TN passes DUI "blow" car ignition device law!

[Matt Collins]

Today was successful in passing the landmark ignition interlock legislation through the State House of Representatives. The bill will require certain DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock system, in which users must ‘blow’ below a certain blood alcohol content (BAC) level to turn on their vehicle. Although the bill hit some initial roadblocks, Representative Shipley has been working with his colleagues from both sides of the aisle to hammer out a proposal.

“I am pleased that the ignition interlock legislation was approved by the House this evening. I have been working on this legislation for over a year, and was committed to seeing it through,” said Representative Shipley. “Ignition interlock devices have proven very successful in other states, and I am glad we are moving forward with it in Tennessee.”


After realizing there was not current legislation filed to address the need for Tennessee to have ignition interlock, Rep. Shipley filed the bill last year. The bill requires anyone convicted of a DUI with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .15 or higher to use the ignition interlock device (IID). Tennessee would be only the fourteenth state to impose mandatory use of the device on first time offenders.


“This legislation is very important to me, and it was one of the first things I filed when I arrived on Capitol Hill,” said Representative Shipley. “So many people have spent a lot of time working on this issue, and I am grateful for the support and time that was put into it,” he continued. “This bill will save lives and unlike any other state, this bill addresses the entire DUI phenomenon from arrest to treatment to release.”


Having already passed unanimously in the Senate, the bill is now headed to the Governor for his signature.




SOURCE:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/05/11/ive-always-wanted-to-exhale-deeply-into-my-steering-column/

[TCE]

Hmm, if only we had a County Vice-Chair Person there to have a pulpit for sounding off about these laws...wait a minute...:o

[pcosmar]

Michigan has it. Horrible law. I know folks dealing with it.


Arizona has this law for DUI offenders, seems rational to me...
:rolleyes:

[jsu718]

Some people choose it as an option to allow for getting their license back. A friend of mine did that here and the device cost more than his car.

[QueenB4Liberty]

How is it a horrible law? It's was higher than .08!

[Krugerrand]

How is it a horrible law? It's was higher than .08!

If a private insurance company is willing to stand behind you and pay damages ... what business is it of the state?

[jt8025]

So you get your friend to blow in this for you right?

[torchbearer]

So you get your friend to blow in this for you right?

yes.

[pcosmar]

How is it a horrible law? It's was higher than .08!

DUI laws are a horrible laws. The very concept of punishing someone that has done NO harm is horrible. Punishing someone for what they MIGHT do is not justice.
It is Pre-Crime.

:mad:

[torchbearer]

DUI laws are a horrible laws. The very concept of punishing someone that has done NO harm is horrible. Punishing someone for what they MIGHT do is not justice.
It is Pre-Crime.

:mad:

sorta like arresting someone for buying a gun because they MIGHT end up hurting someone with it.

[Matt Collins]

What are the potential abuses of this law?

[torchbearer]

What are the potential abuses of this law?

well, for one- this bill give a boon to the brother-in-law that sells the devices.

[TonySutton]

Does this law require the insurance companies to keep the insurance rates lower due to the fact that they have the blow device?

Or are the insurance companies charging higher prices even though there is a lower chance an individual will have an accident while driving under the influence?

[TCE]

To continue on pcosmar's point, if the driver causes a collision, then they should be responsible for the damages of all persons involved. It is just like a speeding ticket. What is safer, me driving the limit with everyone passing me up and swerving around me, or me going 10 over to keep up with traffic?

[phill4paul]

They have it in N.C. also. Whomever owns the companies that manufacture and maintain these devises are doing some major lobbying.

Won't be long before it is a requirement on every vehicle driven by someone under age 21. I give it 5 years. "It's for the children!"

[dannno]

So you get your friend to blow in this for you right?

Or your kid ;)

[MelissaWV]

Or your kid ;)

How long until a black market "blower" shows up that fools these things and is so simple a drunk can use it?

[torchbearer]

if all it requires is air going through it-
http://s3.hubimg.com/u/65194_f260.jpg

[dannno]

if all it requires is air going through it-
http://s3.hubimg.com/u/65194_f260.jpg

Ya I'm pretty sure if these devices cost thousands of dollars it wouldn't be a big deal to get something to that blows into it.. might measure humidity or something too to make sure it is human breath, dunno..

[torchbearer]

Ya I'm pretty sure if these devices cost thousands of dollars it wouldn't be a big deal to get something to that blows into it.. might measure humidity or something too to make sure it is human breath, dunno..

blow into a balloon before you go out to the bar, use the balloon to breathe into the device.
balloons are cheap.

[Krugerrand]

I wonder if somebody got pulled over for a DUI AFTER blowing into this - if they could argue that since the device allowed the car to start that the State essentially gave approval to drive. Does this device transfer liability for any future accidents?

[aGameOfThrones]

Property Rights violation! But since you register your property with the state it ain't your property no more. :( Might as well pass a "law" that ban's cars, that way will be super safe.

[RideTheDirt]

blow into a balloon before you go out to the bar, use the balloon to breathe into the device.
balloons are cheap.
this

[dannno]

blow into a balloon before you go out to the bar, use the balloon to breathe into the device.
balloons are cheap.

The device might be measuring the temperature of the breath as well (tho very possibly not...) of course i'm sure there are ways to heat the balloon back up..

You could also fill up your gas tank and just leave the car running :D

[dannno]

I wonder if somebody got pulled over for a DUI AFTER blowing into this - if they could argue that since the device allowed the car to start that the State essentially gave approval to drive. Does this device transfer liability for any future accidents?

I think the state could argue that the person started the car sober, then drank whilst driving, then threw away the bottle or whatever..

[Matt Collins]

I wonder if somebody got pulled over for a DUI AFTER blowing into this - if they could argue that since the device allowed the car to start that the State essentially gave approval to drive. Does this device transfer liability for any future accidents?
Brilliant question! :)

[aGameOfThrones]

The device might be measuring the temperature of the breath as well (tho very possibly not...) of course i'm sure there are ways to heat the balloon back up..

You could also fill up your gas tank and just leave the car running :D

Most likely the Blow On your Car (BOC) Company will emerge. Call 1800-Blow-You.

[torchbearer]

Most likely the Blow On your Car (BOC) Company will emerge. Call 1800-Blow-You.

call a cab and pay the taxi driver to blow into it.

[phill4paul]

You could also fill up your gas tank and just leave the car running :D

The device requires you to blow every 10 to 15 minutes to keep the engine running. If it is triggered the vehicle must be towed to have the machine recalibrated. There are additional charges for this, including false positives. If there is a false positive you will have to go through the whole process of getting the restricted license with applicable fees.

[Krugerrand]

The device requires you to blow every 10 to 15 minutes to keep the engine running. If it is triggered the vehicle must be towed to have the machine recalibrated. There are additional charges for this, including false positives. If there is a false positive you will have to go through the whole process of getting the restricted license with applicable fees.

Call me crazy, but if I'm with a guy who's had a couple beers and need emergency medical attention, I'd rather this person take me to the hospital than die because he could not give his car the blow-fix it needed.

[Rael]

Couldnt you just use a vaccum blower or air pump on it?

[specsaregood]

Couldnt you just use a vaccum blower or air pump on it?

If anything this thread is demonstrating a whole new line of devices just waiting to be manufactured by an entrepreneur.

[tangent4ronpaul]

lemme think - bicycle pump, bag-valve-mask. woopie cushion....

Gee - that took a whole 5 seconds to figure out how to defeat. :rolleyes:

-t

[phill4paul]

If anything this thread is demonstrating a whole new line of devices just waiting to be manufactured by an entrepreneur.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16449687/

TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

[KenInMontiMN]

Yeah, our house & senate have passed it as well and are now ironing out differences in conference committee.

Good reasons to oppose any movement toward this:

1. Big money is already being lined up to put this in every vehicle sold in the USA: interlockfacts.org essentially prohibition without having to re-amend the constitution to say so.

2. Device trips at .02, - driving at .02 is perfectly legal.

3. All family members who drive the vehicle will have to blow, and if they blow .02+ the offender will lose the license and have to start the process over with more years added at state whim

4. The legislation will have no impact on alcohol-related crashes because most alcohol-related crashes have dui-virgins as drivers.

5. Putting the infrastructure in place for maintenance/calibration/history downloads statewide enables and paves the way for universal installation

6. Big Brother has no place riding shotgun with you everywhere, or at least should pay you constant cab fare for the privilege, not the other way around

7. Legislation allows for descending cost scale for the device, for those of limited means, meaning either the taxpayer or the others get to foot their bill

8. Legislation requires proof of irrevocable insurance for one year to get in the program, meaning paid in full in advance

9. Legislation includes greatly increasing license loss periods, keeping people on these things for years and using the increased time frames to force implementation on those who might otherwise just go without license

10. A whole lot of so-called 'repeaters' have never been convicted of drunken driving, but rather have gotten ensnared in the enforcement frenzy over the 'operating/in control of' language in dui statute, so don't play that car stereo in your driveway if you're having a drink or a beer on the deck, and don't have the keys on your person

11. Legislation requires the device to drive if you're charged with non-alcohol substance violation, which includes paraphanalia, or loss of those restricted driving rights for the same

12. No due process requirement, this impacts you whether convicted or not

[QueenB4Liberty]

Well, you can't pay for damages if you kill a human being. I think if you blow over the limit it alerts some department. But the limit is also pretty high, if you have that much alcohol in your system there's no way you should be behind the wheel of a car. It's not like the person was pulled over for just having a beer. The threshold is already pretty high.

[KenInMontiMN]

I'll add another for its potential: integrate a radio-frequency chip into the switching decision in universally-installed devices and you've handed LE the means to shut off cars at will.

[KenInMontiMN]

Well, you can't pay for damages if you kill a human being. I think if you blow over the limit it alerts some department. But the limit is also pretty high, if you have that much alcohol in your system there's no way you should be behind the wheel of a car. It's not like the person was pulled over for just having a beer. The threshold is already pretty high.

