Before you read this note i am against drunk driving, and i dont drive my car if i know i have had 2+ beers.

I was in a discussion in my law class and drunk driving had come up, I thought about it and i came to the conclusion that it is punished too severely. Yes alcohol impairs your judgment but so does a myriad of things. Eating, Talking to people in the car, smoking, Cellphones, exhaustion, just to name a few. Yet drunk driving can be punished up to jail time while cellphones only get a ticket. Exhaustion in my opinion is even worse than drunk driving cause if you fall asleep at the wheel you have no control over the car as opposed to delayed reactions from drinking. Yet, (correct me if im wrong) a ticket for driving exhausted doesnt even exist. I just think that it is unfair that there is a precise number to determine if someone is drunk and that drunk driving is the most serious impairment to drivers.

That was my little rant, and yes everyone has their own opinions and i would like to hear yours.

Yes I do agree with you that the punishements for drunk driving is severe compare to those other distractions while driving. I guess we need to see more studies that compares drunk driving to other distractions. I know for one that texting and driving is definately becoming a problem. I personally rather drive tipsy than sleepy, in that case the best solution there is to not drive at all but we all know it doesn't always happen that way.

Well, I dont drink alcohol, but this doesnt cloud my judgment.

Being Tired definatly has plays a big role in that. I admit i have driven tired before, and it messes you up. Very foolish i must admit. I've felt drunk being so tired. I dont do that anymore. I think thye do have tickets for that, i remeber a while back on tv i saw things about people killing others from falling asleep at the wheel. How long ago did they put those bumps on the sides of the road?
Talking on the phone, lets try TEXTING on the phone, that is much worse.
They now have BlueTooth headsets, so talking on the phone should not be an excuse.

Driving drunk impares your driving ability for your whole driving time, while these other things (excluding the exhaustion) temp impare your driving. Granted it only takes a second for something to happen. Some people shouldnt be allowed to walk while they are drunk, never mind drive.

I am for maximizing what ever is dangerous. Call me a P*ssy but i dont feel like getting side swiped by an A-Hole.

-J

The punishment is severe...and I think it should be..because the severe punishment should be to detur any1 from driiving like that to begin with....

So before sum1 gets behind teh wheel wen they feel a little tipsy they should think of the possible outcome...which is your life will be ruined...especially if you have a position in finance..or the "corporate world" as these offences come up on background checks..

It just isn't worth it...and the worst thing is people that are drunk usually still feel they can drive.

I learned my lesson the hard way..hopedfully no1 else will..and no i didnt get caught it was worse than that...ever since then I have never drank and drive..

I think drinking and driiving is worse than all those other things you listed...but hten again it depends on how much you have drank and which activity its being compared too (tiredness, texting, etc.)


but in NYC...I'd rather be caught for a billion other things rather than DUI...they give it to you real hard now..def not worth it..

Driving drunk impares your driving ability for your whole driving time, while these other things (excluding the exhaustion) temp impare your driving. Granted it only takes a second for something to happen. Some people shouldnt be allowed to walk while they are drunk, never mind drive.

Great point! :thumbup:

yeah...i've had a lot of close encounters driving while i was tired more than anything... these days i know now to take a quick powernap if i have anything more than a 30 minute drive...

The best thing to do would be to compare cold hard facts. Number of accidents caused by drunk driving vs. number of accidents caused by the things you mentioned earlier. Then again, it's pretty difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of an accident. Nobody is going to say, "I caused the accident because I was being irresponsible and texting while driving."

tried driving on the highway while very tired (coming back from the states at night), I then open all the windows, turned up the music with some songs I can't even sing(Japanese songs) and I try it, it kinda worked, I was awake after since the song was not meant for me to sing :P

another time, I just pulled over wherever safe place I could find and slept.

And yes, drunk driving they can fine you and/or put you to jail, but at least they have a way to measure, unlike other things, like cellphone, text, smoking etc, you could just say your passenger's doing it, not you. thus they can't really have prove to charge you for anything...

