To be fair, there's not much else to do in Wisconsin winters but drink, nor much to hit in Wisconsin if you drink and drive.

/Still a D-umbass, though

Yeah, it's not like there's that much chance of running into someone ...

No hero tag? Fark must change after midnight.

Believe in God, he'll give ya shoes.

/got nothin

Whoa, a state legislator actually taking a stand against randomly increasing criminal sanctions? That's unheard of in 'Murica, land of the free (not counting the largest prison population in the world).

Yup, first one should be. Records purged after a year of no repeats.

Reporter: Wisconsin senate leader Russ Decker, you've had your third drunk driving offense, what are you going to do now?

Russ: I'm going to downplay repeat drunk driving offenses for my state!... then I'm going to Disney!

/seems to happen this way all too often

Indis: Yup, first one should be. Records purged after a year of no repeats.

Good idea ... but we need to hammer the first offense hard, like bigger fines, embarrasing plates, mandatory community service, etc etc.
I see no excuse for DUI in this day & age, how the fark is it still acceptable to drive [on public roads] impaired? How about first offense means no driving for 6 months, new DUI plates for 2 years after that, and driving during the revocation period gets you 30 days in the pokey? Why is it so hard to hammer these asshats endangering the public?

Maybe the 0.08% BAC is a lousy measure of impairment, but until we have a better way to measure impairment reliably, it will have to do.
Once we start nailing the drunk drivers to the wall, we can start in on the cellphone idiots, the makeup appliers, and the sleepies ... make it "driving impaired" and hammer repeat offenders.

Driving is not a right! There are other people on the road depending on you to follow traffic laws and standard rules of the road. If you can't handle driving per the laws, move to the city and take the bus/train ... I would do so if my profession didn't require me to work out in the boonies.

Why would people even have a driving license by the third offence?

America's already got fairly good DUI laws, but I'd love to see a trend where cars and then driving licenses got confiscated. First strike is a big fine and community service, second your car gets taken away and auctioned, and the third you can never drive again.

ManicParroT: Why would people even have a driving license by the third offence?

A lot of tyhem just drive without the license. Sadly the only way to curb that would be to have checkpoints, and that is a major slippery slope.
Think about it, how aften does the use of your car require a valid driver's license?

ManicParroT: Why would people even have a driving license by the third offence?

They should do away with instain drivers.

/got nothing

Maybe the answer is to include alcohol in with the WAR on DRUGS??

I came here for any fleeting reference to Chappaquiddick.

I leave disappointed.

That's right! What we need is more politicians to stand up for the rights of drunks!

Or maybe just a new political party? The Drinking Party?
Our standard bearer:

/Wouldn't be a drunk politician thread without it.

The solution to this problem:

ilambiquated: The solution to this problem:

Agreed.
I miss Honolulu and Chicago public transit ... living in flyover country for this job means I have to commute, and carpoolers are scarce here in truk nutz territory.
Nothing takes the fun out of driving like HAVING to drive ... except the idiot drivingswerving home drunk as I get off nightshift.

I agree it shouldn't be a felony. I further believe that U.S. citizenship should be revocable on proof of donation to MADD.

Yeah, the first DUI offense be a felony :)

El_Dan: Whoa, a state legislator actually taking a stand against randomly increasing criminal sanctions? That's unheard of in 'Murica, land of the free (not counting the largest prison population in the world).

You're the man, El_Dan.

Good for him. With the levels as low as they are now, the laws are worthless anyway.

I don't understand why more than a century after the car, more than half a century after RC, and more than a quarter century after computer-controlled RC, we still don't have computer-controlled RC cars. It's so obvious, and would solve so many problems. You could take an overnight drive and sleep through most of it. Or read while driving to work. Or drive home drunk as a laird and arrive safely, if sloppily falling out once you get there. It would probably cut traffic accidents -- especially alcohol and fatigue related -- and road rage down to nearly nothing. Just think about it.

Why? Why don't we have this? How much could it possibly cost, compared to what we're paying already for not having it?

'Sides, it would be way cool, right?