.08 is not pretty high; the risk of accident at .08 is statistically the same as .00; furthermore if you're not on the road driving that accident risk is a whole lot less than for the sober driver. Not to mention that granting govt the right to mass-prosecute and mass-criminalize over any non-injurious event that suits its fancy simply means anything and everything may be declared criminal. Social engineering is not a government function, it needs to be restricted to redressing injury/victimization when it actually occurs.

Otherwise the entire citizenry gets criminalized over something or another, and more and more that criminalization is being used to destroy families by information-sharing on criminal convictions that negatively impacts employability.

[haaaylee]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16449687/

TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.




Let me get this straight: You make someone put a device in their car to prevent car wrecks, but it has the possibility of randomly shutting down . . . which would cause a car wreck . . .


you're going 70 on the highway surrounded by cars and your car just stops!?! wtf.

[MelissaWV]

You have to blow your car every 15 minutes or it'll stop working, and if it doesn't like the way you blow, it'll stop working, too?

...

...

...

...

...

[jclay2]

Just wait until the cost of this device comes down. Like another poster said, it will soon be required of everyone 21 and younger if not all adults.

[KenInMontiMN]

Don't know the details yet on the moving vehicle blow, maybe someone from a place where these things are already in use can shed some light. Possible the moving bad blow doesn't shut 'er down instantly, but alarms that it will occur in minutes? Or no shutdown, just reports the history next download?

[haaaylee]

Don't know the details yet on the moving vehicle blow, maybe someone from a place where these things are already in use can shed some light. Possible the moving bad blow doesn't shut 'er down instantly, but alarms that it will occur in minutes? Or no shutdown, just reports the history next download?

What i quoted says that the car will automatically shut down. But it also says it is still in development, so not sure how the ones work that you have to blow into every 15 minutes. But never the less, that is the dumbest and least safe idea i've read in awhile.

[jclay2]

Well, if they make this thing mainstream, they will have to come up with a better marketing campaign than the "Blow" Machine.

[pcosmar]

Don't know the details yet on the moving vehicle blow, maybe someone from a place where these things are already in use can shed some light. Possible the moving bad blow doesn't shut 'er down instantly, but alarms that it will occur in minutes? Or no shutdown, just reports the history next download?

Nope, It shuts down. Then files a report.

A friend just went through this. His Father took his car, and was not able to (or did not) blow correctly.
He called it in and had to take the car to be recalibrate. 400 mile trip and $$$ to have it done.
A real PITA.

Oh yeah, Other air sources will not work. It records CO2 content, temp. and moisture. And is very touchy.

[Anti Federalist]

Nope, It shuts down. Then files a report.

A friend just went through this. His Father took his car, and was not able to (or did not) blow correctly.
He called it in and had to take the car to be recalibrate. 400 mile trip and $$$ to have it done.
A real PITA.

Oh yeah, Other air sources will not work. It records CO2 content, temp. and moisture. And is very touchy.

Wait until the Toyota Taliban strikes with a "terror" attack consisting of running people down with a car.

You'll then be required to be wired into a EEG while driving and the vehicle will shut down if it detects any "hostile thoughts" or anti social attitudes.

That's the precedent being set by shit like this.

GPS tracking, implanted RFID chips, 24/7 surveillance, all this police state crap is always pitched the same way..."oh it's for the drunks" or felons, or parolees or what have you.

And overnight it becomes "for everybody".

[slothman]

First let me say that I know of no one who was killed by or arrested for drunk driving.
I think this is bad.
I like 5 years in jail for every 0.01 you got caught with.
I am against things like this.
Just keep them in jail.
Maybe not a first-time offender but after that then lots-o-jail is alright with me.

I think DD should have one of the highest punishments for most crimes.

As for ownership, using on private property can be determined by the owner.
Public property, e.g. streets, though, is by the gov't.

[purplechoe]

My father had to "blow" to start his car, as well as "blow" while you drive...

[torchbearer]

First let me say that I know of no one who was killed by or arrested for drunk driving.
I think this is bad.
I like 5 years in jail for every 0.01 you got caught with.
I am against things like this.
Just keep them in jail.
Maybe not a first-time offender but after that then lots-o-jail is alright with me.

I think DD should have one of the highest punishments for most crimes.

As for ownership, using on private property can be determined by the owner.
Public property, e.g. streets, though, is by the gov't.

you know what we need to do- we need to put productive people in jail for pre-crimes. more people in jail the better.

[Anti Federalist]

First let me say that I know of no one who was killed by or arrested for drunk driving.
I think this is bad.
I like 5 years in jail for every 0.01 you got caught with.
I am against things like this.
Just keep them in jail.
Maybe not a first-time offender but after that then lots-o-jail is alright with me.

I think DD should have one of the highest punishments for most crimes.

As for ownership, using on private property can be determined by the owner.
Public property, e.g. streets, though, is by the gov't.

Why would use the force and violence of the state to kidnap somebody if they had not hurt anybody or damaged any property?

[.Tom]

The police-nanny industrial complex is in full throttle. It must be stopped.

[pcosmar]

First let me say that I know of no one who was killed by or arrested for drunk driving.
I think this is bad.
I like 5 years in jail for every 0.01 you got caught with.
I am against things like this.
Just keep them in jail.
Maybe not a first-time offender but after that then lots-o-jail is alright with me.

I think DD should have one of the highest punishments for most crimes.

As for ownership, using on private property can be determined by the owner.
Public property, e.g. streets, though, is by the gov't.

The vast majority of DUI "offenders" have done no property damage. Never wrecked their car.
Caused no harm.
The vast majority of Auto fatalities are caused by sober drivers.

But lets not let facts get in the way of denying liberty to everyone.
Emotional responses are much more powerful arguments.

:mad:

[paulaholic]

DUI laws are a horrible laws. The very concept of punishing someone that has done NO harm is horrible. Punishing someone for what they MIGHT do is not justice.
It is Pre-Crime.

:mad:


So by this logic, attempted murder should be legal until it becomes a success?

[pcosmar]

So by this logic, attempted murder should be legal until it becomes a success?

Not relevant to the discussion. Not even related.

But it does prove my earlier statement,,

But lets not let facts get in the way of denying liberty to everyone.
Emotional responses are much more powerful arguments.

[spudea]

If a private insurance company is willing to stand behind you and pay damages ... what business is it of the state?

how the hell can you say this? Can a private insurance company replace someone's son, daughter, mother, father?

A repeat DUI offender should NOT be driving no matter what a private insurance company says. Its like firing a machine gun into a crowd and saying its ok because the spray of bullets are more likely to pass through empty air than hit a person.

[Anti Federalist]

So by this logic, attempted murder should be legal until it becomes a success?

You think that driving with an arbitrarily set blood alcohol level is prima facie evidence of malice aforethought.

I don't.

[torchbearer]

how the hell can you say this? Can a private insurance company replace someone's son, daughter, mother, father?

A repeat DUI offender should NOT be driving no matter what a private insurance company says. Its like firing a machine gun into a crowd and saying its ok because the spray of bullets are more likely to pass through empty air than hit a person.

you assumption that someone who has drank will end up killing someone is false.
sober people get in cars and kill people, maybe we should arrest them too.

[pcosmar]

A repeat DUI offender should NOT be driving no matter what a private insurance company says. Its like firing a machine gun into a crowd and saying its ok because the spray of bullets are more likely to pass through empty air than hit a person.

And this is why stupid people should NOT be allowed to vote.

:(

[spudea]

you assumption that someone who has drank will end up killing someone is false.
sober people get in cars and kill people, maybe we should arrest them too.

sober people are not chemically impaired in their brains.

We all take a safety course to demonstrate safe operation of a vehicle before we get a drivers license.

If a repeat offender can demonstrate he has the same control over a vehicle sober as he does after a few drinks, sure leave him alone.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you want to sell your product to government for public use any patent or other IP protections should be contractually surrendered to the public and free for anyone to produce.

That would stop a lot of this bullshit from being mandatory.

[Anti Federalist]

If a repeat offender can demonstrate he has the same control over a vehicle sober as he does after a few drinks, sure leave him alone.

Now that's a good idea.

Let me re-test with an elevated BAC and leave me the farq alone.

Mark it on the license, "Certified to operate up to x.x BAC".

[pcosmar]

sober people are not chemically impaired in their brains.

We all take a safety course to demonstrate safe operation of a vehicle before we get a drivers license.

If a repeat offender can demonstrate he has the same control over a vehicle sober as he does after a few drinks, sure leave him alone.

What about a repeat offender that that has NEVER wrecked a car or done any damage.

How would you apply that same logic to a sober driver that has had repeat accidents resulting in property damage or death.

Clue; I am a Bodyman that has repaired cars for many years. several repeat customers.

Oh, and I am a "repeat" offender (1988, 2002), and I have never wrecked a car in my life.
(first one,I wasn't driving,, second one,,I wasn't drunk)

[spudea]

because a driver with a high BAC has willingly reduced his control over a moving weapon.

I'm willing to compromise here. Get your BAC up, take a driving test, score a 100 and be on your merry way.

[phill4paul]

Now that's a good idea.

Let me re-test with an elevated BAC and leave me the farq alone.

Mark it on the license, "Certified to operate up to x.x BAC".

Hell, I'd pay extra for that exam and license.

[brandon]

Didn't read the thread.

I went to a comedy club over the weekend. One of the comedians was talking about a friend who has one of these in his car. He said before he goes out anywhere he blows up a beach ball. Then after a night of drinking he deflates it into the breathalyzer. Great idea IMO. :D

[torchbearer]

I've never caused an accident, but have had a few SOBER people run into my truck over the years.

[BamaFanNKy]

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. If you break the law it's better to punish the offenders than the ones who follow laws. You know, total opposite how they handle marijuana laws.

[NCRattler]

First of all, someone needs to be convicted of DWI with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher to be required to have the interlock installed. Being almost twice the legal limit is extreme intoxication.

Secondly, regardless of how intoxicated you are, an officer has to witness some traffic violation or improper driving before even pulling someone over. It is very rare for an officer to simply pull over a driver for suspicion of DWI without at least noticing an infraction. Essentially, if your are wasted but have the capability to drive without any difficulty, you won't be stopped.