Well, drunk driving is punished severely in comparison to other distractions/impairment that you have mentioned, but I don't think the punishment is too severe. Perhaps its the other way, the punishment for other distractions/impairment is too light?

Drunk driving, as opposed to being otherwise impaired is often considered a moral failure, punishable as "sin". It's the same reason we tax alcohol and cigarettes, but not sugar and caffeine. Somehow it plays into our sense of moral superiority to charge those who would partake of certain chemicals. OTOH, the effects of alcohol on driving are well known, and the choice to indulge in adult beverages is a conscious one - therefore it could be argued that the offender made a decision to violate the law, and assume the consequences of potential death and destruction willfully.

It is not a question of degree - the large majority of drunk drivers have no idea they are incapable of safely operating an automobile. You and I are not the best judges of our own levels of intoxication and impairment. You may think you are an excellent driver with a half-dozen drinks or beers under your belt, but years of testing shows a slight improvement in driving performance after the first drink or two (because we are more careful and conscious of our driving), it's all downhill from there. You think you are doing fine, but you may be all over several lanes of traffic, and are very likely to be involved in a serious accident.

If you should ever doubt this, go out drinking with your usual circle of friends, except stick to nothing more than club soda with a twist of lime. If you make a deal with the bartender beforehand, you don't even have to let your friends know you are not drinking. Just watch what is going on around you. After an hour or so, you will notice your friends beginning to act very foolishly - having difficulty walking, organizing thoughts, even talking coherently. That person you think is such a hardcore party animal begins to get a little boring, and by the end of the evening, that cool person that everybody likes is nothing but a helpless lush. The really hot girl you've wanted to take home on several occasions turns out to be a brainless twit, and worse, a spewing drunk. At this point, how well do you think they can drive? Would you want to be on a dark 2-lane road with this person headed toward you?

This is more than distracted driving; eating, lighting a cigarette, talking on the phone, or playing with the telematics takes the driver away from the primary task of driving, being physically impaired is a condition rather than a moments' distraction. While distraction may be involved, a drunk driver doesn't possess reaction time or the fine motor skills to recover safely. It's something to consider this Holiday season.

I know a guy that went to work without any sleep, he wound up crossing three on coming lanes of traffic, plowing into a carl's Jr, and hitting a mom's minivan filled with kids.

I personally think drunk driving deserves more graduated punishments.

Right now at .07 you'd walk away free and clear but at .08 you'd be screwed to the wall spending many thousands in lawyers fees and fines at best and spending tens of thousands plus time in jail or without a license at worst (especially for a second offense).

Let's say driving at .06 to .10 is a minor fine, such as speeding 10mph over the limit would be. .11 to .16 is more like reckless driving. Then say .17 and over is where the serious punishments should come into play (taken to jail for the night, suspended license, big fines, etc for the first offense, worse after that)

In my personal experience I can be borderline .08 (I have a BAC meter that I keep for fun and safety) and not even realize it - I think I'm still fine to drive, and honestly I probably am still fine and dandy to drive.

It's just hard to really tell unless you expect everyone to carry around a well calibrated BAC meter.

But on the other hand if you're at .13, for example, you pretty well KNOW you shouldn't be driving. You might mistakenly believe you're at .08-.09 but you still know that's against the law so deciding to drive thinking you were at a lower but still illegal level would be no valid excuse.

Basically I think in the borderline zone it should be a slap on the wrist, but if you KNOW you shouldn't be driving and just don't know quite how much trouble you'd be in, then you deserve to be punished accordingly.

No. Drunk driving is NOT punished too far in relation to cell phone use, reading, etc....and other bad driving habits.

Why?..........Simple.

It is true that cell phones and multi-tasking while driving can be hazardous, but the solution in that case is simple, Simply hang up the cell phone, turn off the laptop, or put the E-Mail receiver back in your pocket, and, instantly, you're back to square one, with no problems. Once again, you are free to concentrate on the road and your driving....and hopefully, you will not have caused an accident in the meantime.

