|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2006 : 19:30:16 [Permalink]
|
Maybe it's the former paramedic in me, but:
1 dui = rehab or jail.
2 dui = jail for being a menace to society.
Joe |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 21:38:02 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to see, one DUI -> physical exam to see how severe your addiction was. Withdrawals are measurable as is a particular pattern in the blood work. If addicted, rehab until well. 2nd DUI, rehab inpatient, locked up until well but assume twice as long as the first time, ongoing monitoring with mandatory readmission for relapse. 3rd DUI, throw away the key unless you work real hard in rehab and agree to very close monitoring with total abstinence once released and so on.
There are people out there driving with 5 or more DUIs and suspended licenses. It's insane. If we can lock someone up who lived next door to Muhammad Ata, torture him and hold him indefinitely on a trumped up immigration violation, surely we can lock up people with alcoholism that repeatedly drive drunk.
My brother totaled 3 cars (his 3 different times) and was a serious alcoholic for about 20 years. I don't know how many DUIs he had or didn't but I do know the only time he went to jail was for drunk and disorderly and dealing cocaine and he never served any time other than the time it took to sober up and make bail. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/29/2006 21:38:52 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2006 : 21:40:55 [Permalink]
|
| I understand Mr G has apologized for his obnoxious behavior when stopped and admits to battling alcoholism. Looks like he needs whatever Bush Jr got from finding the Lord and sobering up. I believe a Betty Ford Center stay might be in order. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/29/2006 21:41:38 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 00:00:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd like to see, one DUI -> physical exam to see how severe your addiction was. Withdrawals are measurable as is a particular pattern in the blood work. If addicted, rehab until well. 2nd DUI, rehab inpatient, locked up until well but assume twice as long as the first time, ongoing monitoring with mandatory readmission for relapse. 3rd DUI, throw away the key unless you work real hard in rehab and agree to very close monitoring with total abstinence once released and so on.
I was with you until 3. I find 3 so severe and disproportionate to the severity of the offense that I would actually be moved to engage in activism against such legislation. I cannot accept putting someone away for life for having an increased (depending on the behavior specifics to that individual) potential to cause a car accident. This is probably going to at least annoy or possibly anger some people here, but I think that is getting reactionary. In 2004, 16,694 (39% of all fatalities caused by car crashes) were "alcohol-related". Yes, that's a lot of people, but how many people are driving with a .08 blood alcohol level right now? It is risky behavior, but so are a lot of legally permitted things. I'm not saying it should be legal to drink and drive. I'm just saying, let's not blow this way out of proportion. The guy who had a couple beers after work and then drives 3 miles down home going 35 miles per hours is less likely to cause a fatal car accident than someone pulling an all-nighter on the highway during a road trip. I bet if we outlawed driving at night that would drastically reduce fatal car accidents. After all, people driving when they're tired causes nearly as many accidents as people driving drunk or tipsy.
And for that matter, how does lowering the blood alochol level for DUI help catch alcoholics? If someone is an alcoholic they build up some resistance and so when they are drunk enough to get pulled over, their blood alcohol is going to be more than .08. I saw some stats on MADD talking about the high number of people who get DUIs who aren't alcoholics. Makes me wonder how many had more back luck running into cops who were fishin' rather than being people who actually engaged in reckless driving. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/30/2006 00:03:06 |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 07:03:44 [Permalink]
|
A bit more detail of the arrest....
http://tinyurl.com/zdoou
http://www.playfuls.com/news_0001829_Mel_Gibson_Apologizes_f
or_His_Horrific_Collapse.html |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 13:12:55 [Permalink]
|
Some more:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19965500-601,00.html
quote:
ACADEMY Award winner and self-described alcoholic Mel Gibson launched an anti-Semitic diatribe against police officers arresting him for drink-driving in Los Angeles, ranting: "F..king Jews, the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."
The actor and director who started his career in Australia has since apologised for the potentially career-ending incident that also included threatening a police officer, insulting another, smashing a police station payphone and trying to urinate in a police cell while wearing handcuffs.
According to a leaked police report on the incident, Gibson, whose father Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier, made the comments before asking the arresting officer, LA County sheriff's deputy James Mee: "Are you a Jew?"
Gibson also repeatedly said, "My life is f..ked."
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 13:46:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...I was with you until 3. I find 3 so severe and disproportionate to the severity of the offense ..
You misunderstood. I just meant progressively longer stays. But some people are never cured of alcoholism. What would you do with the person who drove drunk every time they were released from treatment, just to give the extreme example? |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 14:40:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Some more:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19965500-601,00.html
quote:
ACADEMY Award winner and self-described alcoholic Mel Gibson launched an anti-Semitic diatribe against police officers arresting him for drink-driving in Los Angeles, ranting: "F..king Jews, the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."
The actor and director who started his career in Australia has since apologised for the potentially career-ending incident that also included threatening a police officer, insulting another, smashing a police station payphone and trying to urinate in a police cell while wearing handcuffs.
According to a leaked police report on the incident, Gibson, whose father Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier, made the comments before asking the arresting officer, LA County sheriff's deputy James Mee: "Are you a Jew?"
Gibson also repeatedly said, "My life is f..ked."
