DUI's? EXTORTION, PERSECUTION, or PROHIBITIONIST ?

For some reason, everyone seems to think that DRINKING and DRIVING are the ONLY dangerous things anyone does on the road.
It is NOW illegal to DOZE while driving in LA. YOU got it, more people are killed by DOZERS then boozers. NOW, IF DUI laws were NOT so strict, that anyone caught pulled off the road and asleep got hasseled by the law, wouldn't it solve two problems? THE past out drunk that isn't driving, and the tired driver that isn't Dozing. Both sleeping it off, out of harms way. IS the dozer less guilty, for driving when they are over tired? OR even the speeder, when they are late? OR the cellphone user arguing with their EX? HOW can anyone group of drivers be said to NOT do as much damage, hurt as many people and KILL?

DUI's get the public attention, is the only difference. THE news media is quick to mention "alcohol may have been involved" but never go back and say that is was or it wasn't. Just leave the impression that it was.
They add to the hysteria.

Happy Kine
Sorry, to hear about your brother, I also know of quite a few that went through the system and certainly didn't come out better.

There isn't an easy answer, but persecution has proven NOT to work. Your love and acceptance will, in the long run.

there is an easy answer, just dont drink and drive. It's easily avoidable, some of the other acts are not

Are you saying that Speeding is not avoidable? Talking on a cell phone?
Driving after staying up for too long?
Yes, they are all avoidable and they should ALL be treated the same way. They all have ONE common denominator THEY KILL, HURT and Maim. WHY should the book be thrown at one group, while the others walk with a slap on the wrist?
But, then everyone has had a ticket? Everyone would be in the same boat, EVERYONE would not tolerate being treated like THAT.
WE, are not talking about falling down drunks, weaving all over the road (wreckless driving), we are talking about anyone that consumes any small amount of alcohol, gets stopped for a tail light out, gets a DUI instead.
Does a Speeder get a speeding ticket for his tail light OUT? Surely the cop should be able to just look at him, smell him and know that he is a speeder and could someday kill, hurt or maim someone..... Same with the rest....The door is open, don't get drowsy driving home some night, a cop might pull you over for a light out, smell you, look at you and jail you.

I am sorry, but the stricter DUI laws are the better- people need to be UTTERLY discouraged from doing so. I do not care if it still has repercussions 20 years down the line when you are no longer likely to do it. Some crimes get jail sentences that last pas thte point when you are any more a criminal- punishment does not necessarily end when your intention to do more wrong does. People will have to accept that being caught DUI may mess up portions of their life way itno the future when they are older and wiser- with any luck that will make them think twice. As BF says, just don't do it. They do not have my sympathy- too many are killed by them simply for being thoughtless.

Meanwhile, considerable campaigns DO exist to stop people dozing off whilst driving. But criminally speaking, that osrt of thing is almost impossible to prove- likewise mobile use, without witnesses. Furthermore, most people who doze off whilst driving weren't under the impression that they were supermen, they just didn't think they were so tired. Anyone who has been drinking KNOWS they have been drinking.

Because sometimes they arent avoidable, sometimes you have to speed in order to get to your designation on time, sometimes talking on the cell phone is unavoidable is you are getting direction or its a personal emergency, driving after staying up late is usually avoidable, but there are obvious exceptions, maybe a loved one had an emergency and you had to go ver to their house, and not able to get home untill late.

The difference is Drunk Driving is ALWAYS avoidable, because you have to have planned the occurance. and you always have power to stop yourself from doing it.

I agree with you that the other acts should be avoided if at all possible, but, sometimes you just have to do them. The said cannot be said for drunk driving.

Sorry, but people do know when they are tired/sick, in fact they are more likely to kill/injure bus loads of children going to bible school, in broad daylight. As was the case here.
An interesting tidbit: I briefly studied Dianetics, back a few years ago, and one thing did stick. MOST (99%) of people doing anything, including driving are NOT in the present. They are in the past or future and are only drawn back to the present, as the need arises, and usually to slowly. SCARY to me.

you seemed to have missed my point completely. i didnt say they DIDNT KNOW they were tired, i said driving while being tired wasnt always avoidable. drunk driving is always avoidable.

You don;t want to start using statstics- if you do that, yuo will see that drink driving is a drastically larger problem than any other cause you state which is one of the reasons it attracts so much more attention.

IF a man goes over to his buddies to watch football, they drag out the snacks and beer, he has a few.
His wife calls, their son fell out of a tree and is at the hospital with her.
He runs out, gets into his truck and is driving the limit, gets pulled over for no brake light. Is taken to jail for being DUI.
What happens?
His wife leave him for being a drunk?
His son hate him for not being there?
His boss watch every move he makes, to make sure he's NOT drinking on the job?
His wife gets tired of taking him to court, work and AA meetings and leave him?
He loose his job?
Does he get better from this.
AND it does fall into your definition of why another person might HAVE to break the law....