Third, almost half of all fatality accidents in this country have alcohol as a contributing factor.

Lastly, the State has to prove beyond a reasonal doubt that a driver's blood alcohol concentration was above .15. Last year a US Supreme Court case made that much more difficult to do. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (decided April 2009) ruled that to prove the results of a chemical test, the analyst of said test must be present to testify. The Confrontation Clause requires it. Before, the State could prove someone's BAC by way of an affidavit. Now, at least one extra person has to be subpoenaed by the DA before the blow can even be presented to the Court.

I've been a prosecutor for a little while now and have tried over 200 DWI cases. The majority of the law concerned with DWIs seems fair. There is of course some unbelievably unfair laws too. Like I mentioned earlier, someone usually needs to violate some traffic statute before even being pulled over. Think about situations where the police stop you without even an inkling of reasonable suspicion; checkpoints. CHECKPOINTS are completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You're stopped only because the police hope you are intoxicated.

With that said, I enjoy drinking a good bit. There are times I've driven when I shouldn't have even been on a bike. (You can get a DWI on a bicycle in my state though). Reasonable people know when they've had one or five too many. Being responsible can keep most people out of a DWI charge.

[tangent4ronpaul]

First let me say that I know of no one who was killed by or arrested for drunk driving.
I think this is bad.
I like 5 years in jail for every 0.01 you got caught with.
I am against things like this.
Just keep them in jail.
Maybe not a first-time offender but after that then lots-o-jail is alright with me.

I think DD should have one of the highest punishments for most crimes.

As for ownership, using on private property can be determined by the owner.
Public property, e.g. streets, though, is by the gov't.

I've had 2 friends die because of drunk drivers.

-t

[torchbearer]

I've had 2 friends die because of drunk drivers.

-t

i'm named after my uncle who was killed by a drunk driver, but more people in my family were killed by sober drivers.
i just choose not to be ruled by emotions.

[spudea]

i'm named after my uncle who was killed by a drunk driver, but more people in my family were killed by sober drivers.
i just choose not to be ruled by emotions.

I've never had an accident and I've never driven drunk, therefore all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. My logic is undeniable. :p

[torchbearer]

I've never had an accident and I've never driven drunk, therefore all accidents are caused by drunk drivers. My logic is undeniable. :p

more people are killed by sober drivers, so sober drivers are a real threat to others on the road. my logic is undeniable. :p

[pcosmar]

Secondly, regardless of how intoxicated you are, an officer has to witness some traffic violation or improper driving before even pulling someone over. It is very rare for an officer to simply pull over a driver for suspicion of DWI without at least noticing an infraction. Essentially, if your are wasted but have the capability to drive without any difficulty, you won't be stopped.
Bullshit, My first in 88, I was not driving (so no observable offense) I was sitting in a parked car about to fall asleep, and was waken and arrested.
My second one the cop literally lied, falsified the BAC. He was terminated shortly after for too many false reports.
I know of other such cases, and there are also check points. And lame excuses used by police to stop drivers

Third, almost half of all fatality accidents in this country have alcohol as a contributing factor.
Blatantly false , aside from popular propaganda the DOT statistics don't back this up. We have had other threads on this subject , and have looked at it. For example;Sober driver hit a driver that has had a drink.= Alcohol related accident. Sober driver in accident has a drunk passenger= Alcohol related accident.




I've been a prosecutor for a little while now and have tried over 200 DWI cases.
That explains a lot.
:(

[NCRattler]

I said it was rare to be stopped without committing a traffic violation. You weren't stopped. You were dumb and drunk enough to be passed out in a running vehicle. No stop needed.

And if you think DWI laws don't save thousands of innocent lives a year, you're dillusional, or drunk enough to get a DWI in a parked car.

[torchbearer]

I said it was rare to be stopped without committing a traffic violation. You weren't stopped. You were dumb and drunk enough to be passed out in a running vehicle. No stop needed.

nor was he a threat to anyone. abuse of the law.
kinda the norm for you types.

[NCRattler]

nor was he a threat to anyone. abuse of the law.
kinda the norm for you types.

Easily a threat to any other driver passed while on way to the parking lot or to any driver passed after possibly leaving the parking lot...

[torchbearer]

Easily a threat to any other driver passed while on way to the parking lot or to any driver passed after possibly leaving the parking lot...

and you are a threat to other drivers by being on the road in your vehicle.
a severe threat.

[aGameOfThrones]

more people are killed by sober drivers, so sober drivers are a real threat to others on the road. my logic is undeniable. :p


This! You know how many people try to kill me each day while Traveling? A lot. But I like to Travel (not drive) so I voluntarily take the risk that someone might injure me unintentionally, intentionally, and being in a state not adequate to have quick reaction time, but still, I take a risk to Travel.

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

[torchbearer]

This! You know how many people try to kill me each day while Traveling? A lot. But I like to Travel (not drive) so I voluntarily take the risk that someone might injure me unintentionally, intentionally, and being in a state not adequate to have quick reaction time, but still, I take a risk to Travel.

He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

but, but, don't you understand- we must protect people from something that hasn't happened yet.
pre-crime at its finest.
i'm sure a lot of people make a lot of money on the DUI thing. someone in this thread made his bread on it.

[pcosmar]

I said it was rare to be stopped without committing a traffic violation. You weren't stopped. You were dumb and drunk enough to be passed out in a running vehicle. No stop needed.

And if you think DWI laws don't save thousands of innocent lives a year, you're dillusional, or drunk enough to get a DWI in a parked car.

Don't be a bigger ass than you have to.
The car was not running, the engine was cold. I was parked about a block from the bar and decided NOT to drive home. I was going to sleep where I was.
My mistake was listening to the radio. Keys turned to Acc.

I doubt they make very much difference at all, save for Municipal Income, Lawyer income and various "services"Income.
Like most laws it is more about revenue generation and emotional issues than facts.

[aGameOfThrones]

but, but, don't you understand- we must protect people from something that hasn't happened yet.
pre-crime at its finest.
i'm sure a lot of people make a lot of money on the DUI thing. someone in this thread made his bread on it.

But, but, all you need is a license to prove you can "Drive," 'cause we all know a license makes you a better "Driver," right? It's funny that everyone that tries to kill me while I Travel has one.

[torchbearer]

But, but, all you need is a license to prove you can "Drive," 'cause we all know a license makes you a better "Driver," right? It's funny that everyone that tries to kill me while I Travel has one.

people who have hit me in the past admitted they were distracted by the other person in the car. we should outlaw talking in the car.
that should give the attorneys more money for their new beamer.

[aGameOfThrones]

people who have hit me in the past admitted they were distracted by the other person in the car. we should outlaw talking in the car.
that should give the attorneys more money for their new beamer.

Why not ban listening to music? Turning to see if your kids are OK in the back? How about you can't wear a neon color shirt 'cause it might distract other people?

[Matt Collins]

Now that's a good idea.

Let me re-test with an elevated BAC and leave me the farq alone.

Mark it on the license, "Certified to operate up to x.x BAC".


because a driver with a high BAC has willingly reduced his control over a moving weapon.

I'm willing to compromise here. Get your BAC up, take a driving test, score a 100 and be on your merry way.
Something that yall are forgetting here is that many people are able to drive intoxicated just fine. The problem however is that one's reaction time is greatly reduced so when emergencies arise, things in the road, bad drivers, dangerous road conditions, it is impossible to safely respond in a quick enough manner.

[Matt Collins]

Nope, It shuts down. Then files a report.

A friend just went through this. His Father took his car, and was not able to (or did not) blow correctly.
He called it in and had to take the car to be recalibrate. 400 mile trip and $$$ to have it done.
A real PITA.

In that case, why not just sell your car to someone you trust who won't be subject to these restrictions?

Are you not allowed to drive any car without one of these blow machines?

This sounds like there is too easy of a way around this for it to be effective....


.

[pcosmar]

Are you not allowed to drive any car without one of these blow machines?



That is the way it is here.

A huge PITA, and a piss poor system that needs constant and costly maintenance.
but that seems to be the point.
:(

[torchbearer]

Why not ban listening to music? Turning to see if your kids are OK in the back? How about you can't wear a neon color shirt 'cause it might distract other people?

now we are getting somewhere. we must protect people from everything that could increase the chances of an accident. the more laws the better.

[cindy25]

Today was successful in passing the landmark ignition interlock legislation through the State House of Representatives. The bill will require certain DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock system, in which users must ‘blow’ below a certain blood alcohol content (BAC) level to turn on their vehicle. Although the bill hit some initial roadblocks, Representative Shipley has been working with his colleagues from both sides of the aisle to hammer out a proposal.

“I am pleased that the ignition interlock legislation was approved by the House this evening. I have been working on this legislation for over a year, and was committed to seeing it through,” said Representative Shipley. “Ignition interlock devices have proven very successful in other states, and I am glad we are moving forward with it in Tennessee.”


After realizing there was not current legislation filed to address the need for Tennessee to have ignition interlock, Rep. Shipley filed the bill last year. The bill requires anyone convicted of a DUI with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .15 or higher to use the ignition interlock device (IID). Tennessee would be only the fourteenth state to impose mandatory use of the device on first time offenders.


“This legislation is very important to me, and it was one of the first things I filed when I arrived on Capitol Hill,” said Representative Shipley. “So many people have spent a lot of time working on this issue, and I am grateful for the support and time that was put into it,” he continued. “This bill will save lives and unlike any other state, this bill addresses the entire DUI phenomenon from arrest to treatment to release.”


Having already passed unanimously in the Senate, the bill is now headed to the Governor for his signature.




SOURCE:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/05/11/ive-always-wanted-to-exhale-deeply-into-my-steering-column/

this is a legitimate public safety for a state government; i support it if not federal

[aGameOfThrones]

now we are getting somewhere. we must protect people from everything that could increase the chances of an accident. the more laws the better.

Ban cars! Safety FTW!!

