[jogiba]

It could best be described as a conflict of interest.

A Republican representative - and bar owner - raised eyebrows in Montana yesterday when he defended drink driving in a passionate speech to the House.
Alan Hale, a Tea Party supporter, said strict DUI legislation is 'destroying' small businesses in a state where lawmakers have made it their mission to cut high drink-driving rates.

The 57-year-old was one of only 12 representatives to vote against a new drink driving bill, which allows the courts to take into account DUI offences from up to 10 years ago.
In his speech, which was quickly circulated on YouTube by Montana Democrats, he said:'These DUI laws are not doing our small businesses in our state any good at all.

Republican representative (and bar owner) DEFENDS drink driving | Mail Online

Fiance, 29, killed by 'drink-driver' on trip to buy engagement ring

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371865/Fiance-29-killed-drink-drive...ment-ring.html

Tragic: David Laduzenski, 29, was on a trip to buy and engagement ring for his fiancee Eleanor Halgren when he was killed by a 'drink driver'


Charged: Daniel Leary, 35, was allegedly two times over the drink drive limit at the time of the accident



The COLD, HARD, SOBERING FACTS about alcohol and drunk driving in the United States:
•Fact: A total of 41,059 total traffic fatalities were recorded in the US in 2007. Of those, an estimated 12,998 (over 31%) were drunk drivers (Blood Alcohol Concentration above .08).
•Fact: On average, someone is killed by a drunk driver in the US every 40 minutes.

Stop the Madness!

You Tube

You Tube

---

Last edited by jogiba; 04-01-2011 at 06:25 AM.

[GeneV]

I don't think you need to defend drunk driving to question DUI/DWI laws. I've probably ranted about this before, but our laws have gone way beyond reason on this issue.

Let's start with the fact that most of the deaths, and, indeed, most of the stops on probable cause (i.e. erratic driving), are caused by people who blow a .17 or over BAC. The states react, with the encouragement of MADD and the Reagan Administration, by lowering the BAC at which intoxication is presumed from .10 to .08. The NTSB has never been able to prove this saved lives. In our state, there is no minimum any more.

In addition, as the seriousness of the crime continues to go down, the penalties and stigmas for this crime go through the roof. Mandatory jail time, publishing mug shots in the paper, and on and on.

Our state now has moved to the crime of "driving while impaired." If you are driving under the influence of anything that impairs you "to the slightest degree" you are subject to all the DWI penalties. We recently had a lawyer (not me) who specializes in suing drunk drivers prosecuted with a 0.0 BAC. He had not had a drink in a bar or restaurant in 15 years. A judge found his medicine for ADD caused him to be impaired to the slightest degree and convicted him of DWI--effectively ending his practice.

A round trip cab ride from my house to the restaurant district 3-4 miles away costs about $80 with tip. I would never drive with even a .08 BAC, but that is not the standard. I like a glass of wine with my meal, so I just don't eat out. Yes, that is bad for business.

[mikemike]

We recently had a lawyer (not me) who specializes in suing drunk drivers prosecuted with a 0.0 BAC. He had not had a drink in a bar or restaurant in 15 years. A judge found his medicine for ADD caused him to be impaired to the slightest degree and convicted him of DWI--effectively ending his practice.

Now that is some poetic justice, but most of those ADD meds are just pharmaceutical grade amphetamines.

The laws on prohibition of drugs are totally messed up too.

Even without drinking or drugs, getting into a motorized vehicle is one of the most dangerous things a person can do. I try to ride my bike as much as possible although Gene knows better than most that biking isn't risk free either.

[GeneV]

Now that is some poetic justice, but most of those ADD meds are just pharmaceutical grade amphetamines.

The laws on prohibition of drugs are totally messed up too.

Even without drinking or drugs, getting into a motorized vehicle is one of the most dangerous things a person can do. I try to ride my bike as much as possible although Gene knows better than most that biking isn't risk free either.

His psychiatrist testified that he would actually drive better with his meds, so what this really means is that the disabled can't drive--interesting implications there for all those elderly voters.

The issue here is not whether drunk driving is bad, but whether these laws are helping enough to be worth their impact on non-abusers and businesses. This is the analysis that needs to be applied to all regulations, but the knee-jerk response to tragic deaths seems to prevent that analysis even from those who would normally go slow.

Few people are being affected by the driving of a person who has a beer or two or even three--fewer than are affected by cell phone drivers, people who speed or run stop signs. However, DWI follows one forever and these other offenses are tickets. I have yet to see the hard evidence that punishing those who have had a few drinks is stopping the deaths.

Every time we see a death here, the person has consumed somewhere between 8 and twenty drinks in an hour. In the last one in Santa Fe a few months ago, the person had a BAC of .25--13 drinks in an hour. In the example above of the death of David Laduzenski, the drunk driver blew a .19 BAC--more than twice the presumed limit. That is at least 10 drinks in an hour. To even be conscious, that person is probably an alcoholic. Alcoholics are not deterred by anything, including jail time, once they have the first drink. Some day, we may all get cars with BAC monitors built in. I fear that is the only way we will stop real drunks from driving.