So that's the diatribe that Mel felt compelled to apologize for! My own past experience with drunks and being drunk is that one tends to more freely express feelings that one would normally keep to oneself. To me, this outburst is a strong signal that Gibson is a pretty extreme anti-Semite, but one who tries to keep his hatred secret.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2006 : 17:11:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
0.12 is a lot more than 3 glasses of wine - it is thoroughly hammered.
Not true.
2 drinks (the equiv of 1oz of 80proof each) consumed within an hour will put the average person at about .10
.1 was once the legal limit most places for DUI. Most lowered it to .08 because 2 drinks in an hour has been shown to effect judgement in most people. The .08 limit more or less stops you at 1 drink if you want to be legal on the road.
To be "truly hammered" you need a blood alcohol level of around .2, at that point you are well and truly buzzed, and will regret it in the morning.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2006 : 09:20:43 [Permalink]
|
When you are an alcoholic, as most people who get DUIs are, the liver metabolism of alcohol shifts into high gear (tolerance). It takes a lot more liquor to reach the same BA in an alcoholic as in a person who hadn't developed tolerance.
Non alcoholics don't usually drink several drinks in an hour.
As I noted already, young inexperienced party drinking young folks who aren't yet alcoholic also get DUIs. But remember, they are also less experienced drivers and take more risks, so you want a lower BA cutoff for the legal limit.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/31/2006 09:23:52 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2006 : 14:28:16 [Permalink]
|
CNN.com suddenly has this "Breaking News" banner at the top of their page: "Actor Mel Gibson enters rehab following his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, his spokesman confirms."
Next for his denazification classes?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/31/2006 14:42:33 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2006 : 15:34:32 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: quote:
But seriously, your sentence should vary on different factors. For example, how much over the limit you were, if you were driving wrecklessly, how you acted once you were pulled over, and how many prior offenses you've had come to mind.
If you were driving in a safe manner and got pulled over for rolling through a stop sign, the punishment should not be as harsh as one who crashed into a tree.
I totally agree with this. I also fail to see how having a lower BA level for the legal limit does anything other than help screw up the futures of young people who were inevitably going to do dumb things. Are young people more dangerous to society? Yes. They always have been because they do tend to take greater risks and have less experience with everything. But just like we must keep in mind the consequences of drunk driving, we must also keep in mind the consequences of prosecutions for DUI for someone who isn't going to be the extreme repeat offender.
As for the extreme example of the person who just keeps drinking and driving after every DUI, I agree with beskeptical about increased legal consequences (rehab/jail/fines/revoked license). But would that be done on a case by case basis, or would it be something built into the law (such as the insane "three strikes and you're out" law)? Sorry I misunderstood what you meant by #3. Sounds like we agree about as much as we disagree on this issue. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2006 : 20:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Marf, most lawyers could get someone off with .08 by merely showing the measuring device had an accuracy of + or minus .01 which isn't hard to show. In addition, many people pulled over whether given a breathalyzer or not are usually taken to the nearest ED for a blood measurement which is more accurate than the breathalyzers. By the time the blood is drawn a person's BA would have gone down unless they had a gut full of liquor. I think you are not looking at these other factors in that .08 law. Those factors led to the lowering of the limit.
No three strikes though the result would be the same because the third DUI and likely 90+% are alcoholic. Currently, recovery from alcoholism is not very common even with treatment. I would like the law to catch up with what we know in medical science about alcohol addiction. Which right now is how to diagnose. How to treat the disease needs more research.
Ricky, the sentencing should match the severity of the impairment, but also the severity of the addiction which can be determined by blood tests and withdrawal symptoms. I'd like to see everyone with a DUI examined for addiction. That would mean holding everyone for a little more than 24 hours and longer if withdrawals started. That would be using medical science, not just legislator understanding when the laws are written and judicial understanding when prosecuted. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/31/2006 20:09:12 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2006 : 20:19:53 [Permalink]
|
From the links in my previous post:
Number of fatalities involving a driver with BA of .01 to .09 was about 3,500 in 97 and about the same in 98.
BA 1.0 or greater > about 12,600 and no alcohol 25,600.
"Since 1982, the first year in which alcohol involvement was consistently recorded in FARS, the proportion of MVT fatalities that were alcohol-related has declined (1). From 1982 through 1987, the proportion of drivers who were intoxicated at the time of a fatal crash decreased 17%. For teenaged drivers in fatal crashes, the proportion who were intoxicated declined 34%. Reductions in alcohol involvement between 1982 and 1987 occurred under most fatal-crash circumstances; however, reductions were relatively greater for teenaged drivers, females, surviving drivers, teenaged pedestrians, and older drivers. Reductions also were relatively greater in daytime crashes. In contrast, the reduction in alcohol involvement in fatal MVT crashes was minimal or nonexistent for drivers aged 25-34, motorcycle drivers, and pedestrians aged 20 to 64, and in fatal crashes occurring late at night."(MMWR, 12-16-88)
It's hard to say from this if the driver's BA of .01 to .09 contributed to the crashes or how the levels were distributed. But it also isn't clear the alcohol didn't contribute to the fatal crashes. Since alcohol related accidents declined while limits were lowered, that would indicate one should take a close look before raising those limits back up if you were going to. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 07/31/2006 20:22:00 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