[pcosmar]

http://www.duiblog.com/2010/05/10/state-supreme-court-dui-doesnt-require-driving/

Judge Janes had ruled that the arresting officer was obligated to identify specific facts and evidence that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. Cain did not testify in his own defense at the administrative hearing, leaving no direct evidence that Cain had been driving while drunk. The supreme court ruled that the burden was properly on Cain to prove his innocence.


Let me repeat from the news story: " state law allows police officers to impose certain forms of punishment based solely on reasonable suspicion that a crime may have taken place."

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
http://www.dwiblog.org/2009/08/have-a-close-look-at-dui-fatality-statistics/

[dannno]

You have to blow your car every 15 minutes or it'll stop working, and if it doesn't like the way you blow, it'll stop working, too?

...

...

...

...

...

:p

y u

[slothman]

For people who only want a punishment and not a crime to actually drive drunk here is a pondering.
What would happen if a bum, i.e. one with no assets or money, stole a car, got in an accident, and was killed, but someone else in another car was killed as well?
There is no one to sue or arrest.
What happens to the victim's family?
Would stopping someone is is driving recklessly be a good idea to prevent this?
How would it be remedied; or is there no recourse?

[torchbearer]

For people who only want a punishment and not a crime to actually drive drunk here is a pondering.
What would happen if a bum, i.e. one with no assets or money, stole a car, got in an accident, and was killed, but someone else in another car was killed as well?
There is no one to sue or arrest.
What happens to the victim's family?
Would stopping someone is is driving recklessly be a good idea to prevent this?
How would it be remedied; or is there no recourse?

this is the way i look at crime.
the only time a act is a crime is if it affects someone else's right to life,liberty, or property.

meaning, driving drunk is not a crime. no damages have been caused.
killing someone, while driving drunk is a crime.
destroying someone's property while drunk is a crime.
notice the difference?

[Danke]

I've driven drunk and never had an accident. It is an acquired talent.

[RedStripe]

DUI laws are a horrible laws. The very concept of punishing someone that has done NO harm is horrible. Punishing someone for what they MIGHT do is not justice.
It is Pre-Crime.

:mad:

Well if I'm waving a gun around or building a huge explosive device in my apartment, I don't see a problem with having rules which prohibit that.

The problem here is that the law says that merely blowing such and such is illegal, rather than making the fact that your blood alcohol was X just one of several factors in determining whether you were recklessly endangering the lives of others.

[slothman]

this is the way i look at crime.
the only time a act is a crime is if it affects someone else's right to life,liberty, or property.

meaning, driving drunk is not a crime. no damages have been caused.
killing someone, while driving drunk is a crime.
destroying someone's property while drunk is a crime.
notice the difference?
Theoretically yes.
But does that mean there is no remedy to my question?
You can't really wait until after damages have been done.
If someone tresspasses you can shoo them off or sue them or whatever.
If someone steals you can have them jailed and get the stolen items back.
If someone is killed or assaulted you can't take that back as well.

[dannno]

I've driven drunk and never had an accident. It is an acquired talent.

That's true, I have an older brother who used to drive drunk all the time and has never hurt anyone. They have goggles you can put on that are supposed to simulate being drunk and you can't walk a straight line while they are on, but he can.

The worst thing that ever happened was he chugged an entire fifth of jack one time and drove home about an hour later before it really hit him.. the next morning he woke up to his neighbor prodding him, asking if he was ok. He got up all dazed and realized he was on his front lawn in front of his front door.. his truck was also in front lawn next to him instead of in the drive way. Then he took a look at his truck and saw that the top was all dented up and realized that the truck had rolled and landed right side up. Some how he made it home after that.

[GreedyHenry]

Secondly, regardless of how intoxicated you are, an officer has to witness some traffic violation or improper driving before even pulling someone over. It is very rare for an officer to simply pull over a driver for suspicion of DWI without at least noticing an infraction. Essentially, if your are wasted but have the capability to drive without any difficulty, you won't be stopped.




hahahah, I've been pulled over for suspicion several times while completely sober. I guess an infraction is driving late at night. Officers make up infractions all the time.



Third, almost half of all fatality accidents in this country have alcohol as a contributing factor.

Alcohol as a contributing factor can mean drunk pedestrians that caused a crash with a sober driver, NHTSA has also used drunk passenger/ sober driver in these statistics.


http://www.getmadd.com/ estimated of all people killed by drunk driving only about 5% were not the offending party, and by the governments standards of dui you can probably cut a whole bunch of people off the totals who weren't actually impaired just above (or even below in many cases) the legal limit.




I've been a prosecutor for a little while now and have tried over 200 DWI cases. The majority of the law concerned with DWIs seems fair.


How is it fair that you're guilty until proven innocent and basically don't have a right to refuse to any sobriety questions or tests a cop may give?

[Krugerrand]

how the hell can you say this? Can a private insurance company replace someone's son, daughter, mother, father?

A repeat DUI offender should NOT be driving no matter what a private insurance company says. Its like firing a machine gun into a crowd and saying its ok because the spray of bullets are more likely to pass through empty air than hit a person.

No more than they can replace a son, daughter, mother, father killed in an accident where everybody is sober.

Let's say we each lose a brother in a car accident. Your brother to somebody driving drunk. My brother to somebody changing a CD in the CD player. Why should the driver that killed my brother be penalized less than the driver that killed your brother?

[Krugerrand]

First of all, someone needs to be convicted of DWI with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher to be required to have the interlock installed. Being almost twice the legal limit is extreme intoxication.

I assume that varies by state.


Secondly, regardless of how intoxicated you are, an officer has to witness some traffic violation or improper driving before even pulling someone over. It is very rare for an officer to simply pull over a driver for suspicion of DWI without at least noticing an infraction. Essentially, if your are wasted but have the capability to drive without any difficulty, you won't be stopped.

As stated above this is FALSE. I've been pulled over for driving suspiciously late at night ... basically I saw a cop behind me and made sure I went the speed limit. Apparently following the speed limit is cause for suspicion. DUI checkpoints (as gone over in a recent thread should be unconstitutional) check people who have no other infraction.


Third, almost half of all fatality accidents in this country have alcohol as a contributing factor.

Again, as stated above ... this is a distortion of statistics. Plus, that's less than half. Apparently there are other things that are more dangerous, yet this gets prosecuted disproportionately.



Lastly, the State has to prove beyond a reasonal doubt that a driver's blood alcohol concentration was above .15. Last year a US Supreme Court case made that much more difficult to do. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (decided April 2009) ruled that to prove the results of a chemical test, the analyst of said test must be present to testify. The Confrontation Clause requires it. Before, the State could prove someone's BAC by way of an affidavit. Now, at least one extra person has to be subpoenaed by the DA before the blow can even be presented to the Court.

I've been a prosecutor for a little while now and have tried over 200 DWI cases. The majority of the law concerned with DWIs seems fair. There is of course some unbelievably unfair laws too. Like I mentioned earlier, someone usually needs to violate some traffic statute before even being pulled over. Think about situations where the police stop you without even an inkling of reasonable suspicion; checkpoints. CHECKPOINTS are completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You're stopped only because the police hope you are intoxicated.

Basically, this is just a cash cow for the police and judicial system and they intend to milk it. Think how much revenue would have been lost if those 200 DWI cases had not been prosecuted.

With that said, I enjoy drinking a good bit. There are times I've driven when I shouldn't have even been on a bike. (You can get a DWI on a bicycle in my state though). Reasonable people know when they've had one or five too many. Being responsible can keep most people out of a DWI charge.[/QUOTE]

[aGameOfThrones]

For people who only want a punishment and not a crime to actually drive drunk here is a pondering.
What would happen if a bum, i.e. one with no assets or money, stole a car, got in an accident, and was killed, but someone else in another car was killed as well?
There is no one to sue or arrest.
What happens to the victim's family?
Would stopping someone is is driving recklessly be a good idea to prevent this?
How would it be remedied; or is there no recourse?

What would happen if Someone i.e. one with no Real Assets and little to no Money, got in his car, got in an Accident, and was killed, but someone else in another car was killed as well? There is no one to sue or arrest. What happens to both victims family? After all, it was an Accident. You'll probably say: but hey, in my example the "bum" stole a car, so he meant to get into an Accident and at the same time meant to killed someone so it's different. Unless it can be proven the person meant to killed someone by stealing a car then I would think it would be called an Accident, though if the person who stole the car happens to survive the Accident, well, that person will be punish under the law.


I got news for you everyone Drives Recklessly to everyone else, What is a good Driver after all? Because I must tell you; I think a lot of people Drive Recklessly when I Travel, but to myself I think I Travel quite well than other people obviously other people may not be of the same opinion. Hopefully the remedy to the families (if they have any) will be the life insurance (if they have any), though there is no remedy for their lost.

[pcosmar]

http://www.totaldui.com/news/articles/statistics/misleading-madd-drunk-driving-statistics.aspx
Rumors of DUI Deaths Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

In fact, if all of the alcohol-related accidents involving people who were driving under the blood alcohol content legal limit, drunken pedestrians, impaired cyclists and other people who had actually not been drinking at all were subtracted from the number of alcohol-related fatalities that are reported, only about 12 percent of innocent victims remain. This means that out of the 18,000 alcohol-related highway deaths, 2,160 were actually victims of DUI drivers. While that is still 2,160 too many, it is a fraction of the number of people that Americans are led to believe have been killed by drunken drivers.

Hardly 1/3 of all fatalities. Less than 5% in reality.
But it is big business. MADD gets several millions of tax payer money on top of donations.
Prosecutors use it as political leverage for election purposes.
Municipalities make money as do the makers of a device that has never been proven to save even one life.

Not to mention the rights violated.

[spudea]

Why should the driver that killed my brother be penalized less than the driver that killed your brother?

because the drunk driver willingly reduced his brain function to make it more difficult for him to control a vehicle. He had a motive to kill.

[Krugerrand]

because the drunk driver willingly reduced his brain function to make it more difficult for him to control a vehicle. He had a motive to kill.

The person changing the CD willing took his eyes off the road making it more difficult to control a vehicle.

Why does how somebody willingly makes it more difficult to control a vehicle matter?

