The sixth time's the charm

Its funny that you specifically mention Indiana vs. Kentucky. In Kentucky there isn't even a law against "Public intoxication." The law reads "Alcohol Intoxication." Meaning that you don't have to be in public to be arrested. It is important to remember that "public" (by Indiana law at least) is defined by "any place the public is welcome." So yes you can actually get a P.I. in the bar. My advice for anyone who is pulled over while drunk (in Indiana), demand a blood draw. Its not refusal so you don't get the automatic charge, and you are automatically costing the state time and money by having your blood sent to a state lab for testing. Many police officers in Indiana don't even want to begin to fuck with all this hassle.
To arrest someone for DUI, from the time the traffic stop happens to the time the paperwork is sent to the prosecutor can be about 2-3 hours. Almost half of a work day for what amounts to a misdemeanor that chances are will result in probation and fines. Basically I'm saying that DUI laws need to be reformed to make them more streamline, but also without further pushing the envelope on individual rights. Also fuck a BAC as a test of intoxication. I've seen sorority girls covered in vomit at .08 and old drunks apparently normal at .30.

 

Here's a more relevant example - you see that hunter, except he's been drinking Early Times in his blind all day long and is waving his gun everywhere. No regard for gun safety, completely belligerent, etc. If you were a police officer, you would probably see that situation as a threat, right?

Now - one could argue that it would be a better idea just to take his gun away, drive his drunk ass home, and tell him to pick up his gun in the morning when he's sober. But let's say that he does it every single weekend. What's more is that people see the light treatment that he's getting and immediately think, "Hey, drinking Early Times in my blind is a lot of fun, much more convenient than hunting and THEN drinking once I get home. And if I get caught, it's no biggie."

That's why we have these laws in place. It's a deterrent. I've NEVER driven home drunk. NEVER. I'm the designated driver a bit (read: a lot) more than my share, but I've watched people ruin their lives thanks to DUI charges, and I've taken action to make sure that I'm not going to be like that. If it means that I miss out on a few parties, that's the way it goes. I avoid putting myself in situations that would force me to take the risk.

Do I have sympathy for people like WhoresWithNoNames, who was trying to make the best out of a shitty situation? Yes. But at the same time, I also make every possible effort to avoid getting into those situations. An awkward 2:00 AM phone call to a friend is far better than a DUI conviction. I've been on the receiving end of those phone calls, and they suck. But I'm happy to do it, because it means that they aren't risking their lives (and other people's lives) and livelihoods rolling the dice. Also, many things are forgiven when a couple sixpacks of beer are provided as compensation for coming out and getting them.

If you've gotten arrested for DUI eight times, you DO (or did, if you've managed to kick the booze) have a problem, and you are (were) a menace on the road. No ifs, ands, or buts. I don't like calling people out, but you are (were) the sort of person whom we see on the eleven o'clock news and say, "Why did the courts let this guy off so lightly? Those kids would still be alive."

Back to our hunter example. So, as long as he doesn't actually shoot anyone or anything, he should be free to do it, week after week after week with no increasing repercussions? What do you say to the victim's family when he DOES waste someone?

You've been convicted three times, right? And you've stopped drinking and driving. You didn't stop before; what was different about this time? I'll leave you with those following along from home to connect the dots.

 

This should be a crime itself.

 

A person gets pulled over, and fails the FST and breathalyzer. The crime (driving while intoxicated/under the influence) has happened. The driver broke the law--he was driving while intoxicated. Killing or injuring someone or damaging property are potential consequences of the crime the DWI laws seek to prevent.

And less jail, more education/rehab? You did 6 months of state-sponsored rehab (that's 6 times more than the usual treatment plan in a rehab facility) and you still drink. How did rehab help you, exactly?

 

Okay, you do know that you can legislate almost anything into being a crime, right?
You just might be a criminal right now!
Did you sign up for this message board under your real name?
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6- ... ng-it.html</a>

Did you not read what I said in my edit?
I don't drink and drive anymore.
I drink in a manner that society/you people would deem acceptable these days (because I know that some of you critics drink. I'm looking at you, Omegaham.)
And obviously incarceration in a prison/jail reforms everyone and makes all inmates ready for life in regular society. Right? Right?

