Skip to main content

I saw an email about the horrible statistics of drunk drivers. This issue is very real, and the number of deaths/accidents are still very high. I know this is probably way over the top, but what if drunk drivers lost their privelages to drink totally. What if our drivers licenses also carried information on whether or not we've been convicted (maybe for 2nd or 3rd offenses) of a DWI. I guess that would ultimately lead to privacy concerns. But what can be done about the problem of drunk drivers? The report (perfect timing) was also eluding to how many illegals have been involved in drunk driving accidents. Maybe if the information wasn't "tracked" but people were required to get their license scanned to buy liquor that would HELP... I don't know, but I've almost been hit by drunk drivers at night several times, and its scary. When people can't stay in their lanes and are swirving for no reason, I'm assuming their under the influence of something. Does anyone have any more realistic ideas of what can be done to help solve this problem?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

How on earth would you ever enforce that? Nevermind the fact that you'd be penalizing people over and over for their DWI (which absolutely outrages me), you would just push up the number of people buying alcohol for others and buying fake licenses.

Liquor stores would never go for it, either. Furthermore, people swerving all over the road are not necessarily under the influence of liquor. Scan these toxicology reports and see how many people are hopped up on everything BUT liquor.

If people weren't such uptight nazis about liquor and other substances, people would not be as compelled to do everything to such excess and engage in extraordinarily risky behavior.

You're probably more likely to get plowed down by some 100 year-old woman with glaucoma and severe arthritis who STILL has her license, than a drunk driver. tongue

What is next? "You blow second-hand smoke in the vicinity of your kids. Something should be stamped on your license so you can't buy ciggarettes!" "You're obese! Something should be stamped on your license so you can't buy high-fat foods!" "You talk on your cellphone while driving. Something should be stamped on your license so you can't buy a cellphone!"
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:

How on earth would you ever enforce that?


Easily. They are already required by law to check ID for age. So the ID has something on it which says that this person is not eligible to buy alcohol - heck a scarlet letter or something. bsm

quote:
Nevermind the fact that you'd be penalizing people over and over for their DWI (which absolutely outrages me) . ..


Precisely. Someone who has committed a number of DUI's does not deserve the privilege to drive and further endanger others. In the same way that sexual predators are required to "check in" with the local police any time they move - this would be a similar penalty to try to prevent a needless death or injury from someone who clearly does not have the ability to govern themselves appropriately.

quote:
Liquor stores would never go for it, either.


If they want to keep their liquor license they'd "go for it" with bells on.

quote:
If people weren't such uptight nazis about liquor and other substances, people would not be as compelled to do everything to such excess and engage in extraordinarily risky behavior.


OK - what was your name - "Queen of the Hyperbole"? Yep - that's it! nono You're really trying to suggest that alcohol laws are the cause of DUI's? lol

quote:
You're probably more likely to get plowed down by some 100 year-old woman with glaucoma and severe arthritis who STILL has her license, than a drunk driver. tongue


Consider this please:

In 2002, more than 17,000 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes on the nation's highways, representing a death every 30 minutes. An estimated 258,000 people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present – an average of one person injured approximately every two minutes. link
Child molestors can check in every once and again with the police (which is never really enforced in any meaningful way), but drunk drivers should be stamped with a scarlett letter or something?? And this seems rational to you? Nothing seems... amiss?

quote:
Precisely. Someone who has committed a number of DUI's does not deserve the privilege to drive and further endanger others.