Yeah, at the first offense let's cut their dick off!

Wake me up when they give the same penalties to people with cell phones, which has been shown to impair drivers as much as alcohol.

And to the poster who said our DUI laws are fine the way they are, no they're not. You can get a DUI without even being inside your car.

/no, never had a DUI

ManicParroT: America's already got fairly good DUI laws, but I'd love to see a trend where cars and then driving licenses got confiscated. First strike is a big fine and community service, second your car gets taken away and auctioned, and the third you can never drive again.

That would be fine, however the legal limits on blood alcohol percentage are too low.

to be fair, it is Wisconsin

bigfatdave:
Driving is not a right!

It is, however, a necessity. Your argument is roughly equivalent to claiming that, because oxygen is not a right, we should suffocate anyone who says something rude using the public's air.

Depriving someone of the ability to drive often deprives them of their livelyhood. Increasing financial penalties (and criminal penalites for accidents resulting in injury or property damage, add a reckless endangerment to those charges) are much more appropriate than destroying someone's life and family because they've screwed up.

Basically, in most practical ways depriving someone of the ability to drive is the social and economic equivalent of putting them in jail for the same period. If you're gonna do that, at least put 'em in jail so they can be fed and such.

Jim_Callahan: bigfatdave:
Driving is not a right!

It is, however, a necessity. Your argument is roughly equivalent to claiming that, because oxygen is not a right, we should suffocate anyone who says something rude using the public's air.

Depriving someone of the ability to drive often deprives them of their livelihood. Increasing financial penalties (and criminal penalites for accidents resulting in injury or property damage, add a reckless endangerment to those charges) are much more appropriate than destroying someone's life and family because they've screwed up.

Basically, in most practical ways depriving someone of the ability to drive is the social and economic equivalent of putting them in jail for the same period. If you're gonna do that, at least put 'em in jail so they can be fed and such.

Driving a car = breathing oxygen? Wow, you are the epitome of the entitled American.

Nobody is going to die because they can't drive. They just have to choose among one of the many alternatives to driving (biking, carpooling, bussing).

Driving is a convenience. And if you don't want to jeopardize that convenience, then don't risk driving if you've had anything to drink. It's that simple.

Unright: Driving a car = breathing oxygen? Wow, you are the epitome of the entitled American.

Nobody is going to die because they can't drive. They just have to choose among one of the many alternatives to driving (biking, carpooling, bussing).

Driving is a convenience. And if you don't want to jeopardize that convenience, then don't risk driving if you've had anything to drink. It's that simple.

1) It's illegal for me to ride a bike to work.
2) Nobody I work with lives within a reasonable distance.
3) Everything you seem to know about mass transit in the U.S. you learned from watching tv. It's virtually nonexistent, aside from cities.
4) You're completely incorrect on all points for many Americans.

Jim_Callahan: Depriving someone of the ability to drive often deprives them of their livelyhood. Increasing financial penalties (and criminal penalites for accidents resulting in injury or property damage, add a reckless endangerment to those charges) are much more appropriate than destroying someone's life and family because they've screwed up.

This is ridiculous. If people repeatedly demonstrate that they can't responsibly balance drinking and driving and are putting other people at risk then they can spend a year begging rides from their friends or having their spouse/SO shuttle them back and forth to work.

Isn't the operative principle here "personal responsibility"?

Making a DUI a felony will do nothing to prevent drunk driving. All it will do is put more money in the pockets of MADD, the legal system and social workers whose livelihood depends on drunk driving offenses. DUI penalties are not designed to prevent drunk driving, as many of the self-righteous who have commented in this threat might think.

DUI penalties are all about the money.

If the state really wanted to put an end to drunk driving, they'd take your drivers license away for doing it, then charge you criminally for driving without a license. But they would not do that, because that would cost them millions.

Kenwhat: El_Dan: Whoa, a state legislator actually taking a stand against randomly increasing criminal sanctions? That's unheard of in 'Murica, land of the free (not counting the largest prison population in the world).

