# A Breathalyzer in Every Car?



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 1, 2009)

for those libertarians among us who wince at the idea of being required to wear a ski helmet on the slopes, MADD's latest push to expand the use of mandatory breathalyzers to anyone convicted of a DUI (instead of just for habitual DUI offenders) must be a scary thought.

follow this link for the article.  

the article mentions that some groups fear a slippery slope leading to all cars having breathalyzers.  personally, i'm for mandatory breathalyzers for ALL drivers.  you'd think quite a few lives would be saved....also, there's the economic impact to think about: "MADD estimates that drunk driving now accounts for 18% of the nation's auto-insurance bill and 20% of all emergency-room costs that are never reimbursed, as well as 16% of all probation costs and 6% of all jail cells used in the U.S."

i don't buy the argument of "you might have one too many at the baseball game and find you can't drive".....that's the whole point!!  if the worry is that the blood alcohol level is too low for mandatory breathalyzers, then raise it a little.  why have B.A.C. rules if they're not to be applied?  also, isn't it a little late to require breathalyzers only for those people who are convicted of DUIs?  wouldn't some of them have already caused injury or death?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

No issues here.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 1, 2009)

Lame. 

MADD was a decent organization when it started out. However, it's now the modern day equivalent of the "temperance movement."


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

The way I see it, those who don't drive over the limit have nothing to worry about.  It could potentially save thousands of lives a year and lower insurance costs for everyone.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 1, 2009)

It's more of the "thought that counts" for me. 

Whenever I ride my quad, I use my brain bucket. If I had a street bike, I'd do the same. But I don't think that anyone should be mandated to wear one. Same with seatbelts. I always wear mine; but I think the law is stupid. It doesn't save lives, it generates revenue. 

IMHO people. Not trying to start debate.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:


You don't think seat belts save lives?


----------



## snoseek (Jul 1, 2009)

I don't want to minimize the effects of alcohol but I'm pretty sure at just over the legal limit most of us are safer drivers than people that are fucking with their cells, or stuffing their faces with a number five. 


With that said I wouldn't mind at all, but who would pay for this? is it expensive?


----------



## thorski (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> The way I see it, those who don't drive over the limit have nothing to worry about.  It could potentially save thousands of lives a year and lower insurance costs for everyone.



Would you feel the same way if police had a tool that would let them know if someone had been smoking something funny?


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:
> 
> 
> You don't think seat belts save lives?



Clearly seatbelts save lives, but personally I don't need the government trying to save me from myself. In my opinion, government should only intervene in our lives and decisions to protect ourselves from each other. Therefore, I am against seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc.

In past discussions I was not opposed to ski areas requiring helmet use. Private businesses are an entirely different story in my opinion, and should be able to run their organizations as they see fit.


----------



## mondeo (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> haha, strong opinions to not expect a debate, :lol:
> 
> 
> You don't think seat belts save lives?


I don't care that seat belts save lives. I don't need to be told how to live my life.

I wear a seat belt.
When I buy a motorcycle, I'll wear a helmet.
I wear helmets skiing (except for spring) and biking.

But laws forcing that stuff on me are BS. It's my life, should be my decision. Worried about the insurance costs? Free up the insurance companies to put in seatbelt/helmet clauses, so you don't get the same benefits without or something like that.

DUIs are greyer areas, I'd personally like to see fewer driving laws but get cops to enforce the right ones more. There are people that are more capable with a BAC at 0.08 than others with no alcohol. Why doesn't the incompetent get ticketed/jailed/stigmatized for being a crappy driver while the guy just over the limit is still competent?

Drinking and driving's another one that doesn't make sense. Who cares if I have a beer while driving? If it's my first of the evening, it's not illegal for me to drive before or after the beer, so why during?

Less government nannying, just make people live with the consequences of their own decisions. The real problem is that no one wants to take responsibility for the effects of their actions, so no one thinks about said effects before they act.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I don't care that seat belts save lives. I don't need to be told how to live my life.
> 
> I wear a seat belt.
> When I buy a motorcycle, I'll wear a helmet.
> ...



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## snoseek (Jul 1, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Couldn't agree more!



Yeah thread over!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

thorski said:


> Would you feel the same way if police had a tool that would let them know if someone had been smoking something funny?



absolutely



and to be honest, I can see the argument others are making about not wanting the government creating laws to save people from themselves in regards to seat belts, helmets, etc.  The drinking and driving thing is a bit different.  I could give a crap if anyone decides to get three sheets to the wind and drive off the road into a tree killing themselves.  I've had a few friends die while drunk driving.  I was sad when happened, miss them to this day, but in the end didn't feel all that sorry for them as they were being stupid.  

However, the fact that drunk drivers kill thousands of people other than themselves is the issue here.  What is proposed is to help prevent that.  