This is already addressed. They have their licenses taken away. And as you can see it doesn't stop people from driving. If you want to address the driving, which is the actual problem, address the driving. Leave the buying liquor out of it. The problem is not that people are drunk. It's that they're drunk and driving.

quote:
OK - what was your name - "Queen of the Hyperbole"? Yep - that's it! nono You're really trying to suggest that alcohol laws are the cause of DUI's? lol


No, that's not what I said at all. I said that "uptight nazis" (which, last time I checked, was not synonymous with "alcohol laws") were partly responsible for this culture of excess and drunkeness.

quote:
quote:
You're probably more likely to get plowed down by some 100 year-old woman with glaucoma and severe arthritis who STILL has her license, than a drunk driver. tongue


Consider this please:

In 2002, more than 17,000 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes on the nation's highways, representing a death every 30 minutes. An estimated 258,000 people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present – an average of one person injured approximately every two minutes. link


For fuck's sake. The big smilie behind the sentence means it's a tongue-in-cheek comment. hit
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:

quote:
Precisely. Someone who has committed a number of DUI's does not deserve the privilege to drive and further endanger others.


This is already addressed. They have their licenses taken away. And as you can see it doesn't stop people from driving. If you want to address the driving, which is the actual problem, address the driving.


Of course I misspoke talking about the driving. BUT . . . if one were a multiple DUI offender, perhaps the step immediately prior to having ALL driving privileges removed would be to prevent them from drinking. The choices would be either lose your license OR keep your license and lose your drinking. I'm OK with that choice for the mutiple DUI offender.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The choices would be either lose your license OR keep your license and lose your drinking. I'm OK with that choice for the mutiple DUI offender.


Any schmuck would say "Okay, stamp my license" and then just have someone else buy their liquor or shop for liquor at places where nobody checks that shit. It's smoke and mirrors, babe, and doesn't actually keep anyone safe from anything. And then we'll have to employ another set of unproductive dipshits down at the DMV to do the oh-so-taxing work of stamping licenses and drive the normally ridiculous line straight out to the city limit. Smile

In all seriousness, the only thing this stamp does is publically humiliate the person. It's not like the police don't know you've been convicted of DUIs if you don't have a stamp on your license. Everytime you hand over your license to pick up a package or close on a home or board a plane, perfect strangers will know that at some point you've been convicted of a DUI and treat you accordingly, even though your transaction has nothing to do with drinking or driving. That is a bunch of bullshit and if we support something like that, I think we jump down a slippery slope.
A person convicted of DWI could be placed on probation with the restriction to abstain from the possession and or use of alcohol.

As for liquor stores doing checks that might work in for the first few years until the drunk morons caught on but there are so many ways that a person can obtain alcohol that the checking of id is almost a moot point.

Until some folks realize that drunk driving is more of a threat to all than gun violence the stats will remain high.

Why do we spend more money investigating murders and shootings than on drunk driving that cause way more injuries and death?
Yep, I thought of that one all by myself. LOL
Now, a large number of drunk drivers are illegal drivers. If they have a harder time buying liquor, then that might help. ALSO, they'll have the breathalizers installed in their car, that's even more lives potentially saved. Right now I've heard they were going to make it 1000.00 renewal few for DWIs. I just think that alone will increase the number of illegal drivers. I have a restriction to drive on my license because I wear eye glasses. I've even gotten a ticket and had to go to court for driving without my glasses. (I had my contacts on and it was a racist cop, I got it dismissed) When you look at my license there's a simple Class C restriction (I think its a C) Like MBM said, your supposed to show your ID everywhere you buy liquor anyway. Bars are liable for the actions of their customers. So if they have to refuse service to a known accident causer, that would be less of a liability to their establishment. I think it would at least be a good step.
Texas Star, what do you mean by illegal drivers? People with suspended licenses or no licenses?? Because then the stamping is moot. They just have to say they don't have a license and produce some other form of ID with a birth year and buy their liquor as usual. As a matter of fact, anyone could do that.

quote:
OK - what about background checks to buy liquor like exists when one buys guns? Do you approve of that Sunshine?


