Welcome to Wisconsin?

PPL_Wannabe: Welcome to Wisconsin?

Not so.

dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

and then you go to jail for vehicular manslaughter, which incidentally is a separate crime, and therefore not excused under this law.

It's George Cosenza!

slayer199: That is very reasonable. I'm a former cop and I can say that the majority of drunk-drivers are professionals (alcoholics). This would take care of the dude that does an oops, not a career drunk driver.

I'm okay with this. Don't ruin someone's life for one mistake. After they repeat that mistake, it's different. But one screwup with no victims?

Yea, because what this world really needs is more drunken morons on the road. "I haven't used my freebie yet, woohoo!"

dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

We must outlaw driving!

dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

Wizzin: Yea, because what this world really needs is more drunken morons on the road. "I haven't used my freebie yet, woohoo!"

It isn't a freebie when you're as drunk as you imply

GBmanNC:

We must outlaw driving!

Tiny lil fist shaking.

Attorney George Cosenza said "You lose your driving privileges for 15 days. You then go on what we call the blow and go

Do any of the legal brothels in NV have some sort of expedient service/EZ Pass system? Great name for one there.

muligan!

DWI is a political crime. The 0.8 BAC threshold is waaaay too low.

1. Judges require a "donation" to MADD in returned for a lesser sentence.

2. MADD donates to judge's re-election campaign.

3. ???

4. Profit!

What if it is a poor kid from the ghetto who gets caught with a joint? Should he have a felony conviction haunting him the rest of his life? That sort of thing does still happen in this day and age.

That's great news. I'm going to get drunk and drive around.

Way back when I was 21, I was out at a bar with coworkers and got a little more messed up than I meant to be. Got in my car, thinking I was okay, started driving and figured out that I wasn't. I pulled over into a parking lot, got out of my car, and called a friend to come get me.

I made it about half a mile.

If I'd been pulled over during that half-mile before I realized I was driving drunk, it would have pretty much ruined my life (I lived somewhere you cannot get anywhere without a car).

I think this law sounds like a very good thing. Kids are stupid and make mistakes. Those who (like me) do not repeat-offend should get a freebie.

Sounds reasonable, a first time offender would get to have a clean record after paying a lot of money. Win for the city with the $ generated, win for the driver with a break at a high $ cost. But whatever happened to cops using their better judgment depending on the situation? You know, like the old days? Back when a cop would actually use his judgment to determine if you were a risk or just happened to have one too many? Back when a cop wouldn't arrest you if you were cool, but instead allowed you to call someone to get you, or let you walk home and leave your vehicle there.

I'm all about locking up some scumbag repeat drunk driver who drives recklessly without regard for others, but what about the guy who is barely over the limit? You know, the guy who is doing nothing wrong, not driving reckless and not breaking any laws, but gets pulled over for no other reason then the cop wants to "check him out". Then said cop asks if he's been drinking, the guy says he had a few, and the breath test shows .1 over the limit. Really?

I had a buddy who was barely over the legal limit once, he didn't get pulled over, but had pulled over to the side of the road to check a tire. He wasn't breaking any laws, a passing cop saw him and decided to pull over to "check up" on him. Well, guess what? He gets a DUI for being over the limit while outside checking a tire. This cop witnessed nothing that would give him suspicion of a reckless drunk driver, he could have given him a break and told him to call for a ride, but oh no he couldn't do that. I guess he had a quota or something.

Had another buddy who would get drunk and drive recklessly because he was a drunken idiot, got 2 DUIs and deserved everything he got.

Let me guess, the same people who rant and rave against firearms are going to line up to support some crap like this?



/welcome to Fark, I know

I'm glad to see so many rational responses to this program. I too think it is a very intelligent way to address the possibility that occasional drinkers (NOT habitual drunks) might make a mistake and should not be treated the same as alcoholics who DUI regularly. Certainly the 0.15 limit on this program acknowledges that "impairment" is not a black & white concept but has variable degrees--certainly someone at 0.1 will not be anywhere near as likely to cause an accident as someone at 0.2. (Also, I propose that a very good, skilled driver at 0.1 might actually be safer on the road than a very bad, inattentive driver who is completely sober.)
This program is also a good step towards easing prison overcrowding. I think many other crimes should follow this example and examine whether first time offenders really should go to prison or whether there's a way for them to pay their penance and prove it was a one-time mistake.

offense - light penalty, big fine ($500 or so)
2nd offense - 1 year in jail, 5 years no car
3rd offense - 10 years in jail, no car ever

And raise the BAC requirement to .12 where it belongs...

Ok so what happens to the "career" drunk drivers? I worked with a douche who had 10 DUIs. How are you even allowed to drive, much less walk around free at that point?