I don't think you know what the word "random" means. Hint: If there is a direct cause and way to avoid the sanction, it isn't actually random.

Yeah, you're right. It's pretty much across the board, and it's tantamount to oppression.

1. You all know that talking on the cell phone has the same accident rate as .08 BAC right? Then shouldn't talking on a cell phone carry the same penalties?
2. Texting is worse, shoulding it carry even higher penalties?
3. The US has gone full retard when it comes to drug laws.

4. lets ban eating, shaving and applying make-up while we're at it.

Wouldn't D-runk be the funnier wharrgarbl?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 1) It's illegal for me to ride a bike to work.

How does that work? Bicycles are classified as vehicles with essentially the same access to roads other than freeways as cars.

2) Nobody I work with lives within a reasonable distance.

Move, get another job or get better friends.

3) Everything you seem to know about mass transit in the U.S. you learned from watching tv. It's virtually nonexistent, aside from cities.

Don't kid yourself, it sucks in many cities as well.

I'm really sorry that your ox is being gored here but if people can't be responsible in their drinking and driving habits then one of the two has to give.

Funny to see a lot of the people from the smoker hate threads in here hollering "MY RIGHTS!".

Driving is a necessity! It's not the same because....because your cancersticks STINK! Plus *I* don't smoke, so you can see how it's completely different!

Guess what? You taking a taxi home from the bar is no more an inconvenience than smokers standing outside in gale force winds.

It's the Nanny State you ordered. What, you didn't seriously think they were gonna stop with us, didja? Noob.

Sleeping Monkey: All it will do is put more money in the pockets of MADD

MADD gets paid when people are convicted of felonies? How does that work?ptelg: 1. You all know that talking on the cell phone has the same accident rate as .08 BAC right? Then shouldn't talking on a cell phone carry the same penalties?
2. Texting is worse, shoulding it carry even higher penalties?
3. The US has gone full retard when it comes to drug laws.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for decriminalization of marijuana and hallucinogenics and rehab rather than prison for some of the others. The problem I have is when people decide to operate heavy machinery on public roads while under the influence.

Taking a few bong hits doesn't put anyone at risk but taking a few bong hits and then driving to McDs because you have the munchies does. Driving while impaired isn't specific to alcohol or any drug, it's just that most impaired drivers are either drunk or high.

It may be your right to drink a few beers but its your responsibility to ensure that your actions don't endanger others.

equilibrium: MADD gets paid when people are convicted of felonies? How does that work?

Making a DUI a felony and allowing the person to continue to drive instead of actually solving the problem by taking away their driving *privileges* allows this person to go through the DUI system a fourth time and perhaps again and again.

Each time they go through they system they give thousands and thousands of dollars to MADD's Great Crusade. In many states its mandatory that the offender attend MADD seminars and of course "donate" to this private organization in order to attend these seminars.

Ending DUIs across the country is a noble and just cause, but the DUI offense is a cash cow and putting an end to that line of cash is not part of the agenda for anyone who has their finger in the pie.

Sleeping Monkey: Each time they go through they system they give thousands and thousands of dollars to MADD's Great Crusade. In many states its mandatory that the offender attend MADD seminars and of course "donate" to this private organization in order to attend these seminars.

So you're saying that MADD doesn't want to end drunk driving because they would stop getting donations from people who are convicted of driving under the influence? I hadn't thought of it that way but now that I look at it from that perspective I can see how this line of reasoning applies to other issues like oncologists not being motivated to cure cancer.

/thought they got sent to AA
//because, you know, it's free

citizen905: Wouldn't D-runk be the funnier wharrgarbl?

I'd have to cross the CT river, which would require me to travel over a highway. Bicycles and low power vehicles such as mopeds are illegal to drive on the highway.

equilibrium: Move, get another job or get better friends.

Great, you don't see a reasonable solution either.

equilibrium: I'm really sorry that your ox is being gored here but if people can't be responsible in their drinking and driving habits then one of the two has to give.