Y'all have some sticks up your ass the size of Maine. Remind me never to party with you. kiss Background checks for liquor?? I gotta wait 3 days for a damn FBI check before I can sip on some sizzurp?? Things like this are why people start making moonshine in the bathtub.

laugh

People have a very subjective view of drunk driving. You go to a restaurant, have a few glasses of wine, you get in your car and drive home. You go to a party, have a couple of beers, and drive home. You're entertaining at home, have a few drinks, and just quickly hop down to the store to pick up some ice. You are driving under the influence, driving impaired. But everyone says "But I wasn't DRUNK!!" Tis also the cry of every drunkard hauled into the clink. The only way your drunk ass really knows is if you get in an accident and they check your alcohol level. You are talking about something that everybody (with the exception of teetotalers) does or has done. It doesn't make drunk driving okay or excuseable, but it's hypocritical to hop on a soapbox and blast people convicted of DWIs, when most of us would probably have a conviction if we weren't so lucky. If you want to examine why drunk driving rates are so high, start with self and stop pointing so many figures. Start with mindset, not punitive measures.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:

It doesn't make drunk driving okay or excuseable, but it's hypocritical to hop on a soapbox and blast people convicted of DWIs, when most of us would probably have a conviction if we weren't so lucky.


No one is talking about those who act as you describe. This thread is about people with MULTIPLE convictions. The person who casually gets in the car after having a drink or two - might be somewhat innocent on the first occassion. After the second or third conviction - then there is a much deeper problem that needs to be addressed before someone is killed by their irresponsibility.

quote:
If you want to examine why drunk driving rates are so high, start with self and stop pointing so many figures. Start with mindset, not punitive measures.


So - what? They've got to kill . . .say . . . three or four people before you want to stop slapping their wrist. Frenchy - we're talking about multiple DUI convictions. These are people with serious problems.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
No one is talking about those who act as you describe. This thread is about people with MULTIPLE convictions. The person who casually gets in the car after having a drink or two - might be somewhat innocent on the first occassion. After the second or third conviction - then there is a much deeper problem that needs to be addressed before someone is killed by their irresponsibility.


What I'm saying is that the only thing that separates most of us from these people is that we weren't caught. It's not that any of us necessarily drink less or are less of a danger on the road.

quote:
quote:
If you want to examine why drunk driving rates are so high, start with self and stop pointing so many figures. Start with mindset, not punitive measures.


So - what? They've got to kill . . .say . . . three or four people before you want to stop slapping their wrist. Frenchy - we're talking about multiple DUI convictions. These are people with serious problems.

No. I said that if you want to stop drunk driving period (from the guy who has a couple beers and drives home to the guy with 14 DUIs), you have to address the mindset, everyone's mindset, not just punish the criminals.

If you want to stop theft in the United States, you need to do more than just "get tough" on those who've been convicted of multiple burglaries. Those are not the only people who steal. Those are not the only people who think it's okay to steal. See what I mean? kiss
I think we have a fundamental difference in who we are talking about. Contrary to your assertion, the "average Joe" driving home after a few beers is not who is being addressed here. There is an extraordinary difference between that person and the person with multiple DUI convictions. It's not just luck that separates the two.

quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:

If you want to stop theft in the United States, you need to do more than just "get tough" on those who've been convicted of multiple burglaries. Those are not the only people who steal. Those are not the only people who think it's okay to steal. See what I mean? kiss


No one is suggesting that we institute a 'thought police'. We can only police behavior not proclivity. Under the right circumstances everyone can do anything. Certainly I do not suggest that we ALL should go to jail. bsm

That said, suppressing a serial DUI'ers ability to drink seems to be a reasonable cost to try to prevent the loss of future life. How about this: what if this were to only be used on someone convicted of vehicular homocide DUI? After they do their time they can choose to either give up drinking or give up driving. It's their choice.

Would that meet with your keen civil liberty sensibilities? bsm
America went down this road once before to the extent that an amendment to the constitution was actually enacted and ratified.

People were killing each other in the streets.

Penalize behavior.

Driving while drunk results in the loss of license.

Driving after revocation of license is jail time.

Killing someone while driving after revocation of licence is mandatory double-digit years.

Killing someone while driving after revocation of licence is mandatory....pick a number.

You can't stop people from drinking.

A guaranteed alternative is give the family of person killed by such a person one free unobstructed shot, literally.