By driving DUI he was risking killing others- no justification for anything he was doing. As punishment he deserves what he gets.

no, cuz again, they didnt have to drink that beer. When you drink beer you are always taking the chance of something comming up and having to run home...so its all the more reason not to drink if you ask me.

I do know the stats very well, in fact I even know how they were arrived at. Did you know that Alcohol related is the ONLY one that is estimated? That, that estimate is based upon they type of vehicle driven, the time of night and the persons occupation?
IF everything else about the wreck is so carefully documented, then why do they have to guess about whether alcohol was present or not?

But then a speeder should allow enough time to reach their destination, without speeding. Speeders by the way DO according to the STATS kill more people.

Well, if the only way you can front your argument is to say all these statistics arrived at by experts are wrong then I have no respect for your argument. Even David J. Hanson (phD) who has raised issues of how alcohol death statistics can be inflated (saying that where alcohol is present it is always said to be the cause regardless of circumstance) happily says that, of single vehicle incidents:

"...68% of sober drivers and 94% of intoxicated drivers (0.10 BAC or higher) were responsible for their crashes... the pattern is the same: responsibility for accidents increases with intoxication"

That doesn't leave much room for other causes as far as draconian laws are concerned.

sometimes its not that easy, plus, you have to remember that everyone in actuallity is a "speeder". generally the flow of traffic is going 5 or so miles over the limit, so if there was an accident they will consider it a speeder when in actuality he was just going as fast as everyone else.

"of single vehicle incidents:"
This could account for the high percentage of "DUI sucides" in single car wrecks, most from my investigation of the stats had prior DUI's, and were simply tired of being persecuted.
by the way, since you seem to like stats, as do I, are you aware that you are 3 times more likely to be fatally shot, then be involved in a fatal dui wreck. That suicide it 3 times more then dui ESTIMATED wrecks....

Right, so you are saying that these drviers did not crash whilst drunk, but in fact committed suicide to avoid persecution? That is patently ridiculous and you are only destroying your own case with such silly remarks.

It may also surprise you to know that murder is ALSO considered a serious crime- for more serious than DUI with far greater consequences. Furthermore, your US-centric statistics do not impress me at all- drunk driving is a universal problem, here in the UK you are several hundred times less likely to be shot than killed by a drunk driver.

"Right, so you are saying that these drviers did not crash whilst drunk, but in fact committed suicide to avoid persecution? "

No, I'm saying that they DID (MOST) have prior DUI's, they went through the system in the USA. THEY did not stop, and it appears that they cared less, if they hit a tree or went home.

MY stats are based upon NHTSA at the FARS site.
THE USA, is full of guns and people get shot all the time, everyday, day after day. To the tune of 3 times more the DUI fatal wrecks...

I've never been to the UK and would not even consider debating the issues over there. I know what goes on here and that is what I apply myself to.

I don't see what your talk about guns has to do with anything. Sp what if you are more likely to get shot? What difference does that ake to an argument about sentencing for DUIs? It is not as if they is any hypocricy here- the murderers are getting more severe sentences that have a far greater effect on their lives even if they reform. I just do not see what you are getting at. My example from the UK was just to demonstrate how irrelevant your citing of murder rates are.

Again, your comments about the DUIs who died make no logical sense- they died whilst drinking, you can continually make opinion on how the system killed them if you want but any reasonable person will conclude that drinking killed them, and that they had prior DUIs was evidence of that drink driving was a risk they continually ran.

To help clarify my point.
1. IF two men were driving an identical vehicle, down the same road, on an icy road, both hit the same tree, under the exact identical conditions.
The one not drinking would be said to die of "Icy road conditions".
THe one drinking would be said to "be drunk and lost control and killed himself".
Does drinking suppose to make a person a better driver?

The stats are gathered in such a way to be totally misleading.
Example: Why do they use percentages? Instead of actual numbers?
Alaska, 50% alcohol related! There were TWO fatal accidents in that year, one was drinking, one wasn't!
When they (NHTSA) gather the stats, they collect all of the vehicles, (even ATV's, Go Carts, snowmobiles, streetsweepers, off road construction equip. etc.) which adds up to 58,113 vehicles involved in fatal crashes in 2002. The Fatalities from these crashes are 42,815.

But, when coming up with the percentages, they don't base it on the 58,113 that all the information was gathered from. But from the 42,815, which make the percentages go from actual 20 percent to 35 to 40%.

Which doesn't MAKE more drunks or less, but it does influence people and their perspective. IT gets laws on the books, that should not be there, the road blocks, the manipulation of the federal government to break the individual states down, and make them answerable to it. (Highway funds withheld, if they refuse to adopt a lower BAC, etc.)
AS I stated earlier, IT opens doors, that should not have been open.
They were opened on a falsehood, TWISTED stats.
I resent being lied to, manipulated and deceived by them, my government.