CdwJava said:
Okay ... if you think that mouthwash somehow gets into the deep lung air, I'll let you think that.
I don't need to think about that. Go back and learn about breathalyzers and what they pick up. Some of the top DUI lawyers might teach you a thing or two.
And, if you think that DUI drivers are safe on the roadway, well, I can only say I'm thankful that I - and the law - say you are wrong.
The law allows for officers to arrest a 180 lb man who had two beers, waited an hour and drove home. Do I think they are less safe to drive than a person who can't help but speed? I don't. You see, you're missing the point on the DUI MADDness. People are getting arrested not because they are DRUNK or unsafe drivers, but because some officer THINKS they're unsafe. Throw in a faulty machine and it's all over but the crying. Driving like an idiot happens all the time. But if there's any bit of alcohol involved, suddenly it becomes an issue. Drunk driving is the problem. Grouping everyone in one category because some can handle two beers and some can't is wrong. If someone is driving unsafe, lock em up. But don't do it JUST because there's alcohol involved.
Why is it that everyone who opposes our supposedly tough DUI laws blames everything on MADD? Certainly, they advocated for tougher laws, but so did a lot of us. They didn't do it in a vacuum.
Because the media, judges, politicians and everyone else in the decision making crowd appeases MADD. Whatever outrage claim comes from MADD everyone buys it. They've even become bold enough to state "we" as ownership when referring to new laws being made.
I hope while you were advocating you included many other aspects of unsafe driving besides alcohol and drugs. How else have you missed all the deaths that didn't included those vices?
Others are free to form their own advocacy groups to change DUI laws. But, I just don't see that as being a very politically viable position for an aspiring politician to take - being even easier on DUI. Hmmm ... just not a palatable position as I see it.
Exactly, easier is a great way to put it. It's much easier to go with the DUI laws because people have been told numbers that are false so they THINK it's a bigger problem than what it really is. If the general public knew that the "alcohol-related" term includes SOBER driver with drunk passengers, they'd feel much different. In 2001 2,900 innocent victims were killed by a drunk driver. Far different number than the 17,000 that's touted everywhere.
DUI is just one facet of safety. Realistically, it takes a lot of time to deal with one DUI but it only represents a small percentage of overall traffic enforcement. However, removing impaired drivers from the road improves the chances of all of us to get home safely, so it is time well spent.
If that's the case, why are drivers being killed by sober drivers at the rate of 4 to 1? You can spend all day picking up DUIs, but that doesn't make our roadways safer. How many accidents include alcohol? 6% How many accidents include distracted driving? 20% Hey it doesn't take more than a 5th grade education to understand 20 percent is higher than 6 percent. So how exactly is time being well spent when more people are being killed while you're dealing with one DUI?
And just what opportunities are being missed by ignoring DUI drivers? Is citing someone for a license plate out more important than removing the DUI driver? Am I missing some more heinous threat to public safety than the impaired driver hurtling down the road at 25+ MPH in one ton or more of steel?
How about a sober hurtling down the road at 25+ MPH? Does the impact or tragedy change because there's alcohol involved? Have you ever had to tell a family their loved one died by a sober driver and they were relieved because it wasn't a drinking driver? Can you honestly tell me that a sober driver that kills is better than a drinking driver that kills?
Personally, I think that DUI enforcement is important and critical - and it shall likely remain so until people grow up and learn that driving impaired is stupid and dangerous.
I agree it's important. But it needs to stop being a notch in the belt effort. If a driver is too impaired to driver, fine. But making an arrest because it's the popular thing to do or because there's a nice reward is wrong. I just read a story were cops staged a DUI rain. They decided it would be most effective if they started pulling over cars that were missing headlights. They figured the more they pulled over - and the later in the evening - the better their "luck". WTF? This setting out to get a drunk driver mentality only leads to making officers try too hard to please a quota. Outside my local police station there's a billboard displaying the number of DUI arrests. Yet this same police force can't get the gang robbery in my area under control. In my state there were less than 100 innocent victims killed by a drunk driver. There were over 50 deaths in my county alone that had nothing to do with drunk drivers. So what's more important, catching drivers that have been drinking or protecting people from non-driving violence? Yes, DUI enforcement is important, but there are more people ending up in the hospital over non-driving crimes. Let's just realistic here.
As for people not drinking and driving. It's never going to happen. DANGEROUS driving is the problem. People who have a drink or two and drive aren't the problem, yet the DUI laws convict them as if they are. People who drive like idiots are the real problem. I've driven with people who never drink and they scare me more than the person who had two cocktails with dinner.
I also believe DUI punishments are far too lenient. Since we arrest the same people over, and over, and over again, it is obvious that the "pain" inflicted by a DUI conviction is not painful enough to discourage future behavior.
Bingo! The people that continue to drive drunk over and over need to be dealt with. But our laws don't deal with DUI punishment based on over and over. DUI laws punish people for a drink or two while trying to set an example on those who really need the punished. Example: lowering the BAC. How does a lower BAC deal with the people who continue to drive drunk? You could give those people a -0.00 BAC limit and they'll still continue to drive drunk.
If the same passion for DUI laws was put into all unsafe driving, our roadways would truly be MUCH, much safer. But it won't happen until people realize that drunk driving isn't the biggest threat to our roadways. Everyone has bought into the MADDness.