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I think we have a fundamental difference in who we are talking about. Contrary to your assertion, the "average Joe" driving home after a few beers is not who is being addressed here. There is an extraordinary difference between that person and the person with multiple DUI convictions. It's not just luck that separates the two.


Indeed, this is where we fundamentally disagree. The average person who drinks had had at least 3 or 4 occassions when they knew they were seriously imparied and yet still drove somewhere, not counting the times that they were over the legal limit but did not "feel drunk." To be convited of a DUI, you need only be over the limit and driving or operating a vehicle. You don't have to crash. You don't have to kill someone. You don't have to be falling down drunk. I maintain that what separates these "criminals" from the average drinking Joe is pure luck.

quote:
No one is suggesting that we institute a 'thought police'. We can only police behavior not proclivity. Under the right circumstances everyone can do anything. Certainly I do not suggest that we ALL should go to jail. bsm


I'm not suggesting a thought police. I'm saying that if the real and true goal is to drop drunk driving, the focus cannot be on increasing penalties for those convicted of DUIs. If the goal is to find a new way to punish or harass or degrade those convicted of DUIs, then the topic is right on the money. But let's not operate under any illusions that such action is going to someonehow address why people do and will continue to drive drunk.

quote:
That said, suppressing a serial DUI'ers ability to drink seems to be a reasonable cost to try to prevent the loss of future life.


Totally and completely disagree in the efficacy of trying to ban DUI offenders from drinking. Ten year olds can get someone to get booze for them and get drunk. Men in prison, with no access to the outside world (or extraordinarily limited access), still find a way to produce liquor. Joe Cool on 153rd Street with a bullshit stamp on his license is for damn sure not going to be prevented from drinking if he is so inclined. The stamp does nothing.

quote:
How about this: what if this were to only be used on someone convicted of vehicular homocide DUI? After they do their time they can choose to either give up drinking or give up driving. It's their choice.

Would that meet with your keen civil liberty sensibilities? bsm

No, my liege. I'm fairly certain that your license is history if you kill someone while you're driving under the influence. So they would've already been forced to give up driving legally.
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Star:
I saw an email about the horrible statistics of drunk drivers. This issue is very real, and the number of deaths/accidents are still very high. I know this is probably way over the top, but what if drunk drivers lost their privelages to drink totally. What if our drivers licenses also carried information on whether or not we've been convicted (maybe for 2nd or 3rd offenses) of a DWI. I guess that would ultimately lead to privacy concerns. But what can be done about the problem of drunk drivers? The report (perfect timing) was also eluding to how many illegals have been involved in drunk driving accidents. Maybe if the information wasn't "tracked" but people were required to get their license scanned to buy liquor that would HELP... I don't know, but I've almost been hit by drunk drivers at night several times, and its scary. When people can't stay in their lanes and are swirving for no reason, I'm assuming their under the influence of something. Does anyone have any more realistic ideas of what can be done to help solve this problem?


you would simply create a black market(hey, why it gotta be "black"? off ), a resposnse to that black market, more laws, more crime, more emprisonment, more free labor for the jeans company, and my jeans prices would still be the same, if not higher.
I think its a bad idea. An alcoholic, which I believe are the majority of repeat DWI and DUI offenders, will do anything to get alcohol. I've known people who have gone to drinking alcohol based antiseptics diluted with water or mouthwash. So should we limit the sales of mouthwash?? The alcohol is not the issue, its the alcoholic.
The logic seems to be - since they are addicted to alcohol - let's not make it any harder for them to access it. That makes sense how??? Confused

Again - it seems a rather clear choice for the multiple DUI offender: you can either drink or you can drive, but you can't do both. If someone has committed multiple DUI's then it is clear that they have a problem. Frenchy - that person doesn't have "bad luck". They are a menace and society needs to be protected from them. How many years have we heard commercials about NOT drinking and driving. Who among us doesn't know that you aren't supposed to drive impaired? OK - it happens once. No one has been addressing that person here. If you are convicted multiple times (3+) then you are a time bomb waiting to go off.