Not so with alcohol. Once you have enough alcohol in your system to impair judgement (and it doesn't take that much, even for large men), you can't just turn it off with an on-off button like you can a machine or a cell phone. No, with alcohol you are stuck with it. You're going to STAY drunk, or at least have some driving impairment, until your body burns the alcohol off naturally, which, for the average adult, is about 1/3 of an ounce an hour. And then, if you were drunk enough, after the alcohol wears off can come the hangover..........which in some ways can be as bad or worse, as it can include severe thirst and headaches.

Nope, When the law says don't drink heavily and drive, it MEANS what it says.....and for a good reason.

Well maybe i phrased the question badly. And there have been many good points. If you are severely intoxicated you should definitely not get behind the wheel of a car. What i mean is like a few beers or 1 or 2 shots. Enough to make you feel good but definitely not enough to make you stupid. As for the cellphone it may be a momentary distraction, but all it takes is 1 wrong move. Also your cellphone conversation is usually not going to be a minute long. I see people who talk for a good 30+ minutes. (when i drive to my moms store, i see the same car same drivers.) And MOST people are give or take 30 minutes from their party/bar/club to their house. Also mmharshall when u say u can turn off the phone or laptop, its the same thing as you should not have drank in the first place. Yet people do drink before driving, and others continue to drive while texting + talking.

I think that the whole hype about how bad drunk driving is, is because of so many reported incidents and groups of people pushing for something to be done. Mind you thats not a bad thing but there probably have been hundreds of accidents due to the other distractions i have mentioned but go unreported because it would be that much harder to prove it.

There was a person killed here (Penn State) last year and his friend was injured very badly and still cant walk or function because of drunk driving. The student that hit these two men was drunk, underage, speeding, and eating. He was sentenced to 6 years Max. in jail (to short if you ask me) and his lawyer is demanding a new trial because he doesnt feel that the fact that his client was drunk is what caused the crash. Stupid and sad.

Also mmharshall when u say u can turn off the phone or laptop, its the same thing as you should not have drank in the first place. Yet people do drink before driving, and others continue to drive while texting + talking.



The point I was making, jakex, is that, while both are foolish and hazardous, you can get rid of the other hazards in just a second or two......by putting the book down you're reading, turning off the laptop, cell phone, etc.....

With alcohol, if you have ingested enough to be drunk, you can't simply undo those effects in a second or two like with a cell phone. Same with lack of sleep...in some ways it is as bad as alcohol. Drowsiness and lack of sleep is not something you can instantly turn off with a button either, although sometimes strong coffee will help a little. But in the end, there is no substitute for rest and sleep either.

Before you read this note i am against drunk driving, and i dont drive my car if i know i have had 2+ beers.

I was in a discussion in my law class and drunk driving had come up, I thought about it and i came to the conclusion that it is punished too severely. Yes alcohol impairs your judgment but so does a myriad of things. Eating, Talking to people in the car, smoking, Cellphones, exhaustion, just to name a few. Yet drunk driving can be punished up to jail time while cellphones only get a ticket. Exhaustion in my opinion is even worse than drunk driving cause if you fall asleep at the wheel you have no control over the car as opposed to delayed reactions from drinking. Yet, (correct me if im wrong) a ticket for driving exhausted doesnt even exist. I just think that it is unfair that there is a precise number to determine if someone is drunk and that drunk driving is the most serious impairment to drivers.

That was my little rant, and yes everyone has their own opinions and i would like to hear yours.


Are you still 17 like what it says in your sig? Coz if you are.... :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakex1 View Post
Before you read this note i am against drunk driving, and i dont drive my car if i know i have had 2+ beers.

I was in a discussion in my law class and drunk driving had come up, I thought about it and i came to the conclusion that it is punished too severely. Yes alcohol impairs your judgment but so does a myriad of things. Eating, Talking to people in the car, smoking, Cellphones, exhaustion, just to name a few. Yet drunk driving can be punished up to jail time while cellphones only get a ticket. Exhaustion in my opinion is even worse than drunk driving cause if you fall asleep at the wheel you have no control over the car as opposed to delayed reactions from drinking. Yet, (correct me if im wrong) a ticket for driving exhausted doesnt even exist. I just think that it is unfair that there is a precise number to determine if someone is drunk and that drunk driving is the most serious impairment to drivers.