And I'm sorry, as a former pro at drunk driving during my ski bum days, even though I agree that even at double the limit I was probably a better driver than a lot of sober drivers; that argument is total crap none the less.  Why? Anyone who has ever gotten drunk knows that the time between having a functioning healthy buzz to being smashed can sneak up on you real fast.  I was lucky plenty of times, but eventually smartened up before something catastrophic happened to me or someone else.

As for how it's funded?  Put additional fines on top of those already given drunk drivers to be funneled directly to the manufacturers of the device.  

What is proposed in my eyes is far more about public safety than it is about your own individual safety.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 1, 2009)

mondeo said:


> DUIs are greyer areas, I'd personally like to see fewer driving laws but get cops to enforce the right ones more. There are people that are more capable with a BAC at 0.08 than others with no alcohol. Why doesn't the incompetent get ticketed/jailed/stigmatized for being a crappy driver while the guy just over the limit is still competent?
> 
> Drinking and driving's another one that doesn't make sense. Who cares if I have a beer while driving? If it's my first of the evening, it's not illegal for me to drive before or after the beer, so why during?



0.08 is pretty draconian.  I have a breathalzyer in my glove compartment.  3 pints of Long Trail Ale in  90 minutes puts me over.  I'm in no way impared at 0.08.  Since there's a State Police DUI gauntlet on the Killington Access Road, I can't risk being a convicted felon by driving over the limit.   In Vermont, the law reads "0.08; or driving while intoxicated".  The state police can still arrest you even if you're under 0.08 and you have to shell out large dollars to a criminal lawyer to defend yourself on a felony DUI charge.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This sounds perfectly fine to me, it would save a lot of lives and money. I still want laws enforced to people distracted on their cell ect.....


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with the distinction between this and seatbelt or helmet laws, and that drunk driving poses a public safety risk. However, this sounds like guilty until proven innocent, which in my opinion really infringes on our fundamental rights. Yes, this may save lives, but where does it stop? Allowing police to randomly search cars could potentially save lives by getting drugs and guns off the streets, right? Raising taxes on cigarettes does make some smokers quit, so should we raise the tax to $20 a pack? I think not! Enough already.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?  

It's a privilege.

Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about.  What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

I guess my overall feeling is that something like this:  http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=261727&ac=PHnws

wouldn't have happened with such a device in place.  I'm willing to give up a bit of personal 'freedom' for something like that.  If your opinion differs, so be it.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 1, 2009)

*with alcohol & driving...*

Agree with a lot previous, but with driving added to alcohol it's not ourselves that big brother is potentially saving, it's _everyone else_...including people's children out riding a bike.
I think the one DUI is a good starting point, but would be an easier call *IF*, as mondeo said....DUIs were strictly enforced, but even as done...lots of fatalities are from the repeats...which *WOULD* then be prevented.
I think the thought process might be...it's impossible to totally prevent the 1st time DUI, but leave that to the driver's judgement & responsibility...after the driver fails the 1st..then Gov't takes over.  It's not perfect, but then what enforcement is?


----------



## Marc (Jul 1, 2009)

I, for one, welcome our new alcohol detector overlords.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?
> 
> It's a privilege.
> 
> Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about.  What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.



Well, you got me on a technicality. However, simply because an activity isn't protected by the Constituion doesn't mean I am going to support unending government regulation of such activity.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I guess my overall feeling is that something like this:  http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=261727&ac=PHnws
> 
> wouldn't have happened with such a device in place.  I'm willing to give up a bit of personal 'freedom' for something like that.  If your opinion differs, so be it.



Well, mine does, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even though they sometimes have their costs, protecting personal freedoms is of the utmost importance to me. They seem to be slipping away with every legislative session.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 1, 2009)

We should also have limiters on our cars so we can't ever drive over the speed limit. And automatic breaking so we don't try to sneak through a yellow light. And no radios, phone, ipods or video players in the cars so we are not distracted. Eating or drinking ANYTHING in the cars should be banned. 4 pt seat belts are safer, they should be mandated in all cars ...


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Jul 1, 2009)

What seems to be lost in the argument of government impinging on an individual's rights with the use of these Breathalizers is that the other drivers on the road have the right of safe passage, not to be interrupted by the alcohol-consuming driver. I don't see the use of a device like this being aimed at saving the drunk as much as I see it as saving the innocent person that gets hit by the drunk.

In theory, if such a device results in lower medical and legal costs that leads to lower car insurance costs, I'm all for it.

