limit. A buzz will.
 
Top Bottom