That was my little rant, and yes everyone has their own opinions and i would like to hear yours.

Are you still 17 like what it says in your sig? Coz if you are....

Well, in our AP Gov class, we talked about this too.

Yes alcohol impairs your judgment but

See that's where your argument lost merit. There should be a period there instead.

Things are what they are, there are no comparisons that can change that. Drunk driving is drunk driving. (notice the period)

The whiners of the country want to compare things to make them look less evil. This is called "Redirecting the attention from the problem".

The ugly girlfriend in the group may make the less homely look better, but they are all still going home together and watching Jeopardy at the end of the night.

The issue that makes DUI so much more severe is FREE WILL and ability. If you are in the car and talking on the cell phone you have both the free will and the ability to hang up, but if you are in the car drunk then you do not have the ability to say "ok I'll be un-drunk for the next 20 miles". Ok the phone I can see someone swerve in front of me and slam on my brakes, drunk I won't hit my brakes at all (or 2 seconds after I hit them).

On the phone you can be a hazard on 23rd street and the perfect driver on 24th street. Drunk, you are a hazard the whole way, ....and here's the period.

Bring that up in class. You can't argue it. That's what it is and why, the end.

(Edit: I see mmarshall beat me to it and is perfectly correct)

drunk driving laws are very fair as far as i understand them

if you're arguing that the punishment on other offenses is too light thats a different story

^ I agree with Tekknikal's point. Even with punishments, some individuals still insist on driving drunk, so I believe that it may not even be severe enough. We are all more than sufficiently educated about the hazards and risks of driving drunk, not only to ourselves but to others as well, so why is it still being done? It is basically the self-discipline of the individual that matters.

Before you read this note i am against drunk driving, and i dont drive my car if i know i have had 2+ beers.

I was in a discussion in my law class and drunk driving had come up, I thought about it and i came to the conclusion that it is punished too severely. Yes alcohol impairs your judgment but so does a myriad of things. Eating, Talking to people in the car, smoking, Cellphones, exhaustion, just to name a few. Yet drunk driving can be punished up to jail time while cellphones only get a ticket. Exhaustion in my opinion is even worse than drunk driving cause if you fall asleep at the wheel you have no control over the car as opposed to delayed reactions from drinking. Yet, (correct me if im wrong) a ticket for driving exhausted doesnt even exist. I just think that it is unfair that there is a precise number to determine if someone is drunk and that drunk driving is the most serious impairment to drivers.

That was my little rant, and yes everyone has their own opinions and i would like to hear yours.

Being distracted while driving is totally different from driving while your judgment and abilities are physically impaired. When you are smoking, do you end up blacking out and not even remembering how you got home? This may be the case while drinking. When your senses are not impaired while talking/smoking/etc, you have the ability to realize that you need to pay attention--you are talking to your passenger, and they yell "the light is red!" and you slam on the brakes. If you are drinking, your reaction time is delayed, and you may not even hit the brake at all.

I have heard of ONE account where a person was on a cell phone and ran a stop sign and killed someone (unfortunately, a small child in another car). All of us have heard MANY stories of someone killed by a drunk driver, and probably know of someone personally affected by drunk driving.

The next closest example you cite is driving drowsy. That may rise to the level of drunk driving, and you very well may go to jail if you kill someone doing that. BUT--you can pull to a rest stop, or 7-11, get some fresh air, and be re-invigorated enough to drive again, esp. if it is the "within 30 minutes" you refer to above. You get out of the car for some fresh air--and you're still drunk.

There may be some good arguments comparing driving while on the cell phone to some of the other activities you list, but there is no comparing them to drunk driving.

I personally think drunk driving deserves more graduated punishments.

Right now at .07 you'd walk away free and clear but at .08 you'd be screwed to the wall spending many thousands in lawyers fees and fines at best and spending tens of thousands plus time in jail or without a license at worst (especially for a second offense).