Rehab gave me counseling and sober reflection time to re-evaluate my priorities in life. Nowadays, I drink responsibly. I know that organizations like AA have an “all or nothing” approach to drinking, but that’s not always how it works in real life.

I think there is a whole world of difference between firing a gun wildly in the air and driving with a BAC of .11. Even one of our resident cops thinks so:

The BAC levels, while well intentioned, are set up to grab as many people as possible to increase revenue for the state/province/county/municipality.

Not to give y'all too much shit, but you realize that with the way the laws are set up that you could possibly get nailed for driving after 3 drinks? Especially when you factor in breathalyzer error:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html</a>

 

It's commendable that you don't drink and drive anymore, but the fact that it took 8 DWI charges, 3 convictions, and 6 months in state rehab to alter that behavior says something, too. I hope you can maintain your conviction to stay off the road when you've been drinking, but your history and frame of thought on this subject suggest otherwise.

Rehabilitation efforts aren't going to work if the person doesn't want to be rehabilitated. Most are in denial that they have a problem, other have the delusion that "this time it'll be different" and they'll control their drinking, and still others know deep down that they have a problem, but can't imagine living life without alcohol, which is fear. They have to hit their bottom, and everybody's bottom is different. Sending them to education classes or state sponsored rehab isn't much of a deterrent and a greater waste of taxpayer dollars. Both are offered in the state prison system, as is AA, so if they really want recovery, the tools are available to them. Some do it (mainly the ones who killed or injured someone), but most don't.

 

I have absolutely no problem with people drinking. In fact, I have absolutely no problem with people getting plastered. However, what I DO have a problem with is people who do it irresponsibly. You know how every beer and liquor ad says "Drink Responsibly?" That doesn't mean "don't get wasted." It means "If / when you do it, do it in a safe manner." When my buddy says, "We're drinking tonight," the first thing I think of is, "Are we doing it in a barracks room, (safe) or are we doing it out in town (needs more planning)? If we're going out in town, how are we getting back? Let's say that the original plan falls through, like the DD got wasted. What's our backup plan? Is it simple enough that Drunk Me can follow this plan?

If I'm not 99% certain that I can get back to my room without fucking something up, I suggest that we either tone down the drinking or do it in a safer place. If my friends are unwilling to do so, then I stay back and tell them to call me if SHTF.

My friends have called me paranoid and tell me to loosen up. I've also saved a lot of them from themselves. Sure, I can be a buzzkill sometimes. But hey, it works. What's more is that I don't have to worry about shit going wrong, because it's already taken into account. It's a lot less stressful if you do a little bit of planning before getting the keg.

I'd drive (if I had to) after one drink. Two? I'll say this flat out; I'm 20 years old, and I am a below average driver (If you're 20 and believe that you're an above average driver, you are fucking retarded). I still commit driving errors out of inexperience. Put a couple beers into me? I'm probably not too dangerous, but I would not want myself behind the wheel. Three or four? Fuck no.

 

Um, if you are 20 you legally can't drink and if you did get caught drinking even one beer you would be in trouble with the law and the Corp.

 

I like to think I can hold my liquor. Last time I drank I polished off a 60 of canadian whisky with a buddy and the worst thing that happened was a nice 8 hour sleep (I typically sleep about 6 hours). Would I drive after doing something like that? Of course not. I'd have no business being on the road and no business having a licence after that.

But when I go to a pub for dinner and have three pints over the course of 2.5 hours, I'll probably blow over .05. If I drive and get pulled over, that's a DUI. There's no credible evidence to show that anyone is impaired at that point, yet we listen to fanatical puritans like MADD as if their word is gospel. Fuck that shit.