Hell, I'd likewise agree with a device that keeps a car from starting if all occupied seat belts aren't buckled. And a device that keeps an overweight driver from entering a McDonald's drive-thru.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 1, 2009)

All this mumble, jumble makes me wonder how the heck did we ever get along without all this modern day "safety". Hell, I remember being a kid, standing up in between my parents in the front seat of my fathers wagon for a 5 hr drive south for our family vacation. Shit man, you'd be thrown in jail in today's "safety" world. I'm thinkin' it's getting a lil over the top for my liking.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Since when is it a 'right' to drive a car?
> 
> It's a privilege.
> 
> Again, if you don't drive drunk, you've got nothing to worry about.  What BAC defines 'drunk' is another argument all together.





Marc said:


> I, for one, welcome our new alcohol detector overlords.





Dr Skimeister said:


> What seems to be lost in the argument of government impinging on an individual's rights with the use of these Breathalizers is that the other drivers on the road have the right of safe passage, not to be interrupted by the alcohol-consuming driver. I don't see the use of a device like this being aimed at saving the drunk as much as I see it as saving the innocent person that gets hit by the drunk.
> 
> In theory, if such a device results in lower medical and legal costs that leads to lower car insurance costs, I'm all for it.
> 
> Hell, I'd likewise agree with a device that keeps a car from starting if all occupied seat belts aren't buckled. And a device that keeps an overweight driver from entering a McDonald's drive-thru.





congratulations!  you are all correct.  :beer:

everyone else who has posted so far is wrong.  :argue:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 1, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Well, mine does, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even though they sometimes have their costs, protecting personal freedoms is of the utmost importance to me. They seem to be slipping away with every legislative session.




there is no right to drink and drive.  is there?  i just don't see how this involves personal freedom in any way.

might as well say that preventing theft, murder or ponzi schemes is an infringement on personal freedom.


----------



## dmc (Jul 1, 2009)

If you have a record of driving drunk maybe...   otherwise this is total bullshit...


----------



## Geoff (Jul 1, 2009)

I belong to DAMM:  Drunks Against Mad Mothers


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 1, 2009)

dmc said:


> If you have a record of driving drunk maybe...   otherwise this is total bullshit...





again, once you have a record, in my view, it's too late.  you've already driven drunk and potentially driven over my three-year old.  and you probably won't be in a condition to drive once i'm through with you, anyway.

anyway, this is theoretical, since MADD's proposal is for anyone convicted of a DUI to have a breathalyzer (not just serial offenders).


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> there is no right to drink and drive.  is there?  i just don't see how this involves personal freedom in any way.
> 
> might as well say that preventing theft, murder or ponzi schemes is an infringement on personal freedom.



Obviously there is no right to drink and drive. As far as personal freedom, I am referring to the freedom to lead our lives with as minimal government interference as necessary. There is always more the governemnt can do to protect the people, but does the end always justify the means? I don't think so. I mean, we could lower highway speed limits to 45 and that would save lives. Heck, we could ban alcohol altogether and at least in theory that would save lives as well. Perhaps not the best examples, but the point is, where does it stop? I agree with campgottgopee, this "safety" world we live in today is getting a bit over the top for my liking as well. To use saving lives as the only qualifying factor for passing a law, there is literally no end to what the government could do to restrict and regulate our activities.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 1, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Obviously there is no right to drink and drive. As far as personal freedom, I am referring to the freedom to lead our lives with as minimal government interference as necessary. There is always more the governemnt can do to protect the people, but does the end always justify the means? I don't think so. I mean, we could lower highway speed limits to 45 and that would save lives. Heck, we could ban alcohol altogether and at least in theory that would save lives as well. Perhaps not the best examples, but the point is, where does it stop? I agree with campgottgopee, this "safety" world we live in today is getting a bit over the top for my liking as well. To use saving lives as the only qualifying factor for passing a law, there is literally no end to what the government could do to restrict and regulate our activities.





i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.

i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants.  she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.  

we live in a society, and society needs rules.  i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".


----------



## dmc (Jul 1, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> again, once you have a record, in my view, it's too late.  you've already driven drunk and potentially driven over my three-year old.  and you probably won't be in a condition to drive once i'm through with you, anyway.
> 
> anyway, this is theoretical, since MADD's proposal is for anyone convicted of a DUI to have a breathalyzer (not just serial offenders).



God forbid you are out somewhere and you've had a beer or 2 and your kid has an emergency...    and the car won't start...    Or the thing just malfunctions...

what then?

It's a bunch of crap....


----------



## mondeo (Jul 1, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.
> 
> i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants. she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.
> 
> we live in a society, and society needs rules. i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".


The problem is where the line is drawn, and that the line isn't the same for anyone.

Endangering others is bad, but there are laws for all the actual bad driving that may result from drunk driving. Similarly, there shouldn't be laws against cell phones while driving. I'm pretty sure Michael Schumacher is plenty capable of handling complex discussions while driving; why should he be restricted by the inabilities of others?

If someone is at risk for a heart attack, should they not be allowed to drive because they might croak at the wheel?