+1 for the idea.
Also, "drunk driving" is not an accurate term. Definition of drunk driving would be inability to react (due to intoxication) to road conditions in a timely manner necessary to operate a vehicle at legal speed. That is not always the case with DUI convictions (as Threxx mentioned). Even if one's reactions are slower than normal, it does not automatically mean that they are inadequate (as is currently the practice). Granted, that most really drunk drivers can be spotted (wide turns and not staying in one lane are the best telltale signs).

While the accidents and the damage that they do to people's lives are horrible, they are no more horrible than accidents caused by any other reason. I have heard anecdotal evidence that says that the #1 cause of fatalities in the US is single vehicle accidents where the driver dozes off and runs off the road and that cell phone use raises your accident risk on par with having BAC well above the legal limit. I do think that because of MADD and similar organizations and the stigma that the drinking carries in our society the stick on DUI is bent over too far. If god forbid a man kills someone in an accident (may be) because of the 2 beers that he had, most people would feel about it a lot harsher than if it was a woman with 5 kids in the car because of distraction.

If the gov really wanted to get rid of drunk driving, as it is called, they would put a certified BAC meter in every place that has a liquor license and would sell certified BAC meters for personal use (by "certified", I mean legally admissible readings). Right now, there's one blanket rule - don't drink and drive - ever. That is sometimes not a good option and that leaves many people in a gray zone where they can get caught in a legal grinder, even if they are actually capable of operating a car.

This is not an argument for DUI, if you haven't figured it out by now, but more for leveling the playing field a little bit. Right now, the odds are stacked way against the driver.

P.S.
Oh, and I did a little experiment one of these days and played Gran Turismo spec A on my PS2 while moderately intoxicated (definitely more than I would care to drive with) and my lap times were comparable with my normal times.

...I do think that because of MADD and similar organizations and the stigma that the drinking carries in our society the stick on DUI is bent over too far. If god forbid a man kills someone in an accident (may be) because of the 2 beers that he had, most people would feel about it a lot harsher than if it was a woman with 5 kids in the car because of distraction...

thank you vlad, that was the argument i was trying to make, sorry if anyone misunderstood. That organizations SUCH as MADD or SADD places drunk driving as an extreme taboo. Lol vlad made it so much more concise and precise. Also what if a man who is .08 borderline "legally" drunk yet capable of driving a car, gets in a accident with another person who has kids in the car screaming, watching nemo, and talking on the cellphone trying to finalize whatever plans the person may have. The drunk driver will definitely be placed at fault. Because society views drunk driving lowly but having screaming kids may be perfectly acceptable.

Anyone who believes the punishment for a DUI is pushed too far have:

-a probability of driving drunk in the future
-already driven drunk or have a DUI

The punishment isn't enough for the many innocent deaths of drunk drivers.

You shouldn't compare the irresponsibilities of drunk driving vs other distractions.

.

Anyone who believes the punishment for a DUI is pushed too far have:

-a probability of driving drunk in the future
-already driven drunk or have a DUI

The punishment isn't enough for the many innocent deaths of drunk drivers.

You shouldn't compare the irresponsibilities of drunk driving vs other distractions.

.

What do you propose, skater? Firing squads or being eaten alive by driver ants in public? I think you meant "the many innocent deaths caused by drunk drivers". But again, what about accident deaths from other causes (exhaustion, cell phones, not knowing the rules, not paying attention, etc.)? Shoot them too?
Even though you state that these are not on the same level as drunk driving, you don't explain why... Just because you said so or are there some statistics from a neutral body to back this up (that DUI accidents are indeed THE major cause of accidents in the country)? Because, based on the punishment, it would seem that they are (which I doubt).

I just think that there is a big difference between a driver that is about to puke from being intoxicated and having double vision and a driver that had a couple of beers. The law treats them the same - I think that is not fair.