Legal alchohol limits, as they are, would be too low for draconian penalties. Other poor driving habits are at least as bad as having alcohol at the lower limit. So go ahead and have a draconian penalty, but just don't screw over peoples lives because they use listerine in the morning...

equilibrium: /thought they got sent to AA
//because, you know, it's free

Nothing associated with a DUI is free

BraveNewCheneyWorld: citizen905: Wouldn't D-runk be the funnier wharrgarbl?

meant to quote this...

equilibrium: How does that work? Bicycles are classified as vehicles with essentially the same access to roads other than freeways as cars.

El_Dan: Whoa, a state legislator actually taking a stand against randomly increasing criminal sanctions? That's unheard of in 'Murica, land of the free (not counting the largest prison population in the world).

El D-umbass, may you personally meet a 3rd time drinking and driving offender on the road.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Great, you don't see a reasonable solution either.

My solution to your situation would be to simply not take the chance and be careful about when and how I drank. If someone in your situation doesn't take that into account when deciding whether to have a couple of beers before hitting the road, I'm not going to have much sympathy for you having to live with the consequences of your actions. If you're married then your wife now your chauffeur.

Regarding the Listerine comment: [citation needed]

Kenwhat: El_Dan: Whoa, a state legislator actually taking a stand against randomly increasing criminal sanctions? That's unheard of in 'Murica, land of the free (not counting the largest prison population in the world).

I don't think you know what the word "random" means. Hint: If there is a direct cause and way to avoid the sanction, it isn't actually random.


I didn't say that laws against DUI are themselves random. I said that the way laws against DUI - or anything else - get more severe are random. The general way that a given criminal law gets more severe is that some state legislator feels that being "tough on crime" is an effective electioneering technique. Other ways include a (generally hasty) response to a particularly gruesome crime, or similar emotion-fueled processes.

It's not like the Wisconsin state legislature brought in experts on DUI, conducted a thorough investigation to determine that there was a serious problem with existing laws, and concluded that making a third offense a felony would solve this problem. What likely happened is some senator decided that DUI was a politically convenient crime to crack down on. Which is a random way to go about increasing criminal sanctions.

equilibrium: Regarding the Listerine comment: [citation needed]

I just had to google this because it was just too weird an excuse to let go. If you're talking about the woman in Michigan I'll give you a pointer: don't drink Listerine.

Was pulled over by a DUI roadblock after New Year's. I had no worries since I hadn't been drinking, but it pissed me off to no end. I really wish the Supreme Court would actually respect the 4th amendment.

In a free society, one shouldn't be stopped by the authorities without a damn good and specific reason.

===================================================================

My views on drunk driving are kind of radical:

I say if a driver isn't driving in a way that endangers others, then who gives a shiat how much booze is flowing through his/her veins?

If the cops pull over a drunk guy weaving in traffic, I think the cops should just tow his car and send the guy to the drunk tank overnight. A hundred or two in impound/storage fees is enough if nobody was harmed.

OTOH, if a driver causes a wreck with serious injury and the blood level is over, say 0.1, charge the bastard with attempted or negligent homicide.

Keep the ones who actually do harm locked up, and limit it to that.

Riche: In a free society, one shouldn't be stopped by the authorities without a damn good and specific reason.

Because of the historically high number of alcohol related traffic accidents on New Years Eve, driving on new years is now pretty much probable cause. I don't recall law enforcement running checkpoints on a daily basis so get off your soapbox.

Riche:
Keep the ones who actually do harm locked up, and limit it to that.

Your views are rational and you seem to value the freedoms of American citizens as well as personal responsibility...it'll never happen.

equilibrium

Because of the historically high number of alcohol related traffic accidents on New Years Eve, driving on new years is now pretty much probable cause. I don't recall law enforcement running checkpoints on a daily basis so get off your soapbox.

I own a home on the edge of a bad neighborhood, in a zipcode where there is a disproportionately high level of drugs, gun crime, gangs and murders. Does that mean the cops have probable cause to search my home because of the historically high number of homes with criminal activity in the area? They wouldn't be searching homes of people in "safer" areas so maybe people who object to that should get off their soapbox?

Come on.