[pcosmar]

because the drunk driver willingly reduced his brain function to make it more difficult for him to control a vehicle. He had a motive to kill.

http://www.complete80s.com/media/mr-potato-head.gif

Ya,, lets forget all those inconvenient facts and focus on emotions. :rolleyes:

[spudea]

um the person taking their eyes off the road got into the car with full brain function

the drunk person got into the car with reduced brain function.

[Theocrat]

If we strongly upheld the death penalty for drunk drivers who killed people in car accidents, then we wouldn't have to worry about any legislature passing "'blow' car ignition device" laws. That, to me, is itself an infringement upon private property.

[Krugerrand]

um the person taking their eyes off the road got into the car with full brain function

the drunk person got into the car with reduced brain function.

so what. If the person willingly took their eyes off the road ... willingly stopped paying attention to what they were doing ... and then kill my brother because of it - why should that person have lesser consequences than somebody who kills your brother (in my hypothetical story)

[Krugerrand]

If we strongly upheld the death penalty for drunk drivers who killed people in car accidents, then we wouldn't have to worry about any legislature passing "'blow' car ignition device" laws. That, to me, is itself an infringement upon private property.

Come on Theo - where's your Christian compassion? Please tell me I didn't read a suggestion by you to execute people for an accident?

[RedStripe]

If we strongly upheld the death penalty for drunk drivers who killed people in car accidents, then we wouldn't have to worry about any legislature passing "'blow' car ignition device" laws.

And why is that?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Today was successful in passing the landmark ignition interlock legislation through the State House of Representatives. The bill will require certain DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock system, in which users must ‘blow’ below a certain blood alcohol content (BAC) level to turn on their vehicle. Although the bill hit some initial roadblocks, Representative Shipley has been working with his colleagues from both sides of the aisle to hammer out a proposal.

“I am pleased that the ignition interlock legislation was approved by the House this evening. I have been working on this legislation for over a year, and was committed to seeing it through,” said Representative Shipley. “Ignition interlock devices have proven very successful in other states, and I am glad we are moving forward with it in Tennessee.”


After realizing there was not current legislation filed to address the need for Tennessee to have ignition interlock, Rep. Shipley filed the bill last year. The bill requires anyone convicted of a DUI with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .15 or higher to use the ignition interlock device (IID). Tennessee would be only the fourteenth state to impose mandatory use of the device on first time offenders.


“This legislation is very important to me, and it was one of the first things I filed when I arrived on Capitol Hill,” said Representative Shipley. “So many people have spent a lot of time working on this issue, and I am grateful for the support and time that was put into it,” he continued. “This bill will save lives and unlike any other state, this bill addresses the entire DUI phenomenon from arrest to treatment to release.”


Having already passed unanimously in the Senate, the bill is now headed to the Governor for his signature.




SOURCE:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2010/05/11/ive-always-wanted-to-exhale-deeply-into-my-steering-column/

Another example of new technology being manipulated by the state. What happens http://www.azduiatty.com/breath-fresheners-and-breathalyzers.htm

I guess I can't drive with breath freshners in my mouth :)

So what if people drink and drive? Some people can handle more alcohol than others. People have ownership over there own bodies, you should allow them to think for themselves. "Can I get into the car and drive?" The real culprit here are state highways and draconian speeding laws. People forget to think for themselves out there.

[spudea]

because the reduced brain function is a contributing factor and an additional variable. If the driver who killed my brother hadn't been drunk, his reaction time would have been better and possibly avoid the accident.

[Theocrat]

Come on Theo - where's your Christian compassion? Please tell me I didn't read a suggestion by you to execute people for an accident?

I do have compassion. My compassion lies with the victim who died at the hands of a drunk driver (who should have known better) and his or her family. Drunk driving is not an accident. It is a poor moral choice.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

because the reduced brain function is a contributing factor and an additional variable. If the driver who killed my brother hadn't been drunk, his reaction time would have been better and possibly avoid the accident.

You can't target people before a crime. Is this Minority Report?

[aGameOfThrones]

um the person taking their eyes off the road got into the car with full brain function

the drunk person got into the car with reduced brain function.

What if the person reduces his/hers brain function while in the car? LOL.

What if a person who's sleepy knowingly gets in a car while still sleepy?

What if a person who's tired and will not completely focus on the road gets in a car?

What if a person is more worried about what their kids are doing in the back than to the car that person is about to hit?

Should they be less punish since they were Sober?

[Theocrat]

And why is that?

Because it empowers would-be drunk drivers to be more serious and careful about driving intoxicated, to the risk of killing other drivers. Otherwise, they would know the consequences of their behavior would cost them their own lives, and not the cost of the taxpayers.

[Krugerrand]

because the reduced brain function is a contributing factor and an additional variable. If the driver who killed my brother hadn't been drunk, his reaction time would have been better and possibly avoid the accident.

Friend, you're not answering my question. Why more of a penalty than the person who killed my hypothetical brother?

Okay - reduced brain function was a contributing factor and additional variable. Had he not been drunk it may not have happened.

Not watching the road was a contributing factor that killed my brother. Had the driver been watching the road it may not have happened.

Why does your scenario deserve more severe punishment than mine?

(Plus, what about stupid people and those with slow reflexes? Should their reduced brain function and slower reaction time mean their penalties be increased?)

[Krugerrand]

I do have compassion. My compassion lies with the victim who died at the hands of a drunk driver (who should have known better) and his or her family. Drunk driving is not an accident. It is a poor moral choice.

Wow. Death penalty for an accident.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Because it empowers would-be drunk drivers to be more serious and careful about driving intoxicated, to the risk of killing other drivers. Otherwise, they would know the consequences of their behavior would cost them their own lives, and not the cost of the taxpayers.

Doesn't appear to stop murder in death penalty states :)

[Theocrat]

Wow. Death penalty for an accident.

You're looking at the wrong thing. It's the death penalty for the drunk driver who killed an innocent person. As I said before, drunk driving is not an accident. It's no more an accident than Jeffrey Dohmer inviting people over for lunch.

[Krugerrand]

Drunk driving is not an accident.

Neither is careless driving, sleepy driving, Rx Drug side affect driving, cell phone driving.

Do we execute all of these people who cause an accident that results in death? Or, is there something special about a couple beers that makes that more execution worthy?

[Theocrat]

Doesn't appear to stop murder in death penalty states :)

So I guess you would agree that we should repeal laws forbidding theft because theft still happens where those laws are enforced, right?

[aGameOfThrones]

Neither is careless driving, sleepy driving, Rx Drug side affect driving, cell phone driving.

Do we execute all of these people who cause an accident that results in death? Or, is there something special about a couple beers that makes that more execution worthy?

Death to them all! :(

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You're looking at the wrong thing. It's the death penalty for the drunk driver who killed an innocent person. As I said before, drunk driving is not an accident. It's no more an accident than Jeffrey Dohmer inviting people over for lunch.

What about the people the state murders when it takes years to approve of life saving drugs? Who watches the watchers? :/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So I guess you would agree that we should repeal laws forbidding theft because theft still happens where those laws are enforced, right?

I believe in free market solutions to everyday problems.

[Krugerrand]

So I guess you would agree that we should repeal laws forbidding theft because theft still happens where those laws are enforced, right?

To be fair and honest, you were the one who advocated the use of execution as a deterrent. He simply pointed out that it's an ineffective deterrent.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

To be fair and honest, you were the one who advocated the use of execution as a deterrent. He simply pointed out that it's an ineffective deterrent.

Yep, pretty much. Isn't drug dealing automatic death in some countries? Yet they do it. Ban alcohol? Say hello to more crime. Everything the state does is ineffective. Some people are irresponsible, you can't do anything about it. I think there would be free market solutions in absence of the state, but that's another story...

[Theocrat]

Neither is careless driving, sleepy driving, Rx Drug side affect driving, cell phone driving.

Do we execute all of these people who cause an accident that results in death? Or, is there something special about a couple beers that makes that more execution worthy?

Essentially, yes. With great privilege comes great responsibility. I'm not saying driving is a privilege, but what I'm getting at is the act of driving should be taken very seriously because there is so much at stake.

If a person uses a gun carelessly (whether he's sleepy, having a drug side effect, or drunk), and that person kills someone, then he makes himself responsible for that person's death. The victim didn't have to die if the person with the gun (or driving the car) had taken his duties more carefully.

[Krugerrand]

Essentially, yes. With great privilege comes great responsibility. I'm not saying driving is a privilege, but what I'm getting at is the act of driving should be taken very seriously because there is so much at stake.

If a person uses a gun carelessly (whether he's sleepy, having a drug side effect, or drunk), and that person kills someone, then he makes himself responsible for that person's death. The victim didn't have to die if the person with the gun (or driving the car) had taken his duties more carefully.

Well, I'll award you some consistency points .... but OUCH.

[pcosmar]

The law already provides for punishment of Manslaughter. Regardless of the cause.
It also provides punishment for Premeditated Murder.

That is Irrelevant to this discussion.

This is about punishment for people that have caused NO HARM.
Punishment because some believe that they may , possibly, theoretically, someday have a chance to harm someone.

It is based on False Statistics pushed by a multi-million dollar interest group.
It is based on emotional responses rather than facts.

It is Pre-Crime.
:(

[Theocrat]

What about the people the state murders when it takes years to approve of life saving drugs? Who watches the watchers? :/

I don't know what you're talking about there.

[aGameOfThrones]

So I guess you would agree that we should repeal laws forbidding theft because theft still happens where those laws are enforced, right?

Is there a Law forbidding Theft? Or is it a Punishment for committing Theft? You know when you actually injure Life, Liberty, and Property. I don't think people who "drive drunk" knowingly want to killed someone, nor more someone who is driving sleepy wants to.

[Krugerrand]

The law already provides for punishment of Manslaughter. Regardless of the cause.
It also provides punishment for Premeditated Murder.

That is Irrelevant to this discussion.

This is about punishment for people that have caused NO HARM.
Punishment because some believe that they may , possibly, theoretically, someday have a chance to harm someone.

It is based on False Statistics pushed by a multi-million dollar interest group.
It is based on emotional responses rather than facts.