----------



## dmc (Jul 1, 2009)

mondeo said:


> The problem is where the line is drawn, and that the line isn't the same for anyone.



Right... I've always taken issue with people that load infants into cars during severe snowstorms so they can go skiing for the weekend..  
I don't think it's good to risk a car accident and injuring a child.. Just to go skiing...

But I don't think there should be a law...


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i agree, things can go too far, but drinking and driving is plainly stupid, while driving 65 mph on a highway vs. 45 mph isn't.
> 
> i'm reminded of my mom and her reaction to smoking being banned in restaurants.  she thinks it's an affront to HER personal freedom, without thinking about those around her, including the waiters.
> 
> we live in a society, and society needs rules.  i guess i don't have a knee-jerk reaction against every government "intrusion".



Well, clearly most of society agrees with you, thus the proliferation of what I see as these government intrusions.

And as far as banning smoking in restaurants, I am against that as well. I think that infringes on the rights of the restaurant owner to operate their business as they see fit. If customers don't like it, don't go. If the employees doesn't like it, work somewhere else. 

Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I realize I am in the minority with many of mine. Back to work.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 1, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Well, clearly most of society agrees with you, thus the proliferation of what I see as these government intrusions.
> 
> And as far as banning smoking in restaurants, I am against that as well. I think that infringes on the rights of the restaurant owner to operate their business as they see fit. If customers don't like it, don't go. If the employees doesn't like it, work somewhere else.
> 
> Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I realize I am in the minority with many of mine. Back to work.



Just so you feel better....I'm in 100% agreement with your smoking views.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 1, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Just so you feel better....I'm in 100% agreement with your smoking views.



Really? I think most smokers would rather step outside to smoke rather than sit in a smoky bar all night.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 1, 2009)

snoseek said:


> Really? I think most smokers would rather step outside to smoke rather than sit in a smoky bar all night.



Count me as an 'outdoor' smoker.  I haven't had a cig indoors in years and don't understand how anyone would want to sit in that kind of environment.  pretty gross


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Count me as an 'outdoor' smoker.  I haven't had a cig indoors in years and don't understand how anyone would want to sit in that kind of environment.  pretty gross



I quit 2 years ago, but when I was a smoker, I loved smoking in bars, and was never bothered by the smoke. Most of my friends agree. As far as whether restaurants should be permitted to allow smoking, my view has absolutely nothing to do with my personal preferences, but everything to do with what I consider to be right and wrong.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 1, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Just so you feel better....I'm in 100% agreement with your smoking views.



Nice to know I am not alone!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 1, 2009)

This has some good points if the negatives could be addressed. The give negative I see is that everyone at one point or another has probably had "just enough" to put us over the "legal limit" (as if BAM .08 and NOW you are suddenly dangerous... .07 no worries though). As with speeding laws, I think the focus of enforcement (and with this type of legislation if passed, control) should be those that are completely reckless. If someone has two drinks and just tops out at .08, I don't think that is a huge issue personally.

The technology poses some interesting problems such as what if it malfunctions? What if someone needs to move their car because of a parking issue at a friends house but is at the legal limit? What if a car can't be moved and there is an emergency and no one is sober. Etc. I think if this were implemented, it needs to be reasonable that sometimes emergencies happen and someone needs to move a car when they might be right at the limit.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 2, 2009)

dmc said:


> God forbid you are out somewhere and you've had a beer or 2 and your kid has an emergency...    and the car won't start...    Or the thing just malfunctions...
> 
> what then?
> 
> It's a bunch of crap....





hmmm, an impaired driver agitated by a problem concerning his child?  you are precisely the type of person that should not be able to start their car and endanger yourself, others and, eventually, your kid (assuming you need to drive him somewhere after).

call a cab.  ask a friend to help.  call the cops.  and, if you are truly the ONLY person that can help your kid, be a responsible adult and don't put yourself in the situation where you've had too much to drink.

and regarding your worry about it malfunctioning, that's just a red herring.  there are many things that can go wrong on a car that renders it inoperable.

frankly, this isn't just a matter of opinion.  this is a question of right or wrong.


----------



## dmc (Jul 2, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> hmmm, an impaired driver agitated by a problem concerning his child?  you are precisely the type of person that should not be able to start their car and endanger yourself, others and, eventually, your kid (assuming you need to drive him somewhere after).
> 
> call a cab.  ask a friend to help.  call the cops.  and, if you are truly the ONLY person that can help your kid, be a responsible adult and don't put yourself in the situation where you've had too much to drink.
> 
> ...



Call a taxi....  Like everyone in the world can just get on the phone a call a taxi...


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

dmc said:


> God forbid you are out somewhere and you've had a beer or 2 and your kid has an emergency...    and the car won't start...    Or the thing just malfunctions...
> 
> what then?
> 
> It's a bunch of crap....





ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> hmmm, an* impaired *driver agitated by a problem concerning his child?  *you are precisely the type of person that should not be able to start their car and endanger yourself, others and, eventually, your kid *(assuming you need to drive him somewhere after).
> 
> call a cab.  ask a friend to help.  call the cops.  and, if you are truly the ONLY person that can help your kid, be a responsible adult and don't put yourself in the situation where you've had too much to drink.
> 
> ...




That's crap---did you see where he said a beer, or God forbid 2??? Keep it real Puddle


----------



## skidbump (Jul 2, 2009)

Me thinks you should all check these links out.Been told that DUI,DWI,DUAI are now money making,and promotion getting vehicles.This is straight from local DA's.Local police are looking for and making up reasons to pull you over.

http://www.duiblog.com/

http://www.getmadd.com/index.htm


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 2, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> That's crap---did you see where he said a beer, or God forbid 2??? Keep it real Puddle





the only thing thats crap, pee pee, are the arguments of the people who are against expanding mandatory breathalyzers from serial DUI offenders to any convicted DUI offender.

yes, dmc said a beer or two, but i ignored it b/c that's not what the proposal targets.....it targets those who have been convicted of a DUI and then drink to the point they are over the legal limit, which, by definition, is more than a beer or two.  dmc and you seem to have a knee-jerk "don't tread on me" reaction to any regulation, which is fine, but doesn't really work in the "real" world.

no one is saying if you drink one beer you shouldn't drive.  no one is advocating breathalyzers for every car (though i wouldn't be against it).  what some people think makes sense is for those who have a DUI (not just those who have several DUIs) to have a hurdle put in place before they can drive drunk at will.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> the only thing thats crap, pee pee, are the arguments of the people who are against expanding mandatory breathalyzers from serial DUI offenders to any convicted DUI offender.
> 
> yes, dmc said a beer or two, but i ignored it b/c that's not what the proposal targets.....it targets those who have been convicted of a DUI and then drink to the point they are over the legal limit, which, by definition, is more than a beer or two.  dmc and you seem to have a knee-jerk "don't tread on me" reaction to any regulation, which is fine, but doesn't really work in the "real" world.
> 
> no one is saying if you drink one beer you shouldn't drive.  no one is advocating breathalyzers for every car (though i wouldn't be against it).  what some people think makes sense is for those who have a DUI (not just those who have several DUIs) to have a hurdle put in place before they can drive drunk at will.




You're entitled to your opionion Pud, just as I am mine, and that's what makes the world go round, no??? As for my knee, I'll kick it in any direction I see fit.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jul 2, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> You're entitled to your opionion Pud, just as I am mine, and that's what makes the world go round, no??? As for my knee, I'll kick it in any direction I see fit.





i know the polite thing to do is to say "yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion", but, in this case, sorry, i don't think so.  sometimes there's such a thing as right and wrong.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> i know the polite thing to do is to say "yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion", but, in this case, sorry, i don't think so.  sometimes there's such a thing as right and wrong.



So, bad things don't happen to good people in your world??? I have a hard time with "things" always being black and white. I've found, for me, there are always 2 sides to every story and one needs to listen very closley to each side.


----------



## dmc (Jul 2, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> So, bad things don't happen to good people in your world??? I have a hard time with "things" always being black and white. I've found, for me, there are always 2 sides to every story and one needs to listen very closley to each side.



Thinking in black and white is only 2 things...  Black would be one side of the story - white the other...  So...  I'm confused by your statement...   

Are you binary or not?


----------



## mondeo (Jul 2, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> the only thing thats crap, pee pee, are the arguments of the people who are against expanding mandatory breathalyzers from serial DUI offenders to any convicted DUI offender.
> 
> yes, dmc said a beer or two, but i ignored it b/c that's not what the proposal targets.....it targets those who have been convicted of a DUI and then drink to the point they are over the legal limit, which, by definition, is more than a beer or two. dmc and you seem to have a knee-jerk "don't tread on me" reaction to any regulation, which is fine, but doesn't really work in the "real" world.
> 
> no one is saying if you drink one beer you shouldn't drive. no one is advocating breathalyzers for every car (though i wouldn't be against it). what some people think makes sense is for those who have a DUI (not just those who have several DUIs) to have a hurdle put in place before they can drive drunk at will.


What about the guy that screwed up once 7 years ago, got caught, had a couple beers and his kid just fell down a flight of stairs?

What about inaccuracies in breathalyzers?

How about the guy that got up a little late, is trying to get to work, but has mouthwash residue?