[ihasa]

As someone in the article commented:

The laws are such in Montana that you can have a couple of drinks over a few hours and not get a DUI if you feel the need to get drunk just call someone to pick you up. People do it all the time.

Which sounds fair enough. When you go to a bar with friends, one of them needs to be the 'designated driver'... its not too bad really.

[GeneV]

As someone in the article commented:



Which sounds fair enough. When you go to a bar with friends, one of them needs to be the 'designated driver'... its not too bad really.

Honestly, I think the law should be different in the UK or Europe or New York City than it is in Montana or New Mexico. I won't drive in London, Rome or New York even stone sober, and I can't imagine doing it with even one drink. It is also relatively easy to get other transportation or find a designated driver. In New Mexico, the informal limit among the police is about .04--two drinks. That is far from being "drunk." Transportation is difficult, and if you are going out with your spouse for a special occasion, who gets to be the DD?

What was being debated in Montana was how long the conviction follows you. Again, raising the conviction to a life-changing event. For aggravated offenses where the BAC rises to the level of the killer drivers, this may be appropriate. For others, I don't think so.

[Parallax]

In South Dakota, 3rd offense drunk driving is a felony. Where, or how long prior, the first two convictions occurred has no bearing.

[ihasa]

Transportation is difficult, and if you are going out with your spouse for a special occasion, who gets to be the DD?

Isn't that what spouses are for?

[GeneV]

In South Dakota, 3rd offense drunk driving is a felony. Where, or how long prior, the first two convictions occurred has no bearing.

That is true here, too. It is not a life sentence, though. Many if not most of the people who have had the most notorious deadly wrecks in NM have in fact had three to five prior DWI convictions. It doesn't seem to be working.

[Parallax]

........... It doesn't seem to be working.

Isn't working here, either.
I don't have a problem with repeat drunk drivers having their lives screwed up by a felony conviction.
I don't have a problem with them being prevented from driving drunk again and having a felony conviction.
I do have a problem with palliative (for the voter/public) measures that don't resolve the problem.

[redrockcoulee]

If you speed through any speed limit the fine and demerit points vary depending on how much above the speed limit you are driving. Some one driving 10 kmh is less of a threat to themselves or others than if he was driving 80 kph above the posted speed limit. For a long time I wondered why this was not the same for impared driving. Alberta does have the 24 hour suspension where they put a boot on your car for 24 hrs and I do not know if you are actually ticketed or not.

On the other hand several years back it was in the news that a man was stopped at a check stop and even though his driving seemed normal he was checked and he was something like 0.24.

For zero tolerance for impaired even being just cut off in traffic would make most of us impaired for seconds to minutes until we regain our cool or heart rate.

[GeneV]

Isn't working here, either.

I watched a tenant who rented from me drink himself out of a career as a lawyer and into jail. The penalties don't seem to make much difference. It is like trying to outlaw mental illness.

[mikemike]

That is true here, too. It is not a life sentence, though. Many if not most of the people who have had the most notorious deadly wrecks in NM have in fact had three to five prior DWI convictions. It doesn't seem to be working.

It seems like this would be a more effective usage for license plate scanning cameras like they have for red lights and speeding. Catch anyone driving an uninsured vehicle, driving a vehicle owned by someone with a suspended license, or vehicles owned by DUI offenders. Cameras could even identify vehicles driving erratically. In some cases, like the uninsured vehicle I think they should send citations and eventually boot the vehicle in the person's driveway if they don't pay; in other cases like vehicles where the owner's license is suspended or is driving erratically it should notify the police in the area because that person could be an imminent threat to safety.

[seacapt]

Is it an April Fools thing or I am actually 100% in agreement with my friend Gene?
Yes drunk driving is bad but so is a trooper parked across from the local Pub &Grub randomly pulling cars as they leave. The .08 limit is probably a little conservative too.

[GeneV]

If you speed through any speed limit the fine and demerit points vary depending on how much above the speed limit you are driving. Some one driving 10 kmh is less of a threat to themselves or others than if he was driving 80 kph above the posted speed limit. For a long time I wondered why this was not the same for impared driving. Alberta does have the 24 hour suspension where they put a boot on your car for 24 hrs and I do not know if you are actually ticketed or not.

On the other hand several years back it was in the news that a man was stopped at a check stop and even though his driving seemed normal he was checked and he was something like 0.24.

For zero tolerance for impaired even being just cut off in traffic would make most of us impaired for seconds to minutes until we regain our cool or heart rate.

When I have parties at my house I have required everyone to take a breath test before leaving, and they get an expensive cab if they don't pass. The person who blows a .03 (legal even under our law) usually giggles and seems a little lit. The most sober looking person in the room is usually the one that sends the meter up above .10.