BTW - your logic about compulsions isn't persuasive. You could say that we can't outlaw murder since people will just go ahead and kill anyway. You can't criminalize discrimination - since people have a right to their beliefs. And on and on and on . . . ek Society makes decisions every day about what is "legal" and what is not. If society can say that some people can't drive - why can't we say that some people who have abused alcohol chronically in the past can no longer drink? What is the conceptual flaw that prevents that from making sense in your eyes?
Frenchy... So, please offer a possible solution. Its easy to say why something won't work. But this is a really serious problem that deserves options for resolution. Drunk drivers cause numerous accidents, deaths, destruction and so forth.. So, you obviously don't think my idea is good (at least its an idea for a solution) Then please respond to what you think could work.

First part of my question:
"Does anyone have any more realistic ideas of what can be done to help solve this problem?"
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The logic seems to be - since they are addicted to alcohol - let's not make it any harder for them to access it. That makes sense how??? Confused


A couple of things:

1 - That's a big assumption that these people are all alcoholics. I'm not an alcoholic and I've certainyl driven at least twice under the influence. I very well could've had 2 or 3 DUIs.

2 - Are you running a one-man AA program or addressing drunk driving? Once again, the problem is the driving, not the drinking. Even if they are alcoholics, it is not YOUR place (and certainly not the government's place) to get into people's lives and decide you are going to make them quit.

quote:
Again - it seems a rather clear choice for the multiple DUI offender: you can either drink or you can drive, but you can't do both.


As I said, this is bunk. They get their licenses taken away. There is no choice for them to make.

quote:
If someone has committed multiple DUI's then it is clear that they have a problem. Frenchy - that person doesn't have "bad luck".


You say this as if I am painting drunk drivers as total innocents. Not at all. Drinking and driving is a problem. A WIDE-SPREAD PROBLEM THAT TOUCHES MUCH MORE THAN JUST THOSE WHO GET CAUGHT.

quote:
They are a menace and society needs to be protected from them. How many years have we heard commercials about NOT drinking and driving. Who among us doesn't know that you aren't supposed to drive impaired? OK - it happens once. No one has been addressing that person here.


In one breath you say "Who doesn't know that drinking and driving is bad" and then in the next you say "Well, once is excusable and I'm not talking about them." THIS is what I mean. THIS is the prevailing attitude and why there are so many people who drive drunk. And I've yet to meet the drinker who has only driven drunk ONCE. Everybody thinks that as long as they don't do it too often, or as long as they can still sort of see straight, or as long as they had a really good reason or blahblahblah then it's understandable. Hypocrits!

Texas Star, I touched on it before, but now that I'm saying it again, let me point out that the above is my solution. Realistically and honestly looking at the situation of drunk driving and seeing it as being something that in inexcusable under any circumstances and stop indulging these hypocritical excuses. That is the only way to change the stats. People must see the value in the message and act accordingly.

quote:
BTW - your logic about compulsions isn't persuasive. You could say that we can't outlaw murder since people will just go ahead and kill anyway.


Except, my love, I'm not advocating for drunk driving to be made legal. I'm saying the proposed solution is irrelevant and will not work. That's all I've been saying.

quote:
You can't criminalize discrimination - since people have a right to their beliefs. And on and on and on . . . ek Society makes decisions every day about what is "legal" and what is not. If society can say that some people can't drive - why can't we say that some people who have abused alcohol chronically in the past can no longer drink?


Because it's not against the law to drink or be drunk. Society can say whatever the hell it wants to say, but the police need to be enforcing the law. And what the law speaks to is my driving.
I don't know what should be the solution, but it better be HARSH.

Too many are driving drunk.

It's okay if they want to risk their lives, but once mine is involved, I wouldn't mind seeing your ass burn.

Ban you from alcohol. Throw your ass in prison.

Whatever it takes to send home the point that this is something extremely serious.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×