Agree to disagree, though.

i cant believe there are so many skeptics here on the impact of drinking and driving. yes, being tired while you drive is dangerous, BUT THATS A SEPARATE ISSUE. the question is, are the penalties for drunk driving excessive. when you look at what it is and what the results are, how can you say no?

penalties help curb behavior. you dont need large penalties for driving while exhausted because in general, i think its safe to say that people dont like doing it, and its not as big of a problem. people love to drink though, and then think they can drive, but they cant. that behavior needs to be stopped. this is not like speeding, cell phones, or being tired.

thank you vlad, that was the argument i was trying to make, sorry if anyone misunderstood. That organizations SUCH as MADD or SADD places drunk driving as an extreme taboo. Lol vlad made it so much more concise and precise. Also what if a man who is .08 borderline "legally" drunk yet capable of driving a car, gets in a accident with another person who has kids in the car screaming, watching nemo, and talking on the cellphone trying to finalize whatever plans the person may have. The drunk driver will definitely be placed at fault. Because society views drunk driving lowly but having screaming kids may be perfectly acceptable.

So--do you propose to criminalize being "distracted"? And, if we are talking about sliding scales, does your example -- kids screaming, dvd going, cell phone talking--carry a heavier penalty than just tuning your stereo? When you are drunk, whether buzzed or blitzed, you can't eliminate your condition. You CAN hang up the phone, turn off the radio, tell the kids to pipe down. THAT'S the difference. You can't just say "That was a close one--I better stop being drunk."

If you actually kill or injure someone while you were distracted talking on the phone, you will pay the price for reckless driving--which covers ANYTHING reckless.

So--do you propose to criminalize being "distracted"? And, if we are talking about sliding scales, does your example -- kids screaming, dvd going, cell phone talking--carry a heavier penalty than just tuning your stereo? When you are drunk, whether buzzed or blitzed, you can't eliminate your condition. You CAN hang up the phone, turn off the radio, tell the kids to pipe down. THAT'S the difference. You can't just say "That was a close one--I better stop being drunk."

If you actually kill or injure someone while you were distracted talking on the phone, you will pay the price for reckless driving--which covers ANYTHING reckless.

If your argument is to get off the phone, tell the kids to quiet down, the drunk driver can give his keys to a cab company, or sleep in the car for a while. Thing is drunk drivers can sleep in the car and wait till they sober up but they don't. And people who are talking on the cell phone can finish their calls later but they DONT. So Either drunk driving is punished too hard and everything else carries a fair penalty, or drunk driving is punished fairly and everything else that causes distractions are punished too lightly. Also when people go into crash diets and starve for long periods of time they can go into states similar to being tipsy, yet if pulled over they wont get a ticket for being just as dangerous as a drunk driver with a .08 BAC.

Think about it if people never pushed for laws to come out because so many drunk drivers have killed others, MORE people would be driving drunk, and people would treat drunk driving accidents equally as other accidents where the driver had other distractions.


Anyone who believes the punishment for a DUI is pushed too far have:

-a probability of driving drunk in the future
-already driven drunk or have a DUI...
.

shouldnt jump to conclusions. i.e. Many men are pro-choice or pro-life but they probably never had children or plan to have children in the future. Its just ethics on everyones idea of right and wrong, just as the penalties for drunk driving is.

Thing is drunk drivers can sleep in the car and wait till they sober up but they don't.

Sure. But IMO, the real issue is that many drunk drivers can't make these decisions properly while they are intoxicated. Frequently, laws are passed for the lowest common denominator - or, as I like to put it personally, to protect the world from idiots. I'm sure we've all heard the stories of people who have racked up numerous DUI charges and I just think (besides "how on earth are they not in jail?") but "how stupid do they have to be that they keep doing this and getting arrested?". And many of these people don't have any other criminal record whatsoever.

This type of behavior demonstrates that when a person becomes sufficiently intoxicated, they lose their ability to make rational decisions. The level of intoxication at which this occurs may vary dramatically from person to person, and certainly many people may never allow themselves to pass this limit. But laws designed to protect people from idiots will always be based on the idiots.

Sure. But IMO, the real issue is that many drunk drivers can't make these decisions properly while they are intoxicated. Frequently, laws are passed for the lowest common denominator - or, as I like to put it personally, to protect the world from idiots. I'm sure we've all heard the stories of people who have racked up numerous DUI charges and I just think (besides "how on earth are they not in jail?") but "how stupid do they have to be that they keep doing this and getting arrested?". And many of these people don't have any other criminal record whatsoever.