It is Pre-Crime.
:(

One solution that I would suggest is the passing of laws to prevent any fines or penalties to benefit the State or local municipalities. Any and all fines should be directed toward charitable organizations, schools, or some other appropriate expenditure. The enforcement arm of the law should never be in a position to profit from people breaking the law. It's a huge incentive for things to go haywire.

Blood thirsty pre-crime laws would just go away.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't know what you're talking about there.

ok. off-topic. fda requires years and years and years and billions of dollars before passing a new drug. What about all the people that have died waiting?

anyways, maybe if the govt steps out of the way the auto companies will be prompted to invest more in car safety rather than investing in hybrids that no one [besides the government] wants?

I'm sure they would see incentives in creating the safest cars ever. Most people will sacrifice more money for more safety /sarc, isn't that why they keep reelecting proponents of big government? [sigh]

[Theocrat]

To be fair and honest, you were the one who advocated the use of execution as a deterrent. He simply pointed out that it's an ineffective deterrent.

And I was pointing out the consistency of what he was implying to its logical end, in this case, laws preventing immoral acts like murder and theft. Just because all murder is not eradicated by the imposition of the death penalty does not invalidate that there needs to be a death penalty.

If you want to argue that it's an "ineffective deterrent," then the same can be argued for any law we presently have forbidding anything. That would mean, by JTL's reasoning, that we shouldn't have those laws because they are "ineffective," as you've put it, Krugerrand.

By the way, the death penalty is never ineffective for those who receive it justly. ;)

[aGameOfThrones]

Essentially, yes. With great privilege comes great responsibility. I'm not saying driving is a privilege, but what I'm getting at is the act of driving should be taken very seriously because there is so much at stake.

If a person uses a gun carelessly (whether he's sleepy, having a drug side effect, or drunk), and that person kills someone, then he makes himself responsible for that person's death. The victim didn't have to die if the person with the gun (or driving the car) had taken his duties more carefully.

With Freedoms comes great responsibilities, right? But Driving is a privilege Legally, Traveling is not. The act of "driving" should be taken as seriously as any other act, yet you're not asking for the death penalty for someone playing with a Scissor who Accidentally kills someone.

[spudea]

more penalty because it is a more deliberate crime with the additional variable of voluntary reduced brain function.

if there was no additional penalty, and repeat offenders could just get a high risk insurance policy as you suggest. There would be a higher rate of alcohol related wrecks and therefore higher total number of wrecks.

laws are a bitch to live with but most laws are in place to reduce chaos and improve order. Theres little we can do about a sober person who isn't paying attention to the road, but we can target laws at a drunk driver that can't pay attention to the road because of brain impairment.

[pcosmar]

MADD is now MADD, Inc. The new corporation was lucky enough to get $12,700,000 in government (taxpayer) money in 2004, without lobbying, since that would be an illegal activity for a non-profit organization.


MADD, Inc. received $4,436,481 from arrestees 'forced' (MADD'S word, not ours) to sit in on their VIP panels in 2006

http://www.getmadd.com/

[Krugerrand]

And I was pointing out the consistency of what he was implying to its logical end, in this case, laws preventing immoral acts like murder and theft. Just because all murder is not eradicated by the imposition of the death penalty does not invalidate that there needs to be a death penalty.

If you want to argue that it's an "ineffective deterrent," then the same can be argued for any law we presently have forbidding anything. That would mean, by JTL's reasoning, that we shouldn't have those laws because they are "ineffective," as you've put it, Krugerrand.

By the way, the death penalty is never ineffective for those who receive it justly. ;)

Again, he was not advocating eliminating the laws because of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the penalty. He responded to your claim that a death penalty would make the crime go away.

In fact, other than yourself, I don't think anybody here was basing their decision on if drunk driving laws should exist on what the penalty is or is not.

The discussion has generally been should drunk driving laws exist at all - in principle.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

With Freedoms comes great responsibilities, right? But Driving is a privilege Legally, Traveling is not. The act of "driving" should be taken as seriously as any other act, yet you're not asking for the death penalty for someone playing with a Scissor who Accidentally kills someone.

What gives government the right to categorize things as "privileges"? Just because they are the #1 street gang?

[TonySutton]

Theres little we can do about a sober person who isn't paying attention to the road, but we can target laws at a drunk driver that can't pay attention to the road because of brain impairment.

The punishments should be based on the crime not the cause.

Carelessness is carelessness whether it is putting on makeup, eating a whopper or being drunk.

[aGameOfThrones]

more penalty because it is a more deliberate crime with the additional variable of voluntary reduced brain function.

if there was no additional penalty, and repeat offenders could just get a high risk insurance policy as you suggest. There would be a higher rate of alcohol related wrecks and therefore higher total number of wrecks.

laws are a bitch to live with but most laws are in place to reduce chaos and improve order. Theres little we can do about a sober person who isn't paying attention to the road, but we can target laws at a drunk driver that can't pay attention to the road because of brain impairment.

What about people with low blood sugar that happen to forget to take their medicine, or because they thought they where fine and didn't needed it?

[Theocrat]

Is there a Law forbidding Theft? Or is it a Punishment for committing Theft? You know when you actually injure Life, Liberty, and Property. I don't think people who "drive drunk" knowingly want to killed someone, nor more someone who is driving sleepy wants to.

Of course we have laws forbidding theft. If you want to find out, try robbing a bank sometime, and I'm sure the authorities will be happy to show you the laws.

I understand that drunk drivers may not intentionally want to kill people (although some may, if they are aggressive drunks). However, the question is who is responsible for taking the life of the victim. And it's not like drunk drivers don't know that it can kill people, for it's been ingrained into our society to know the stories and consequences of drunk driving.

But let me clear something up here. I'm not saying that a person should face the death penalty if he drives home drunk and doesn't kill anyone. He got by on the grace of God. And I do not advocate a state legislature passing laws forcing people to place DUI devices in their own cars. All I'm saying is that if someone kills someone in a reckless manner (which drunk driving is), then that person needs to face the penalty of taking an innocent life.

[aGameOfThrones]

What gives government the right to categorize things as "privileges"? Just because they are the #1 street gang?

Bingo!!! They used commerce as their "right" to make things privilege.

[aGameOfThrones]

Of course we have laws forbidding theft. If you want to find out, try robbing a bank sometime, and I'm sure the authorities will be happy to show you the laws.

I understand that drunk drivers may not intentionally want to kill people (although some may, if they are aggressive drunks). However, the question is who is responsible for taking the life of the victim. And it's not like drunk drivers don't know that it can kill people, for it's been ingrained into our society to know the stories and consequences of drunk driving.

But let me clear something up here. I'm not saying that a person should face the death penalty if he drives home drunk and doesn't kill anyone. He got by on the grace of God. And I do not advocate a state legislature passing laws forcing people to place DUI devices in their own cars. All I'm saying is that if someone kills someone in a reckless manner (which drunk driving is), then that person needs to face the penalty of taking an innocent life.

We have Laws punishing Theft, right? If I rob a bank, I will be punish for robbing a bank, but you can't forbid me from trying, right?

[Krugerrand]

more penalty because it is a more deliberate crime with the additional variable of voluntary reduced brain function.

How is taking your prescription medication less deliberate than drinking beer?


if there was no additional penalty, and repeat offenders could just get a high risk insurance policy as you suggest. There would be a higher rate of alcohol related wrecks and therefore higher total number of wrecks.
Presumption on your part. And - why only additional penalty for one form of intentionally impaired driving and not equally for ALL forms of intentionally impaired driving? Plus, I would think at some point a person would not be able to get insurance.


laws are a bitch to live with but most laws are in place to reduce chaos and improve order. Theres little we can do about a sober person who isn't paying attention to the road, but we can target laws at a drunk driver that can't pay attention to the road because of brain impairment.
These are not laws to reduce chaos and improve order. These are laws to fatten the wallets of the law enforcement wing of the police state. Exactly why can we not penalize the Rx drug driver as much as the drunk driver?

[Theocrat]

Again, he was not advocating eliminating the laws because of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the penalty. He responded to your claim that a death penalty would make the crime go away.

In fact, other than yourself, I don't think anybody here was basing their decision on if drunk driving laws should exist on what the penalty is or is not.

The discussion has generally been should drunk driving laws exist at all - in principle.[Emphasis mine]

Yes, and my response to that is if we had a justice system "with teeth," then we wouldn't have to worry about drunk driving laws at all. Once again, it's about enforcing the right consequences to our acts in society. Justice is dictated by God's word, not man's judgment fallen to sin. And God has declared that if someone takes a life recklessly (drunk driving being such an example), then that person (on a civil level) must meet the demands of that person's blood, which is death.

[Krugerrand]

[Emphasis mine]

Yes, and my response to that is if we had a justice system "with teeth," then we wouldn't have to worry about drunk driving laws at all. Once again, it's about enforcing the right consequences to our acts in society. Justice is dictated by God's word, not man's judgment fallen to sin. And God has declared that if someone takes a life recklessly (drunk driving being such an example), then that person (on a civil level) must meet the demands of that person's blood, which is death.

Like I said, I conceded the constancy points. But I stand by my "ouch."

My apologies for veering off topic - but I must know - does that apply to children and reckless playground accidents?

[Theocrat]

We have Laws punishing Theft, right? If I rob a bank, I will be punish for robbing a bank, but you can't forbid me from trying, right?

Of course I will forbid you from trying because you're intentionally about to violate someone's personal property through theft. If you're asking whether the State can forbid such an act, I would say no because God has already stated that "Thou shalt not steal." That is a uniform law of morality which every person has to live by. However, once you take another person's property, then the State has the right to bring restitution and judgment to victim(s) and you.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Of course I will forbid you from trying because you're intentionally about to violate someone's personal property through theft. If you're asking whether the State can forbid such an act, I would say no because God has already stated that "Thou shalt not steal." That is a uniform law of morality which every person has to live by. However, once you take another person's property, then the State has the right to bring restitution and judgment to victim(s) and you.

Not really. Banks are not extensions of the state, right? Free money, right? Where has all the risk gone? IF govt supplies my store with unlimited supply of meat products, who's paying for it? tax payers. isn't that theft in itself?

