h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In the US when people are arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol, the law restricts their right to drive. In America's car-based society this creates another set of problems, from people driving without a license or people losing their jobs.
Instead of restricting their right
to drive, I propose restricting their right to drink. It would follow the same model as restricting dinking among those under 21 in the states.
People convicted of a DWI offense would be forbidden from purchasing or consuming alcohol for a set period of time. They would be issued a new driver's license which would clearly indicate their restriction (license printed porttrait instead of landscape, profile photo, big red stamp that says ALCOHOL RESTRICTED, etc).
Anyone caught selling or providing alcohol to someone with that restriction would be in violation of the law. Further drunk driving would be zero-tolerance, a .02 on a breathalyzer would result in a second conviction (currently .08-.10).
This restriction could be in place for far longer than the driving restriction. And it really gets to the heart of the matter, which is a drinking problem, not a driving issue.
It wouldn't be perfect, no solution is, but it would be a pience of the puzzle.
Washingt Post Article
http://www.washingt...2126-2004Jul24.html
[grip, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
You need ...
http://img.photobuc.../mike28/licence.jpg
... something like this. [neelandan, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Mary Likes
http://www.419eater...ewtopic.php?t=16008
to drink and drive - and has a card to prove it. [neelandan, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
So, what happens if you get pulled DUI with an ARL? |
|
| |
i never drank more in my life than when i was too young to buy alcohol, never once had trouble getting it. this would not solve anything. |
|
| |
does this mean that everyone has to always show id, regardless of age? |
|
| |
[adamosity] Yep, but in most places, they already do. I've been taling to bartenders in a few cities who are all feeling the heat about udnerage drinking and it doesn't matter anymore if someone looks 50 or 15, they need an ID to get in and get served. |
|
| |
[xclamp] Times are changing. Besides, do you think it's a good idea that you were able to buy booze underage? |
|
| |
[absterge] Stricter penalties, jail time, fines, etc. Same as what happens now if you get pulled over drinking and driving a 2nd (or 3rd or 10th) time. |
|
| |
no i don't think it's a good thing. but we're debating the merits of your plan, not whether underage drinking is good. i'm just pointing out why it won't work, nothing personal. |
|
| |
[xclamp] I didn't take it personally, but I should have phrased my question better. Do you think laws restricting underage drinking are not a good idea because of lax enforcement? |
|
| |
Besides, I'm 10 years into my legal drinking life and I've recently been turned away at bars for not having ID, so my experiences with enforcement are different than yours. |
|
| |
And during the time of this thread, I was at a Chicago airport where I saw to men, both obviously born before WWII get carded. They thought the bartender was joking. She wasn't. |
|
| |
i see what you mean, but i never had trouble finding an adult to buy alcohol for me. they legally bought it, then illegally gave it to me. same with cigarettes. i think they should just make jail time mandatory with zero tolerance. |
|
| |
You could use both systems at once. |
|
| |
[grip], it's easy to make your own alcoholic beverages. I don't think this would prevent your offender from drinking...... |
|
| |
Hey wifey, could you pick up a 6-pack on the way home? |
|
| |
Here in Canada there is a better solution.Anyone convicted of DUI has their vehicle fitted with a device they must blow in to before their vehicle will start.