This type of behavior demonstrates that when a person becomes sufficiently intoxicated, they lose their ability to make rational decisions. The level of intoxication at which this occurs may vary dramatically from person to person, and certainly many people may never allow themselves to pass this limit. But laws designed to protect people from idiots will always be based on the idiots.

This is the whole point. If your judgment is impaired, as opposed to being distracted, you may not be able to come to this conculsion. How many times have you seen someone who is drunk--maybe even totally wasted--say "I'm fine" when you knew they weren't? I have certainly seen it--they can barely stand up, or form a sentence, but they insist they are fine. And while the person on the cell phone thinks they can talk and drive at the same time--BUT if there's a close call, is likely to realize maybe they are overextending themselves. If you're drunk, you may just think the other driver's an ***hole, not realizing it's you.

That is the fundamental difference, and why those comparisions are not really fair.

This is the whole point. If your judgment is impaired, as opposed to being distracted, you may not be able to come to this conculsion. How many times have you seen someone who is drunk--maybe even totally wasted--say "I'm fine" when you knew they weren't? I have certainly seen it--they can barely stand up, or form a sentence, but they insist they are fine. And while the person on the cell phone thinks they can talk and drive at the same time--BUT if there's a close call, is likely to realize maybe they are overextending themselves. If you're drunk, you may just think the other driver's an ***hole, not realizing it's you.

That is the fundamental difference, and why those comparisions are not really fair.

Im not talking about a person who is totally out of it. I mean those who are slightly tipsy, or borderline legally drunk .08. Where they are capable of driving but the law punishes them more than someone who has a .07 because that person is a little bit bigger but may have drank equally.

Also one of my teachers, gets destroyed after taking ONE shot of tequila. Her BAC would definitely not come out legally drunk but she would not even be able to walk yet she wouldnt get arrested for drunk driving because she is not "legally" drunk.

Im not talking about a person who is totally out of it. I mean those who are slightly tipsy, or borderline legally drunk .08. Where they are capable of driving but the law punishes them more than someone who has a .07 because that person is a little bit bigger but may have drank equally.

Also one of my teachers, gets destroyed after taking ONE shot of tequila. Her BAC would definitely not come out legally drunk but she would not even be able to walk yet she wouldnt get arrested for drunk driving because she is not "legally" drunk.

Thank you for making my point--she's not even legally drunk (you think--I assume you didnt breathalyze her), and she can barely walk. How can you be arguing that a .08 person is "capable"?

Anyway--it's the SAME thing, whether you are slightly drunk or totally drunk--your judgment is impaired. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but you physically are not making decisions with the same abilities you do as when you are sober. A legal line must be drawn SOMEWHERE--since alcohol affects everyone differently, you could argue that the line should be .01. A one or 2 second delay in reaction time can make an enormous difference. And--you can argue that the .08 person is potentially more dangerous, because it is not as obvious to others, who may not stop them from driving.

Thank you for making my point--she's not even legally drunk (you think--I assume you didnt breathalyze her), and she can barely walk. How can you be arguing that a .08 person is "capable"?

My point is people have different limits some can hold more and be fine while others drink a little bit and be wasted.

A one or 2 second delay in reaction time can make an enormous difference.

If you put it like that the 1 or 2 second difference can make a huge difference with any other distraction. The 1 second you look away from the road to do anything would lead to an accident even something like raising the volume on your stereo can be hazardous. And people will probably not go and "Drop" their cell phone/drink/sandwich to swerve out with both hands and just use their free hand which is a big difference between driving with both

My point is people have different limits some can hold more and be fine while others drink a little bit and be wasted.

And - as I said in my previous post - in order to protect society from idiots, the law must account for idiots. It's all about going after the lowest common denominator, within reason. In this case, the legislature feels that 0.08 is an accurate and reasonable representation of that lowest common denominator.

The fact that other people can be responsible or have a higher tolerance is irrelevant, because the law is there to protect us from those who cannot be responsible and who have a lower tolerance. The mantra that idiots tend to ruin the world for the rest of us is quite accurate.