There are too many situations where you'd be putting decent people with a single mistake in trouble. Yes, a fair number of drunk driving related incidents are caused by repeat offenders. But they're also probably caused not just by repeat offenders, but serial offenders. What's missing here is the repeat rate for first offenders. What's the likelihood that you'll drive drunk again if you're arrested for it once, unless you're a complete alcoholic?

Beyond that, what's to stop people from arguing for breathalyzers for everyone once first timers get them? You'll get the whole "it's not a problem if you don't drink" crowd in line with you, it's another small step to, say, make it so anyone under the age of 30 needs to have one so the older folks don't care, and then it just unfolds from there. I just don't see the evidence that breathalyzers for first timers actually makes a big enough difference to warrant that additional penalty.

All this is is a witch hunt. People want to feel safer, so they're targeting restrictions that they think won't impact them personally on a section of the population they can paint with a broad brush, despite no actual study of costs or actual effectiveness of the measure.

Heck, while we're at it, let's not allow minorities to buy guns, because we all know minorites have higher conviction rates for violent crimes.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 2, 2009)

skidbump said:


> Me thinks you should all check these links out.Been told that DUI,DWI,DUAI are now money making,and promotion getting vehicles.This is straight from local DA's.Local police are looking for and making up reasons to pull you over.
> 
> http://www.duiblog.com/
> 
> http://www.getmadd.com/index.htm



Interesting links! 

Those checkpoints always bothered me. I know they're "legal", but it seems really Eastern European?USSR to me: "Where were you tonight? What were you doing? Have anything to dink?"


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

dmc said:


> Thinking in black and white is only 2 things...  Black would be one side of the story - white the other...  So...  I'm confused by your statement...
> 
> Are you binary or not?



LOL---guess I shopuld've read that closer---damn work gets in the way of me making sense. Now my head hurts.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> the only thing thats crap, pee pee, are the arguments of the people who are against expanding mandatory breathalyzers from serial DUI offenders to any convicted DUI offender.
> 
> yes, dmc said a beer or two, but i ignored it b/c that's not what the proposal targets.....it targets those who have been convicted of a DUI and then drink to the point they are* over the legal limit, which, by definition, is more than a beer or two.*  dmc and you seem to have a knee-jerk "don't tread on me" reaction to any regulation, which is fine, but doesn't really work in the "real" world.
> 
> no one is saying if you drink one beer you shouldn't drive.  no one is advocating breathalyzers for every car (though i wouldn't be against it).  what some people think makes sense is for those who have a DUI (not just those who have several DUIs) to have a hurdle put in place before they can drive drunk at will.



That's completely false.  I've been collecting data over the last 6 months since there's no way I'm going to drive within Killington town limits over the limit in an orange car.  An arrest, thousands in legal fees, a felony conviction that follows me for life, and huge insurance premiums for life just ain't worth risking.  I'm a *big* guy and most people will be over the limit with less alcohol than me.

The following puts me over 0.08:
A pint of Long Trail Double Bag and a pint of Long Trail Ale consumed over 90 minutes.

One martini at The Garlic  (about 2 1/2 shots of vodka)

At 0.08, I'm not even feeling buzzed.  I've never seen a bartender cut someone off with one martini at The Garlic or two beers at the Long Trail Brewery.  The Vermont State Police pull people on the Killington Access Road over for nothing.  I got pulled over for "weaving" going up the hill at exactly 35 mph.  That produced a huge argument since I certainly wasn't weaving.   I know people who have been pulled over for failing to come to a complete stop pulling out from a parking lot onto the Access Road.  I know people who have been pulled over for failing to use a turn signal pulling out from a parking lot onto the Access Road.  A friend of mine has a DUI arrest where he got pulled over for a lamp being out on his rear license plate.  It's harassment.


----------



## tjf67 (Jul 2, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Interesting links!
> 
> Those checkpoints always bothered me. I know they're "legal", but it seems really Eastern European?USSR to me: "Where were you tonight? What were you doing? Have anything to dink?"



I was over visiting my inlaws officer.  They had a bible reading.  Absulutely not.    I love the people that say I had one or two.  Go directly to jail, you lose game over.


----------



## Marc (Jul 2, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Interesting links!
> 
> Those checkpoints always bothered me. I know they're "legal", but it seems really Eastern European?USSR to me: "Where were you tonight? What were you doing? Have anything to dink?"



Move along citizen, this is none of your concern.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> What about the guy that screwed up once 7 years ago, got caught, had a couple beers and his kid just fell down a flight of stairs?
> .




You know, in many countries around the world, the limit for DUI is actually .02?   Lots of complaints of the .08 limit but that is actually one of the highest allowable limits in the world.   Penalties around the world tend to be far more strict than here in the states as well in terms of length of suspension, psychological evaluations and major costs in order to get your license back, jail time etc.   By in large, the US has some of the most lax DUI laws in the world.

