Crapo arrested on DUI

[opebo]

people who are extremely fatigued drive at a level of impairment comparable to those driving on several drinks, should this behavior be criminalized?

Hear hear!  I'm often extremely dangerous behind the wheel simply due to drowsiness - driving is so boring.

I used to get pulled over for weaving all the time in the USA, and never drank a drop.

I'm with Tweed here - the anti-drunk driving campaign and and drug/alcohol treatment industry are clearly boondoggles playing on the common folk's prudish hatred of anyone who's 'having a good time'.

[DrScholl]

so rather than being concerned about its concrete effect, you are concerned about some magical and unnamed quality it has that requires it to be prohibited.

By that logic, you could say that robbery should be legal, as long as the statistical odds of it happening to an individual were low enough, but that really isn't a good enough reason for robbery to be legal. 

Other drivers and pedestrians have a right to be safe from impaired drivers.

[© tweed]

Other drivers and pedestrians have a right to be safe from impaired drivers.

there is no such 'right'.  thankfully I understand what you are trying to say.  unfortunately you have singled out only one of the many forms of impairment and deemed it worthy of draconian punishment.

[DrScholl]

there is no such 'right'.  thankfully I understand what you are trying to say.  unfortunately you have singled out only one of the many forms of impairment and deemed it worthy of draconian punishment.

And there is no right to drive drunk. Drunk driving laws are to protect other people, not restrict people of rights that aren't at all enshrined in the constitution. If a drunk driver injures or kills someone, they should get a jail sentence. If not, they should get a fine and have their license revoked.

Technically, no one really has a right not to be robbed, assaulted or murdered, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against that. Some may hate those laws as restricting freedom, but they do make sense. Sorry.

[© tweed]

there is no such 'right'.  thankfully I understand what you are trying to say.  unfortunately you have singled out only one of the many forms of impairment and deemed it worthy of draconian punishment.

And there is no right to drive drunk. Drunk driving laws are to protect other people, not restrict people of rights that aren't at all enshrined in the constitutional. If a drunk driver injures or kills someone, they should get a jail sentence. If not, they should get a fine and have their license revoked.

worst of all possible argumentum ad hominem, if I were of a different stripe I would 'Report to moderator', a resort to this type of nonsense is somewhere in between pitiable and reprehensible.

[© tweed]

ah, I guess it magically disappeared, I'm glad I preserved it.

[DrScholl]

I thought of something better to say, I went over the top and shouldn't have. It's just aggravating to me that some people don't see that drunk driving is not safe.

[© tweed]

there is no such 'right'.  thankfully I understand what you are trying to say.  unfortunately you have singled out only one of the many forms of impairment and deemed it worthy of draconian punishment.

And there is no right to drive drunk. Drunk driving laws are to protect other people, not restrict people of rights that aren't at all enshrined in the constitution. If a drunk driver injures or kills someone, they should get a jail sentence. If not, they should get a fine and have their license revoked.

Technically, no one really has a right not to be robbed, assaulted or murdered, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws against that. Some may hate those laws as restricting freedom, but they do make sense. Sorry.

speaking of constitutional rights, enforcement of drunk driving law via the checkpoint came under fire for bending the 4th amendment protection to unreasonable search and seizure, as drivers are able to be stopped and in effect forced to incriminate themselves via a sobriety test.  unfortuately, despite the best efforts of liberal hero Thurgood Marshall, the good guys lost 6-3:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz

[© tweed]

I thought of something better to say, I went over the top and shouldn't have. It's just aggravating to me that some people don't see that drunk driving is not safe.

I've never said it is safe.  operating a vehicle is inherently unsafe.  I am even willing to concede that operating a vehicle while under the influence of enough alcohol is to one degree or another less safe than it is otherwise, but it does not automatically follow that the behavior should be criminalized.

[patrick1]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

<facepalm>

excuse me?  this goes on all the time.  drug criminalization and drunk driving criminalization have become a scam-slush fund for the 'treatment' industry and insurance companies.  people caught driving over the legal limit or in possession of any amount of an illegal drug are diverted to treatment, where they are taught that they are powerless over their addiction (although many of them do not meet the criteria for drug/alcohol dependence to begin with), and that they have an interminable and incurable disease.  the treatment-industrial complex has grown by hundredfolds over the past few decades thanks to ignorant attitudes such as yours.

Tweed, I am intimately aware of some of the dumb treatment penalties.  I never got a DWI and have never really driven drunk either.  However, I am a drunk and sought counseling treatment-  1x a week or so, outpatient. I refused to be in the same group as people who were mandated to be there on account of a dwi. It is not some thing where I am on my high horse either. I want to be around people who want to be there.  You simply can't compare some 19 year old or housewife who had one too many beers or sherries.  I don't think someone like that will identify with what having a bad withdrawal is and I aint there to be a a inksing scared straight ad.