If anything, your argument quoted above about a person getting "wasted" after one drink would only suggest that the legal limit should be lower.

Well, let's see, I had a friend long ago driving drunk along with some other stupid teen kids in the car while coming down the mountain. They crossed the line and slammed head on into a car driven by a man with his wife next to him. They just got married and on their way to their honeymoon. Groom died (not deserved), my friend died (deserved-sorry Danny), and the 3(or was it 2) punk teens (all were drunk) in the car died as well. Only the bride made it out and she was in bad condition though I never found out her long term ailments. I'm pretty sure it made the news 20 years ago.

This is just one if many I know of involving drunk driving including one where a guy rear ended me on the freeway years back at night because he was drunk. I chased him down-was not hard-and let's just say that it was a good thing for him he was numb at the time and good thing for me that his memory was impaired. Cops were amused that he tripped and fell so many times before they arrived.

In situations where a victim is injured or death is involved I think the suspect should be liable for assisting the victims family for the duration of the estimated lifespan of the victim. So in the case that a man kills another man who's age is 40 and has a family then the suspect should be liable 32 (if the average healthy males life expectancy is 72) years financially to that family in the order of up to 50% of his wages. Time to make the punishment real.

I think the current restrictions and penalties are appropriate and though yes some people react and respond differently to various levels of alcohol it would be next to impossible to enforce such a flexible law especially when the solution is so simple-don't drink and drive. What part of that is difficult to understand for people.

Everyone is an angel and hero on the internet......

Drinking and Driving is wrong yes. The tests are made for you to fail. People rarely know their true rights when it occurs.

The tolerances of people vary as well. It also is proven that driving with a cell phone is basically, driving drunk.

I think what we need MORE OF, is the same issue we have with driving in general. EDUCATION.
1. If you're going to get hammered, take a cab, drink where you can walk, have a designated driver.
2. EAT before/while you drink. Just drinking gets you pissy drunk.
3. Maybe drink at home instead of going out.
4. Hang among people and places where you can leave your car, or ride with a pal, or save some cash for a motel/hotel etc.

My point is people have different limits some can hold more and be fine while others drink a little bit and be wasted.


All laws must create artificially drawn lines or standards. Why, if you steal $999 is it a misdemeanor, but if you steal $1000 it's a felony. Or once you possess drugs over a certain amount, you are assumed to have "intent to distribute"? It doesn't matter that people have different limits--if that's the argument, then the limit should be ANY alcohol in your system.

And I don't want to say that Pearlpower's story is typical--BUT everyone has heard a story like that. You can't say the same thing about someone who was "distracted".

And, 1Sick--I don't think it is "proven" that driving on your cell phone is the same as DUI--I don't think there's scientific data. I think it is a theory.

All laws must create artificially drawn lines or standards. Why, if you steal $999 is it a misdemeanor, but if you steal $1000 it's a felony. Or once you possess drugs over a certain amount, you are assumed to have "intent to distribute"? It doesn't matter that people have different limits--if that's the argument, then the limit should be ANY alcohol in your system.

And I don't want to say that Pearlpower's story is typical--BUT everyone has heard a story like that. You can't say the same thing about someone who was "distracted".

And, 1Sick--I don't think it is "proven" that driving on your cell phone is the same as DUI--I don't think there's scientific data. I think it is a theory.

you can conduct tests to see the physical and mental abilities of the drunk driver after getting pulled over. Instead of just putting a BAC meter. Like they used to do

you can conduct tests to see the physical and mental abilities of the drunk driver after getting pulled over. Instead of just putting a BAC meter. Like they used to do

I heard on the radio this morning that today is the 35th anniversary of "Pong", the predecessor to the Wii and all other video games. Just because they "used to" play video games that way, doesn't mean we should go back to that. The only thing better about a field sobriety test is to permit the drunk driver to be able to set up a defense that he/she could not have been found to be drunk beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact is, there is no way you are going to get off scott free if you drive at a .07 and get caught, and if you "can handle" driving at a .08, then you get all that's coming to you for purposely taking that risk.