'Only' having to blow into a breathalyser to start a car up seems like a pretty reasonable trade off to me.


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You know, in many countries around the world, the limit for DUI is actually .02?   Lots of complaints of the .08 limit but that is actually one of the highest allowable limits in the world.   Penalties around the world tend to be far more strict than here in the states as well in terms of length of suspension, psychological evaluations and major costs in order to get your license back, jail time etc.   By in large, the US has some of the most lax DUI laws in the world.
> 
> 'Only' having to blow into a breathalyser to start a car up seems like a pretty reasonable trade off to me.



.02??? I have that in me on a daily basis ;-)


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2009)

Geoff said:


> That's completely false.  I've been collecting data over the last 6 months since there's no way I'm going to drive within Killington town limits over the limit in an orange car.  An arrest, thousands in legal fees, a felony conviction that follows me for life, and huge insurance premiums for life just ain't worth risking.  I'm a *big* guy and most people will be over the limit with less alcohol than me.
> 
> The following puts me over 0.08:
> A pint of Long Trail Double Bag and a pint of Long Trail Ale consumed over 90 minutes.
> ...



Where did you purchase your breathalyser?  It sounds horribly inaccurate to me.  For three years I taught TIPS to bartenders in Vermont and Maine.  It is pretty much the national standard for training responsible alcohol service and monitoring over serving.   A guy your size should be able to have five 12 ounce beers in two hours before reaching .08.  You burn off 1 per hour, so your BAC after having five in two hours would be the equivalent of having 3 beers in you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> .02??? I have that in me on a daily basis ;-)



yep,  check this out.  A lot of countries have a tolerance of ZERO meaning if they detect any in you at all, you're screwed.

http://dui3.com/archives/3/drunk-driving-laws-in-the-united-states-canada-europe-and-more/


----------



## campgottagopee (Jul 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> yep,  check this out.  A lot of countries have a tolerance of ZERO meaning if they detect any in you at all, you're screwed.
> 
> http://dui3.com/archives/3/drunk-driving-laws-in-the-united-states-canada-europe-and-more/



Nepal here I come!!! :lol:


----------



## mondeo (Jul 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> You know, in many countries around the world, the limit for DUI is actually .02? Lots of complaints of the .08 limit but that is actually one of the highest allowable limits in the world. Penalties around the world tend to be far more strict than here in the states as well in terms of length of suspension, psychological evaluations and major costs in order to get your license back, jail time etc. By in large, the US has some of the most lax DUI laws in the world.
> 
> 'Only' having to blow into a breathalyser to start a car up seems like a pretty reasonable trade off to me.


They also cut off your hand in parts of the world if you get caught stealing.

What bugs me more than the inconvienence is the social impact. One vehicle families where the husband gets a DUI but the wife has to drive around a car with a breathalyzer. Two vechicle families where the teenager gets a DUI and the parents have a breathalyzer. You screwed up 7 years ago, haven't driven with a BAC over 0.02 since, but still have the breathalyzer. Drunk driving is fairly heavily stigmatized, as it should be, but you're going to be putting the stigma on people that either don't deserve it in the first place or have legitimately changed their ways.

To me, the penal system is there to protect society and to reform those who commit crimes. Those are the sole purposes. The impacts of a blanket law like this would impact those that are merely associated with DUI convictees and those who have reformed. That's the problem.

What's wrong with a judge's discretion? Why can't a judge look at the case, see that you blew a 0.08-0.09, no previous alcohol related incidents, clean driving record, etc., and determine that fines, time served, licsense suspension, whatever is enough and that you're not a likely risk to repeat?


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Where did you purchase your breathalyser?  It sounds horribly inaccurate to me.  For three years I taught TIPS to bartenders in Vermont and Maine.  It is pretty much the national standard for training responsible alcohol service and monitoring over serving.   A guy your size should be able to have five 12 ounce beers in two hours before reaching .08.  You burn off 1 per hour, so your BAC after having five in two hours would be the equivalent of having 3 beers in you.



I've double-checked the results with the breathalyzer one of the Killington constables carries around.  It's calibrated properly.   Your data sounds about right.  No bar I know of pours 12 ounce beers.  Beer comes in a 16 ounce glass.  48 ounces (3 pints) of 5% draft beer (for example, common brands like Budweiser, PBR, and most microbrews) in 90 minutes puts me over.  That's the same as drinking 4 twelve ounce beers in 90 minutes.  I'm *barely* over but I'm usually over or teetering right below the limit at 0.79 where the Vermont "0.08 *or* driving while intoxicated" law will get me tossed in jail.

3 pints of beer in the bar over 90 minutes isn't exactly heavy drinking.  You're not drunk.  No bartender I've ever seen is going to refuse pouring that 3rd beer.  If I've had 3 beers, I usually have to hang out for an hour afterwards drinking water so I can drive home.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

mondeo said:


> What bugs me more than the inconvienence is the social impact.