If they are over the limit, the vehicle wo'nt start.Can be defeated by a sober person blowing for them.But who want's to take the risk? |
|
| |
As far as not stopping people from drinking because they'll brew their own beer, ask people to shop for them,etc...well, I got to say ultimately no law will stop someone from doing what they want, but smart laws can help. |
|
| |
If you buy a beer for some lass who looks 25 but is really sixteen, you can get in trouble. Why shouldn't you be held responsible for buying alcohol for someone who legally is forbidden to drink? |
|
| |
[python] I'm impressed. I'd heard such devices proposed but didn't know they are in operation. Well done Canada. |
|
| |
I like this. It probably won't work, but the idea of restricting drink-drivers' drinking instead of their driving makes a lot of sense. People need to drive, people don't need to drink (even if they do, they could at least wait until they get home). Bun for the plan, but if anyone could think of a way to enforce this, they should post it, I reckon that'll be bunned a lot more than this one has been. |
|
| |
Oh, right. Canada's half way there, and baked too. And Canada does it again 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 perfect! |
|
| |
No, no, no. We already have good enough laws to cover drink driving. If you want to lower the limit of alcohol allowed in the blood, then well and good but this doesn't require a change in the way the law works (just a change in the point at which the law kicks in). All your suggestion does is to give drunk drivers another chance to keep their license (which I strongly disagree with. What other laws are people encouraged to break twice before it "really" counts?). |
|
| |
The best way to prevent drunk driving is to provide free, convenient transportation to intoxicated people. |
|
| |
Creating new laws rarely prevents people from doing something they want to do. |
|
| |
[oldskool] I completely agree about the public transportation issue. However, that has its drawbacks (expense in rural areas, social acceptance). |
|
| |
And I think you're being naive about the effectiveness of well-designed laws. A few examples? Drunk driving, underage drinking, cigarette smoking in public buildings, seatbelt use, motorcycle helmet laws...agree with them or not, but the enforcement of those relatively new laws (compared to say, laws against murder) have had a great effect in stopping people from smoking in the office, driving drunk etc. |
|
| |
It's not all laws, of course, the laws are both a reflection and a causal agent of changing social attitudes. 40 years ago it was ok to drive drunk, maybe you'd get a cruiser to follow you home if the police pulled you over, but it was accepted. |
|
| |
[ivanhoe] Most 'drunk drivers' don't have a problem with driving, they have a problem with regulating alcohol intake and making good decisions after having drank alcohol. So, should they lose their right to drive or their right to drink alcohol? |
|
| |
Love your [first] link's small print, [neelandan]. Mary doesn't look like a cross-dressing wife beater, though. Just shows how deceiving looks can be. |
|
| |
So it seems the objections here are one the difficulty of enforcement and that it's not draconian enough. |
|
| |
To the first, two of the examples (wife can buy beer & bring it home; brew your own at home) don't necessarily run counter to the INTENT of the law (I imagine most people drive FROM the place they drink TO their home). And ([wagster]) I think most alcohol is purchased and/or consumed in commercial establishments, bars and liqour stores, where enforcement wouldn't be difficult if you start fining bartenders and store owners like the police do now for underage drinking. |
|
| |
As far as the draconian issue, well, I believe that putting people in jail is a terrible way to solve societal problems and can cause more harm than good. So you got me there. |
|
| |
[jurist] She does look like she might have run over a letterbox or two in her time though. |
|
| |
Actually, [grip] the small print specifies running down small kids and pissing through letterboxes. I suspect the latter, too, is easier for cross-dressing Mary. |
|
| |
Ah, thought it said 'pass' through. Are mailboxes in the UK really short or is Mary really...well, so long! |
|
| |
You'll have to ask [neelandan]. I'm afraid I don't know the...er...woman. |
|
| |
I could introduce you, jurist. But then you will have to mail me $10,000 by Western Union in order to liberate two trunk boxes filled with notes in Amsterdam which we will share in the proportion of 65% for me, 35% for you and 5% for the expenses ... wait that should be ... mumble ... |
|
| |
<<[grip said] Most 'drunk drivers' don't have a problem with driving, they have a problem with regulating alcohol intake and making good decisions after having drank alcohol. So, should they lose their right to drive or their right to drink alcohol?>>
Just because some people don't follow a law, that's no reason to change the law (assuming that society still wants to stop drink-driving). People should be responsible for their own actions. If people can't act responsibly, why is that a reason to lessen our expectations of them? I'm sorry, but IMO it's this kind of thinking that's eroding any remaining sense of personal responsibility in today's world. Sorry for the rant. I'm a bit tense through lack of cash, and so I'm off to McD's to burn myself on one of their hot coffees. |
|
| |
[ivanhoe], my goal is to reduce drunk driving, not to make sure people suffer dire consequences when they do something wrong. But how is my law requiring certain actions (not drunk driving) with consequences (losing right to drink) materially different from current law of certain actions (not drunk driving) with consequences (losing right to drive)? Regardless of which is more dire, which might be more EFFECTIVE? |
|
| |
On a side note, do you know that in the infamous McDonal'd hot coffee case, a 79 year old woman suffered third-degree burns over 6% of her body (primarily her groin) requiring a week's hospital stay and skin grafts? That she originally sued them for $11,000 to cover medical bills and McD's counteroffered with $800. That McD's had 700 claims against it in the previous 10 years for hot (180 degrees) coffee. That both parties reached an out-of-court agreement before a final award was set? |
|
| |
I wish there was as much anger over a lack of corporate responsibility as there was about personal responsiblity. |
|
| |