That's one reason why you only earn like 1-2% on your money versus 10-15% in banks, government interference. forces people to invest in the stock market instead

[aGameOfThrones]

Of course I will forbid you from trying because you're intentionally about to violate someone's personal property through theft. If you're asking whether the State can forbid such an act, I would say no because God has already stated that "Thou shalt not steal." That is a uniform law of morality which every person has to live by. However, once you take another person's property, then the State has the right to bring restitution and judgment to victim(s) and you.

A person may forbid someone from trying, but the "law" can't, right? We have laws to punish Theft not to forbid it, right? We are talking about the law, right?

[Theocrat]

Like I said, I conceded the constancy points. But I stand by my "ouch."

My apologies for veering off topic - but I must know - does that apply to children and reckless playground accidents?

No, because the child did so unawares. Drunk drivers are not killing without any knowledge that their action may take an innocent life. If they are, then they shouldn't be driving in the first place. Wisdom dictates that.

[spudea]

Exactly why can we not penalize the Rx drug driver as much as the drunk driver?

drunk driving is easier to prove. So it goes back to focusing laws that can reduce accidents.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

drunk driving is easier to prove. So it goes back to focusing laws that can reduce accidents.

getting rid of speed limits would be a start in reducing accidents

http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-11-02/news/17735730_1_speed-limits-mph-limit-death-rate

higher speed limits, lower death rates.

[Theocrat]

A person may forbid someone from trying, but the "law" can't, right? We have laws to punish Theft not to forbid it, right? We are talking about the law, right?

I think you're grasping at straws there, but I see what you're getting at. I do agree that the law should not punish intents of the heart (which they cannot see), but rather the actions which are committed.

But you need to realize that when the law punishes theft, they are latently forbidding theft, as well. I hope that is clear enough for you to see.

[pcosmar]

drunk driving is easier to prove. So it goes back to focusing laws that can reduce accidents.

But the Provable FACT is.. It doesn't reduce accidents.
Despite what you feel about it.

[Krugerrand]

drunk driving is easier to prove. So it goes back to focusing laws that can reduce accidents.

It's only easier to the extent that the police state has already built up that revenue stream.

[aGameOfThrones]

drunk driving is easier to prove. So it goes back to focusing laws that can reduce accidents.


I can prove with even more ease Reckless "driving" all I need to do is video tape everyone around me when I Travel so that they can be removed from the roads in order to cause less accidents. All I hope is that I don't include myself in the video :D.

[aGameOfThrones]

I think you're grasping at straws there, but I see what you're getting at. I do agree that the law should not punish intents of the heart (which they cannot see), but rather the actions which are committed.

But you need to realize that when the law punishes theft, they are latently forbidding theft, as well. I hope that is clear enough for you to see.


Then they are not forbidding much. You know what really forbids theft? They way you are raise, the way you are educated by your family, that is the way you forbid theft(unless you are raise by thieves which in that case theft=good :D) . But no law forbids theft, it punishes the act.

[spudea]

But the Provable FACT is.. It doesn't reduce accidents.
Despite what you feel about it.

and where exactly are your provable facts?? I'm looking up statistics now but can't spend all day on this forum...

[spudea]

Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year

Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities have decreased 44%

among persons under 21, the number killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes decreased 71% from the record high of 5,215 in 1982 to a record low 1,510 in 2008.

Three percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2008 had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years.

Compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol, drivers with BACs of .15 or above are 380 times more likely to be involved in a single-vehicle fatal crash than a non-drinking driver.

source: http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research

[pcosmar]

and where exactly are your provable facts?? I'm looking up statistics now but can't spend all day on this forum...

They were posted in the links earlier in the thread. Research. or just accept propaganda and lies.
It is your choice.

Here is one to start.
http://www.getmadd.com/PenaArticle.htm
A Former MADD Executive Speaks Out:
Charles V. Peña is the former executive director of the MADD Northern Virginia Chapter and the former executive director of the American Council on Alcoholism.

[aGameOfThrones]

Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year

Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities have decreased 44%

among persons under 21, the number killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes decreased 71% from the record high of 5,215 in 1982 to a record low 1,510 in 2008.

Three percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2008 had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years.

Compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol, drivers with BACs of .15 or above are 380 times more likely to be involved in a single-vehicle fatal crash than a non-drinking driver.

source: http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research


You preempted my response to your edit "Solution: take away their cars and Driving privileges" by removing your comment, but I'm gonna comment anyway. Though driving is a privilege, should the taking of Property and Right to Travel be applied as well?

[pcosmar]

Drunk driving fatalities accounted for 32% of all traffic deaths last year


See, That right there is proven bullshit.
The actual statistic is about 5%.

Once you remove sober drivers that hit a impaired person, driver or pedestrian. (alcohol related)
And remove Impaired passengers that had nothing to do with the cause of the crash, (alcohol related)
Or drivers that were well under the limit But the crash was due to other circumstances (alcohol related).
[
http://www.getmadd.com/NewMethodology.htm
Here is the government's exact wording (isn't bureaucratic language fun?):

"Estimates of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes for the U.S. are based on data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Known BAC [Blood Alcohol Content] test results are not available for all drivers and non-occupants involved in fatal crashes for a number of reasons, most frequent of which is that persons are not always tested for alcohol. To address missing data, NHTSA has developed and employs a statistical model to estimate the likelihood that a fatal crash involved driver or non-occupant was sober (zero BAC), had some alcohol (BAC of 0.01-0.09) or was intoxicated (BAC of 0.10) at the time of the crash. The statistical model was developed using all available known data in the aggregate (that is, at the national level) and applied to each individual driver and non-occupant with an unknown BAC test result. The estimates include a mix of both known and estimated BACs."---(DOT HS 809 334). [Emphasis added].
http://www.dwiblog.org/2009/08/have-a-close-look-at-dui-fatality-statistic

What is the source of these statistics? Several years ago, the statistics that had been kept on traffic fatalities by law enforcement agencies included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. However, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related" in order to justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions. Here you must note that they changed it to “DUI related", but not “DUI caused”.

This meant that a perfectly sober driver by whom an intoxicated pedestrian is hit and killed, for instance, would be considered to be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Same is the case, when a sober driver who is hit by another sober driver who is carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another "alcohol-related" death. Moreover, if it is believed by the officer that the driver is intoxicated but chemical tests show that he is not, then also the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related". In fact, if it is indicated by the tests that there has been a presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the police officer will chalk up the fatality as "alcohol-related".

[TheEvilDetector]

If you're at a bar, chances are your friend is drunk too, it's a pretty reasonable device, especially for repeat offenders.

Is this a device that can defeat a pre-blown baloon tied with a string?

LOL

Edit: Apparently the new ones, require you to breathe in as well as breathe out and also measure temperature, so balloon wont work.

[KenInMontiMN]

I'm glad to see that this has spun into a good discussion, I'd like to chime back in on a number of issues that have arisen.

Correlation/causation relationship between the 'attempt' and the 'crime.'

The vast difference that exists between analogies centered around such things as attempted robbery (not a crime if the robbery is thwarted?) and dui (not murder/assault if the death/injury doesn't occur?) is very clear. If the robbery is not thwarted it occurs with a correlation rate as close to 100% as it gets. Intent exists and only a preventative circumstance will frustrate the attempt and foil the robbery. Compare that to the dui correlation to death/injury. Last year in MN according to anonymous polling, about 25% of MN licensed drivers admit to driving at or above the limit at least once in that year. We have ~4 million licensed drivers, so call it a million or so offenders, and God only knows how many total incidences by those million, maybe ten million is a reasonable guess that isn't off by orders of magnitude. So ten million drunk driving incidences that year, if you will.

Now for the numbers on the consequences - 48,000 arrests for dui, they're getting about 5% of the offenders assuming no repeats in the same year; maybe about 0.5% of the incidences get charged out. Number of alcohol-related fatalities that year: ~160. So the correlation between the drunk driving event and the fatality, (and do be aware that the 'alcohol-related' numbers are purposely fudged higher as previously mentioned, correlation does not imply causation) is something on the order of less than two one-thousanths of a percent - 0.002% - correlation exists between drunk driving (at whatever level illegal BAC) and road fatality. Similarly for the alcohol-related injury accident with the same parenthetic caveats of course: about 680 of those in the year, and therefore about 0.007% correlation between the dui event and the a-r injury accident.

That should address the you got lucky argument....your actuarial chances of being involved in that a-r injury/fatality approach even-steven on your 10,000th impaired driving event, at which point you can say based on the numbers that you've been luckier than the stats imply. Even for the weekly violator, drinking/driving lifetime beginning at sixteen, it could be said that he's beaten the odds by a bit around his 210th birthday. Out closer to the 400th birthday if you use good numbers where all of the 'no legally impaired driver involved' incidents are weeded out of the a-r calculation. Out around the thousandth birthday for the .08-.10 user who rarely or never uses alcohol to get stumbling drunk, never drives highly impaired - and in fact very much in line with the actuary figures on drivers who never drink.

A little later, a post on enforcement in all of its variation around the country.

[KenInMontiMN]

One other thing I'd add to the previous correlation discussion - in regard to the post highlighting the drop in alcohol-related fatalities - non alcohol related fatalities have dropped by a virtually identical ratio in those time frames, both are down as a direct result of the implementation of safety belts in automobiles, their increased usage, and the advent of airbags. DUI enforcement hasn't created a measurable, statistically significant difference.

[pcosmar]

One other thing I'd add to the previous correlation discussion - in regard to the post highlighting the drop in alcohol-related fatalities - non alcohol related fatalities have dropped by a virtually identical ratio in those time frames, both are down as a direct result of the implementation of safety belts in automobiles, their increased usage, and the advent of airbags. DUI enforcement hasn't created a measurable, statistically significant difference.

True, But Cell Phone related fatalities have increased.

since we are looking at statistics. ;)

Regardless. I still oppose Pre-Crime.
Punish those that cause harm. Not those that May , someday Possibly, Might or Could.