What bugs me is that it's a felony.  At 0.08, you are not impared but that's the law.  As a convicted felon, you can't vote.  You can't go to Canada.  There are all kinds of jobs you are excluded from that have nothing to do with driving an automobile.  You're ineligible to run for public office.  You are prohibited from getting all kinds of licenses.  You can't buy guns or ammo.

...and the Vermont State Police are trolling the Killington Access Road arresting anyone who even gets close to 0.08.  It destroys lives if you don't have the money to lawyer up and get the charge reduced.  An awful lot of people don't have the thousands of dollars to pay the attorney retainer kicking around.

I think the DUI law is seriously broken.  0.08 is far too low to be a felony.  At least in the state of Vermont, it's being used as a revenue generating source since virtually anyone exiting a bar parking lot is close enough to the limit to get arrested.


----------



## ed-drum (Jul 2, 2009)

My wife was run over by a drunk driver a long time ago. Broke her pelvis. If they put a breathalyzer in a car, what's stopping someone from keeping a balloon in the car and letting the air from it do the reading? Convicted felons can vote if they are not in prison or on parole. Convicted felons can run for office, but they probably wouldn't win. Hunter has their Police and Fireman's race and they get totally wasted, but not one of them has gotten arrested for drunk driving. If they want to stop drunk driving, CLOSE DOWN THE BARS. But, that will never happen.


----------



## wa-loaf (Jul 2, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> Hunter has their Police and Fireman's race and they get totally wasted, but not one of them has gotten arrested for drunk driving. If they want to stop drunk driving, CLOSE DOWN THE BARS. But, that will never happen.



Happened at Wachusett this year after the fireman's race, except that they drove into a tree on the way home. Guy left a 5 year old daughter and wife without a dad. The driver got a DUI and vehicular homicide.

I think these guys deserve to let loose and have a good time since their jobs are tough, but you'd think they would know better. I'm sure they have all seen the results of these kinds of crashes.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 2, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Happened at Wachusett this year after the fireman's race, except that they drove into a tree on the way home. Guy left a 5 year old daughter and wife without a dad. The driver got a DUI and vehicular homicide.
> 
> I think these guys deserve to let loose and have a good time since their jobs are tough, but you'd think they would know better. I'm sure they have all seen the results of these kinds of crashes.



Back in my hotel work days, the most rowdy patrons were cops at conventions and weddings.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 2, 2009)

ed-drum said:


> Convicted felons can vote if they are not in prison or on parole.



That just ain't true.

The states that deny the right to vote for convicted felons are: Alabama, Arizona, Deleware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.  In many of those states, you get it back eventually but you often have to lawyer up to do it.  Recall the number of people denied their right to vote in Florida in the two Dubya elections.  It made national news.


----------



## ed-drum (Jul 2, 2009)

Sorry, but it is true. Go to felonvoting.procon.org. Their are restrictions, but voting privileges are restored in most cases. And a gun and a firearm are not the same thing. You can run for President if you are a felon. Cops have a hard job, but they have no right to get drunk and drive around. They covered up the fact that a Trooper smashed into a tree on main street in Hunter and died a while back. You can still see the scars on the tree.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jul 3, 2009)

I want to get a personal breathilizer. The last sobriety checkpoint i went through was in rutland a few years back. I had two whisky cokes over the course of an hour at charitys. I blew a point zero two six. So i could have had five although that is more booze than i am cpmfortable driving on and at seven bucks a piece more Than i would normally spend. I would not be opposed to breathilizers on all cars but i dont see it happening. Drunk driving arrests bring in alot of revenues plus lawyers get mad loot.


----------



## thorski (Jul 3, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> I want to get a personal breathilizer. The last sobriety checkpoint i went through was in rutland a few years back. I had two whisky cokes over the course of an hour at charitys. I blew a point zero two six. So i could have had five although that is more booze than i am cpmfortable driving on and at seven bucks a piece more Than i would normally spend. I would not be opposed to breathilizers on all cars but i dont see it happening. Drunk driving arrests bring in alot of revenues plus lawyers get mad loot.



Sounds like the bartender didn't like you to much.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 3, 2009)

thorski said:


> Sounds like the bartender didn't like you to much.



I'll say.  If I only blew 0.025 after two cocktails on the Access Road, I'd leave zero tip, tell the bartender he was an asshole, and get the bar owner to explain why I'm never coming in again and why I'll be telling everyone I know to avoid the place.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2009)

I retract my statement.  No breathalyzers.  I'm all for encouraging DUI's to increase revenue after today.

7 windows at the DMW, only 3 in use with 60 people in front of me in line.  Took an hour and a half for my turn.  sucked


----------