If the punishments are too harsh for casual criminals, what are they doing to the repeat offenders to stop them, you know, offending repeatedly>

defects: What if it is a poor kid from the ghetto who gets caught with a joint? Should he have a felony conviction haunting him the rest of his life? That sort of thing does still happen in this day and age.

No. And hopefully come November it won't happen anymore in California.

I agree with the majority of the posters that this is a reasonable way to deal with DUIs.

The law is by no means unique. Many states have diversion programs for first time DUI offenders. They often require that a person first undergo alcohol and drug counseling and that the person complies with all recommendations of the counselors. They also typically require that the person refrain from drinking alcohol completely for a period of time.

The great thing about this is it allows people the opportunity to change. Putting people in jail and publicly shaming them for all eternity for a single DUI makes it difficult for them to recover. What better reason to continue drinking than losing your job because you got a DUI?

GBmanNC: dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

We must outlaw driving!

But driving impaired increases the chances of an accident, dumbass.

Dr. Johny Fever would have to disagree with you.
Too obscure for you young'ins?

In Oregon I guess we have what you all would consider very weak DUII laws... When I was 21 I hit a fence and fled with a .26 (yes, that number is correct) did a weekend in county and was back on the road three months later and no conviction to haunt me... Then one year later on the same farking day I got another one with a .28 and did no jail time and lost my license for a year... However they did convict me for that one and turned my first into one as well seeing as I violated my probation by consuming alcohol...

/I'll drink anyone of you under the table and I'm only 24.
//waiting for all the hate to come my way for being an irresponsible douche (I was) and bullshiat advice on how to magically stop drinking.

TheWhoppah: DWI is a political crime. The 0.8 BAC threshold is waaaay too low.

.8?

shadowmaster: GBmanNC: dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

We must outlaw driving!

But driving impaired increases the chances of an accident, dumbass.

Dr. Johny Fever would have to disagree with you.
Too obscure for you young'ins?

-tiptoeing off your lawn-

In Oregon I guess we have what you all would consider very weak DUII laws... When I was 21 I hit a fence and fled with a .26 (yes, that number is correct) did a weekend in county and was back on the road three months later and no conviction to haunt me... Then one year later on the same farking day I got another one with a .28 and did no jail time and lost my license for a year... However they did convict me for that one and turned my first into one as well seeing as I violated my probation by consuming alcohol...

/I'll drink anyone of you under the table and I'm only 24.
//waiting for all the hate to come my way for being an irresponsible douche (I was) and bullshiat advice on how to magically stop drinking.

I don't think you needed to tell us you are 24. When you have had two DWI's and are still proud that you can drink anyone under the table we can pretty much assume you are still in your early 20's.
Good story tho bro

davidphogan: TheWhoppah: DWI is a political crime. The 0.8 BAC threshold is waaaay too low.

.8?

What is the limit for interwebbing?

Phil Clinton: In Oregon I guess we have what you all would consider very weak DUII laws... When I was 21 I hit a fence and fled with a .26 (yes, that number is correct) did a weekend in county and was back on the road three months later and no conviction to haunt me... Then one year later on the same farking day I got another one with a .28 and did no jail time and lost my license for a year... However they did convict me for that one and turned my first into one as well seeing as I violated my probation by consuming alcohol...

/I'll drink anyone of you under the table and I'm only 24.
//waiting for all the hate to come my way for being an irresponsible douche (I was) and bullshiat advice on how to magically stop drinking.

hey look, another complete idiot that can't handle his buzz

seriously, i've done some stupid stuff in my time. but at least i wasn't some cocky half blacked out drunk that couldn't handle himself. how are you proud of yourself?

i've done shiat i KNOW i should never do again. but I didn't fark my shiat up like a loser.

to be clear: i'm not putting hate your way for what you did, i'm putting hate your way because you obviously suck, got caught and somehow think that is a good thing.

/would drink you under the table and then go home without getting caught.
//it's the fark ups like you that ruin it for the normal people that can handle themselves.
///impairment doesn't start with the first drink, it starts with the 3rd or 4th.

Phil Clinton: /I'll drink anyone of you under the table and I'm only 24.
//waiting for all the hate to come my way for being an irresponsible douche (I was) and bullshiat advice on how to magically stop drinking.

Move where you can drink at home, douche.

Oh, Medford? Carry on then.

thesubliminalman: davidphogan: TheWhoppah: DWI is a political crime. The 0.8 BAC threshold is waaaay too low.

.8?

What is the limit for interwebbing?

About .5 to .6 is where most people die.

Good, because the penalties outweigh the crime. And 0.08 is not drunk. At least not in my neighborhood.

GBmanNC: dark side of the moon: It only takes driving impaired one time to cause an accident and kill someone.

We must outlaw driving!

This is definitely one of the more insane logical leaps I've seen on Fark today.