 

Not only that, but think about the education of the average person, how many of you know the difference between .074 and .081? Because there's a REAL big difference between them to the judge. There's no reliable way to know if you will get a DUI when you get pulled over. I even bought one of those stupid breathalyzers from Sharper Image* but it was very inaccurate. I went from blowing a .06 to a .21 in fifteen minutes while casually sipping beer. Then woke up and blew a .35 the next morning after a night of casual drinking.

Ultimately though, these laws are not about protecting us, they're about making a villain out of someone and being hard on them to get votes at the expense of people who have a beer too many and while safe, are over the limit. I've mentioned this before, but I could drink a 12 pack and drive much safer than most old people or Asians, but there's no law called DWOAF (Driving While Old AS Fuck) or DWA (Driving While Asian). Why? Because someone who gets behind a wheel shitfaced is an easy person to gang up on. Old people and Asians vote.

*If anyone knows of a more reliable version or has had luck with the SI model and think I got a defective unit or that I'm just a dipshit that doesn't know how to breathe properly please let me know.

 

Not to mention the studies that have shown that texting while driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving.

 

Funny you should mention that. While not the same it's illegal to talk on your cell phone in CT while driving. But you can have the headset or a blue tooth speaker that you can use. Even after over two years of using it, I find it much less distracting to just talk on the phone than syncing up the devices while driving.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

There are laws against texting while driving, too. I assume the penalties for doing so aren't as severe as DUI penalties for a variety of reasons: the fact that this has only become an issue in the last decade and thus has less surrounding research, violations are difficult to prove (how do you know I was texting rather than searching for directions on my smartphone?), and while the time from stimulus (i.e., another driver cutting you off) and response (you slamming on your brakes) is longer if you're distracted, your ABILITY to respond is not impaired. And that's just it: anything beyond steering the car is a distraction. Talking on the phone, texting, talking to a passenger, listening to music - they're all other stimuli that your brain is responding to outside of paying attention to the road ahead. As a drunk driver, you may forego your usual distractions to reduce the chance of getting caught, but your ability to react in a safe, timely fashion is chemically impaired regardless.

I feel sympathy for those that have gotten caught up in dumb luck situations, and I believe in second chances when no one is harmed. But I agree with long term to permanent license suspension for repeat offenders and more severe charges than involuntary vehicular manslaughter for those that do kill other drivers while impaired, whether it was the first time they'd been caught or the fifth. Without grave, tangible penalties, how will the morons that drink and drive learn to adjust their behavior?

Hands-free headsets were originally designed on the premise that actually handling a cell phone while driving was the root of distraction rather than conversation itself. However, it's been shown in studies multiple times that using a headset doesn't reduce distraction; lack of conversation does.

 

DUI laws don't exist to generate revenue.

This is why they exist. It's pretty simple.

 

... Not sure what path you're going down here (and forgive me if I missed an obvious joke, I'm tired and drunk) but:

-It's perfectly legal here to talk on a speaker phone or with a headset device.
-In Connecticut I use a speakerphone while driving, but sometimes I drive in states that aren't Connecticut. In those states I just use my phone without any devices, I think it's easier and takes less focus to talk on the phone than to fiddle with a device to use it.

All in all though, by far the most dangerous thing I routinely do while driving is changing the disc for an audio book, that easily trumps the phone, yet there's no law against it.

Did you notice that the risk for people 20+ pretty much doesn't budge between .08 and .099?

 

There have also been multiple studies showing that hands free devices have no observable advantage over phones re: driver attentiveness.

I in general have little sympathy for people who oppose these sorts of laws, however, because driver is strictly a privilege that I feel the government is perfectly free to put restrictions on, largely because it's their roads.

I would be surprised if they in fact do generate net revenue. The minimal revenue gain is probably more than offset by the subsequent legal costs.

 

...Their roads? You mean the roads built with money they got from taxpayers... that want to drive on those roads?

Just to be clear, I agree with this, I don't think they are in it for the money, I think they are in it for the votes.

 

Could they also be in it to, you know, save lives? Sometimes moral behavior and pandering are not mutually exclusive.