[KenInMontiMN]

True, But Cell Phone related fatalities have increased.

since we are looking at statistics. ;)

Regardless. I still oppose Pre-Crime.
Punish those that cause harm. Not those that May , someday Possibly, Might or Could.

Very much in agreement, and that post will detail in particular the intent of our constitution and the protections therein intended to frustrate mass-prosecution and mass-criminalizations of any sort, and lets not forget our oathtakers and whether they choose to be keepers or breakers of those oaths, not just the letter but intent also, running rhetorical end-arounds on the letter, completely counter to intent, is in my eyes at least, more vile than directly stating a complete disregard for the 'damn piece of paper.' At least you know up front you've got a loose cannon in the case of the more candid guy.

[TinCanToNA]

True, But Cell Phone related fatalities have increased.

since we are looking at statistics. ;)

Regardless. I still oppose Pre-Crime.
Punish those that cause harm. Not those that May , someday Possibly, Might or Could.

I agree with you about punishing after the fact. However, it is an absolute certainty that repeat offenders will drive drunk again unless their decision calculus is complicated by something such as this device. Granted, there are ways around it, such as having someone blow into it for you, but I don't see this as any sort of Pre-Crime. Rather, this should be viewed as ongoing punishment for past crimes, so long as it applies to repeat offenders.

I will never support a "libertarian" or any other kind of society where driving drunk is legal or goes unpunished, unless I am also allowed to kill those drunk drivers out of self defense.

[angelatc]

Well, you can't pay for damages if you kill a human being. I think if you blow over the limit it alerts some department. But the limit is also pretty high, if you have that much alcohol in your system there's no way you should be behind the wheel of a car. It's not like the person was pulled over for just having a beer. The threshold is already pretty high.

.08 isn't very high.

[angelatc]

I will never support a "libertarian" or any other kind of society where driving drunk is legal or goes unpunished, unless I am also allowed to kill those drunk drivers out of self defense.

Fair enough, but just wondering how old you are? Because I absolutely remember when it wasn't such a big deal, and I preferred those times to these times.

[MelissaWV]

It's already been said, but people need to examine what the real problem is, and whether or not the "solutions" address it efficiently.

The real problem is deadly and damaging crashes caused by driver error and carelessness.

The solution proposed is to pull over people at random and test their blood alcohol level, or to put these things into vehicles, and to stop everyone with over a certain level (or everyone who is unable to properly use the machine) from driving.

This will not catch the following people who are also likely to cause accidents:


People changing the radio/CD/mp3/air conditioning, or otherwise pushing buttons and turning dials.
Drivers who are exhausted and haven't had enough sleep.
Drivers who have taken prescription medication and are operating heavy machinery even though they shouldn't be.
Distracted moms/dads who are more concerned about their kids in the back than the road in front of them.
People who run red lights.
People who drive an unsafe speed for conditions around them (either too fast OR too slow, and this has nothing to do with "speed limits").
Drivers with diagnosed medical conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, etc., that may have a medical event during operation of a motor vehicle.
Drivers who are eating/smoking/drinking (coffee, soda, etc.; not booze).
People texting or talking on cellphones, or using their iPhones.
People putting on makeup or doing their hair or putting in their contacts or applying deodorant or any other personal grooming at the wheel.
People who are reading (yes, I've had this happen to me) in traffic.
People whose car is poorly-maintained, causing a hazard by potentially blowing a tire, or stalling in fast-paced traffic, or losing a rear-view mirror that had been taped on, or any such other situation.
People with an undiagnosed medical condition.


There are probably a thousand more situations I could think of. In some cases listed above, a person could be barred from driving by their doctor, or stopped by a police officer for creating a hazard... but in many, you might be just fine driving while doing whatever's listed, while another driver might lose control and cause a huge wreck.

People have driven home awfully "drunk" (per the state) before, and have been fine. That does not factor into the statistics because they weren't pulled over, they didn't hit anyone, and they simply just got home, went inside, and passed out. Is driving drunk pretty stupid? Yes. Yes it is. So are any number of things I listed above.

The way to actually address the problem, then, is to target BAD DRIVING as observed and demonstrable in a court of law. With dash cams and so many other tools at a police officer's disposal, it should not be difficult to pull up behind someone and show that they are swerving, hitting their brakes every few seconds, or doing something else that most of us would normally go "Oh shit... that guy/gal is going to cause a crash any minute." Are they drunk? Possibly. Are they eating a cheeseburger? Should be easy to tell. The bottom line, though, is that they were driving unsafely and it is on record. Isn't that the actual problem, not whether or not they are drunk?

These sorts of devices could be part of an early-release or a plea bargain, sure. Perhaps someone had an accident where they were really REALLY drunk, but thankfully only hit a tree and injured themselves. Perhaps since no one else was hurt, a condition of their not going to prison would be to use one of these devices on their primary vehicle. I'm not entirely against that idea.

The rest of it, though, is emotion-driven claptrap.

[KenInMontiMN]

Prelude to the enforcement issues in general - a listing highlighting the wide variation in levels and means employed in enforcement, as evidenced by percentages of population in corrections on any level, in each state:

rank - state --------------- % of population in system
1........Georgia.................5.27%
2........Idaho....................4.14%
3........Massachusetts......3.21%
4........Texas....................3.10%
5........Dist. of Columbia...3.0464%
6........Ohio......................3.0463%
7........Louisiana...............3.00%
8........Rhode Island.........2.97%
9........Indiana..................2.92%
10......Minnesota..............2.83%
11......Delaware...............2.81%
12......Colorado................2.74%
13......Pennsylvania..........2.73%
14......Michigan.................2.66%
15......Maryland................2.55%
16......Arkansas................2.49%
17......Florida....................2.43%
18......Kentucky................2.36%
19......Washington...........2.33%
20......Alabama.................2.27%
21......Connecticut............2.26%
22......Oregon...................2.22%
23......Arizona...................2.20%
24......New Jersey.............2.16%
25......Hawaii.....................2.08%
26......Mississippi...............2.01%
27......Missouri..................1.98%
28......New Mexico............1.97%
29......Alaska.....................1.94%
30......Tennessee..............1.91%
31......California................1.90%
32......Illinois.....................1.89%
33......Wisconsin...............1.88%
34......North Carolina........1.81%
35......Oklahoma...............1.803%
36......Wyoming.................1.801%
37......South Carolina........1.75%
38......South Dakota..........1.68%
39......Vermont..................1.63%
40......Montana..................1.62%
41......Nebraska.................1.562%
42......Virginia....................1.558%
43......Nevada....................1.40%
44......New York.................1.34%
45......Kansas....................1.30%
46......Iowa........................1.28%
47......West Virginia...........1.12%
48......North Dakota...........1.08%
49......Utah.........................1.01%
50......Maine.......................0.86%
51......New Hampshire........0.82%

It goes without saying that anybody's perception of what's going on in the way of enforcement levels and discretion is based upon just how much criminalizing is going on in their state, and it is a very wide variation; GA at the top of the list exceeds NH at the bottom with almost 6.5 times the percentage in the system.

source - http://www.sentencingproject.org/map/map.cfm

[QueenB4Liberty]

I do have compassion. My compassion lies with the victim who died at the hands of a drunk driver (who should have known better) and his or her family. Drunk driving is not an accident. It is a poor moral choice.

I actually agree with this. If everyone here seems to be for drunk driving, then if you choose to get drunk enough to drive and get behind the wheel, fine let's not punish you unless you take another life. But then the punishment should be more severe. Maybe not death though.

[pcosmar]

I actually agree with this. If everyone here seems to be for drunk driving, then if you choose to get drunk enough to drive and get behind the wheel, fine let's not punish you unless you take another life. But then the punishment should be more severe. Maybe not death though.

NO, Not at all. I am not and never said I was in favor of drunk driving. Those that think this are obviously NOT listening, or are blinded by emotion. Emotions block the logical thought processes.

I am Against restricting liberty
I am Against Pre-Crime (punishment for something that hasn't happened)
I am Against "Feel good" laws that are both unneeded and ineffective.

I am for education.
I am in favor of punishing actual crimes.

The vast majority of traffic accidents (and traffic fatalities) are NOT caused by drunks.
Only a small fraction are. Despite propaganda to the contrary.
These laws do not affect that.

[TinCanToNA]

What punishment is suitable then for driving drunk, if you think that is a crime? Or if you think that an accident caused by a drunk driver has a criminal element to it, what punishment would be suitable to you?

Should someone who has proven they are too irresponsible to drive ever be allowed to drive again? If so, under what conditions? Would any type of BAC detection device ever be warranted? Just curious...


And to answer an earlier question, I am not old enough to have experienced "the good ol' days" of driving drunk not being "a big deal."

[pcosmar]

What punishment is suitable then for driving drunk, if you think that is a crime?
I do not think that in itself is a crime. Most people that drink and drive DO NOT cause accidents.
Only a small minority.


Or if you think that an accident caused by a drunk driver has a criminal element to it, what punishment would be suitable to you?
Any accident that causes harm, property damage or physical harm should be punished or retribution made. The "cause" is irrelevant. There should be no difference between a chemical impairment or a physical distraction (cell phone/radio), or a emotional issue. (road rage)
The reason is irrelevant.


Should someone who has proven they are too irresponsible to drive ever be allowed to drive again? If so, under what conditions?

Proven?? By who? And by what means do you predict the future?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Let's criminalize other forms of risk and outlaw guns.

[pcosmar]

Let's criminalize other forms of risk and outlaw guns.

The same exact lack of logic applies.
:(

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The same exact lack of logic applies.
:(

We could make it a crime to posses a gun in an emotional state. Random brain scan searches. Hell we could do the same thing for driving. Why stop there we could make sure everyone has chip implants so we can track everyone's emotional state in real time. Let's make pre-crime a reality.

[torchbearer]

Theoretically yes.
But does that mean there is no remedy to my question?
You can't really wait until after damages have been done.
If someone tresspasses you can shoo them off or sue them or whatever.
If someone steals you can have them jailed and get the stolen items back.
If someone is killed or assaulted you can't take that back as well.

how can you justify taking away a man's rights who hasn't damaged another man's rights?