[patrick1]

I thought of something better to say, I went over the top and shouldn't have. It's just aggravating to me that some people don't see that drunk driving is not safe.

I've never said it is safe.  operating a vehicle is inherently unsafe.  I am even willing to concede that operating a vehicle while under the influence of enough alcohol is to one degree or another less safe than it is otherwise, but it does not automatically follow that the behavior should be criminalized.

Tweed, people who have been drinking don't think or realize how drunk they are. You really need to plant the seeds in peoples heads that there will be massive penalties if caught. Realizing that they could decapitate 7 year olds isn't solely effective. 

I dont think that cookie cutter punishments are a good thing but I don't know how the system works and there is a large difference on this regionally. I would defer to Badger on the details. 

[freepcrusher]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

In my .11 DUI episode (plea bargained down after 18 months to a wet reckless, because I insisted that there was a possible lack of probable cause to stop me in the first instance defense), for a first time offense, I got 14 hours in jail, could not drive for a month, then six months of only to work and back and to DUI classes, 10 Saturdays at DUI classes plus a MADD session, can't drive with any alcohol in me for 3 years, and have about $15,000 over time in higher insurance premiums. Is that penalty harsh enough in your opinion Badger?

was that in the 70s?

[© tweed]

@patrick: how was your outpatient experience?  was it 12-step oriented?  PM me if you resist going public, I might even know of your treatment center given our proximity.

[patrick1]

@Tweed, I'm pretty open about it. I had a 20 year career of varying levels of functioning alcoholism. Started early, majority of family are problem drinkers, and grew up in culture where drinking to excess was celebrated. I was never really an everyday drunk but when I started I usually didnt stop until I passed out.  15 beers was a very light night. Liter and a half of rum type days wouldnt be a rarity. Eventually that type of drinking makes you sick. The constant hangover or worse withdrawal, sober up and then repeat cycle was killing me physically. It was also inducing some massive anxiety and depression toward the last few years. A real desire to stop was the key. Cirrohsis or an early death didnt seem too far off in the distance anymore. A vague death wish and loss of hope was hanging around the air too. This and some mildly crap blood work led me to give a local counseling center a shot.

My direct experience with the counseling has been good. I see a shrink usually once a week for one on one sessions. It is not 12 step based, although she does break my balls to go to AA. I'll admit that I have unresolved issues that I never really confronted and the bottle was a crutch for me.  The therapy has helped me keep things in perspective.  Ive only been to 2 AA meetings since I stopped 6 months ago. It simply isnt for me- right now at least. I met some nice people, I'm sure it works for some, but I just don't like scheduling my life around it and not fond of the cultish vibe of the place.

Additionally, once a week I have group sessions.  As in previous post, I only go to group with others who self refer themselves; whether it be for booze, blow or pills. It is a small group that varies from 5-8 or so. This isn't 12 step based either, although it does lean on the shared vocab and therapists would hold to the disease model. Mine is more of talking therapy.  You say what is on your mind, obstacles urges etc.  Like with many things I think a lot is dependent on who is running the group. I once had some broad who was pulling some relaxation hogwash about being a floating leaf and I thought I was going to Oedipus Rex my eyeballs. The woman I have is good and I get suspicion that she has been down the addict road herself.

There are MUCH larger sessions of DWI folks. I agree that it is usually a waste of most people's time to have people who are court ordered and dont want to be there, many of whom don't have a real drinking problem and dont want to stop in such treatment programs.

Let me know if you have any follow up questions. 

[© tweed]

no follow up questions, just a small suggestion or notice.. there is an alternative recovery program, I think it has 3 meetings on LI and a bunch more in the 5 boroughs, it's a lot more to-the-point and speaks not of a Higher Power, perhaps you'd be interested.  http://www.smartrecovery.org/   and the meeting list for NY: http://www.smartrecovery.org/meetings_db/view/showalpha_state.php?search=N

also it shows a high level of awareness to ask-out of the not-self-referred groups, good work.

[Zioneer]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

[opebo]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

Yeah it is weird when you run into different opinions.  Can you deal with it?

[SPC]

so rather than being concerned about its concrete effect, you are concerned about some magical and unnamed quality it has that requires it to be prohibited.

By that logic, you could say that robbery should be legal, as long as the statistical odds of it happening to an individual were low enough, but that really isn't a good enough reason for robbery to be legal. 

Other drivers and pedestrians have a right to be safe from impaired drivers.

The difference is that you are comparing something that is intrisically a crime, such as theft, to something that has an increased likelyhood of becoming a crime, namely driving with alcohol in the bloodstream. While I will not contest that driving with alcohol in one's bloodstream is likely to increase the risk of impaired driving, the two are not inherently synonymous, despite what mass classical conditioning would have you believe. If a sober elderly woman drives just as poorly as an intoxicated man, and poses just as much of a danger to other motorists, shouldn't the former's erratic driving be just as valid a reason to suspend driving priviledges as the latter's erratic driving? If so, then what increase in the probability of a fatal accident (i.e. what level of impairment, regardless of BAC) is reason enough to justify suspension of driving priviledges?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nice use of the twilight fallacy (completely unrelated to stupid sparkling vampires) by SPC there.

[SPC]

Nice use of the twilight fallacy (completely unrelated to stupid sparkling vampires) by SPC there.

Care to define, since I cannot identify the "twilight fallacy" on any list of logical fallacies?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

Anyway I also think it'd be pretty silly to judge Crapo on this more harshly because he's a Mormon. He should be judged because he did something very dangerous (and much worse than what Vitter did), but no more so than if any non-Mormon Senator was arrested for a DUI. Since I think the LDS church is wrong about alcohol, why should I give a f**k if individual Mormons follow that rule? Of course Mormons in Idaho might, and they make a notable percentage of GOP primary voters.

[SPC]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

That wasn't my argument. I was genuinely asking how to measure impairment without using an alcohol-specific scale (and even then one cannot use BAC as a measure of impairment since people who drink a lot require higher levels to experience impairment, as anyone who's ever been to a party could tell you.) It would be far more reasonable to temporarily suspend driving privileges if it if evident that one is driving erratically and poses a danger to others, regardless of whether that individual has met an arbitrary threshold of alcohol in their bloodstream. To arrest someone driving normally with a BAC of .09 while giving a lesser punishment (if any) to someone driving dangerously while sober does not make sense from a public safety perspective, although such a standard makes sense from a prohibitionist mindset.

[Link]

I can't believe people in this thread are defending drunk driving.

I can't believe the people in this thread who are so uneducated that they think 0.08% BAL equals "drunk" in 100% of the population 100% of the time.  No wonder the South Koreans are wiping the floor with us in science tests.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

That wasn't my argument. I was genuinely asking how to measure impairment without using an alcohol-specific scale (and even then one cannot use BAC as a measure of impairment since people who drink a lot require higher levels to experience impairment, as anyone who's ever been to a party could tell you.) It would be far more reasonable to temporarily suspend driving privileges if it if evident that one is driving erratically and poses a danger to others, regardless of whether that individual has met an arbitrary threshold of alcohol in their bloodstream. To arrest someone driving normally with a BAC of .09 while giving a lesser punishment (if any) to someone driving dangerously while sober does not make sense from a public safety perspective, although such a standard makes sense from a prohibitionist mindset.

Well there is a "reckless driving" offense. And if you are able to drive normal at BAC 0.09, you won't get pulled over. The problem is the amount of people who THINK they can drive normal at such a level is quite a bit higher than those who actually can, so some sort of limit is needed. It's much like speed limits in that sense, we all know driving at 56mph in a 55 mph zone isn't particularly dangerous or a huge threat, but some limit is obviously needed.

(Although yes, I wouldn't mind DUI laws being enforced more like speed limit ones since one isn't likely to get a ticket going 56 in a 55mph zone. Of course one difference is the speed limit serves as more of a "recommended speed" and you go in a 5 mph window on each side since going too slow can be just as dangerous as going too fast, but no one would argue that it's ideal to drive at exactly a 0.08 BAC.)

[SPC]

It is more or less arguing that because it's hard to set a clear line when something becomes something else, there is no difference between any point of the spectrum. The name comes from one arguing that there is no difference between night and day, because it's difficult to pick an exact point when this change occurs ("twilight" referring to the transition period here.)

That wasn't my argument. I was genuinely asking how to measure impairment without using an alcohol-specific scale (and even then one cannot use BAC as a measure of impairment since people who drink a lot require higher levels to experience impairment, as anyone who's ever been to a party could tell you.) It would be far more reasonable to temporarily suspend driving privileges if it if evident that one is driving erratically and poses a danger to others, regardless of whether that individual has met an arbitrary threshold of alcohol in their bloodstream. To arrest someone driving normally with a BAC of .09 while giving a lesser punishment (if any) to someone driving dangerously while sober does not make sense from a public safety perspective, although such a standard makes sense from a prohibitionist mindset.

Well there is a "reckless driving" offense. And if you are able to drive normal at BAC 0.09, you won't get pulled over. The problem is the amount of people who THINK they can drive normal at such a level is quite a bit higher than those who actually can, so some sort of limit is needed. It's much like speed limits in that sense, we all know driving at 56mph in a 55 mph zone isn't particularly dangerous or a huge threat, but some limit is obviously needed.

Technically true, but if someone driving normally at .09 is pulled over for a different offense (e.g. a broken taillight), would he not be arrested for DUI despite driving normally? Even if not, I fail to see how whether or not the cause of the reckless driving is alcohol related is relevant to constitute a separate offense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer Montana's old speed limits, if you want to use that analogy.