Prohibition Returns!

This is a really good read from a really good publication. Organizations like MADD, in conjunction with overzealous law enforcement agencies around the country, are slowly but surely turning drinking (in any volume) into a crime. The fact that you can go to prison for having a 0.08 BAC behind the wheel, when studies show that driving while talking a cellphone is actually more dangerous than having a 0.08, is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's indicative of where we're headed. Have a look...

Evan! said:

This is a really good read from a really good publication. Organizations like MADD, in conjunction with overzealous law enforcement agencies around the country, are slowly but surely turning drinking (in any volume) into a crime. The fact that you can go to prison for having a 0.08 BAC behind the wheel, when studies show that driving while talking a cellphone is actually more dangerous than having a 0.08, is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's indicative of where we're headed. Have a look...

Click to expand...

My friend got arrested for "public intoxication" two weeks ago. I thought that law was only a myth. I can't believe you can get arrested for being drunk, he was not causing a ruckus, he was just out REALLY late and stumbling home.

Agreed, very good article. We need to be speaking out to our representatives to keep this from snowballing any worse.

Ó Flannagáin said:

My friend got arrested for "public intoxication" two weeks ago. I thought that law was only a myth. I can't believe you can get arrested for being drunk, he was not causing a ruckus, he was just out REALLY late and stumbling home.

Click to expand...

I had a friend who got arrested for this when we were in college, so about 13 years ago (my gawd, it's been that long). Anyway, I saw it happen. Cops arrested him while he was walking to a party. He did have a beer can in his hand at the time and was underage.

"Public Intoxication" laws are pretty much just an excuse for the cops to hassle anyone they want. It's based on the possibility that you might, um, do bad things. Well, that possibility exists all the time, but I never act on it. I get drunk here and there, and how often have I gone out and started a fight or broken stuff? I don't. Yet there are people that do bad sh*t while stone cold sober. It's nothing but a license to hassle good-minded innocent people.

Ó Flannagáin said:

My friend got arrested for "public intoxication" two weeks ago. I thought that law was only a myth. I can't believe you can get arrested for being drunk, he was not causing a ruckus, he was just out REALLY late and stumbling home.

Click to expand...

I know a guy who was walking home from a bar, and saw a wallet on the sidewalk. So he picks it up, and gives it to a bouncer just down the street. Tells him he found it and someone may come by looking for it.

The bouncer flags down a cop, who notices that my friend was drunk, and then promptly arrests him for public intoxication.

I guess the moral of the story is don't try to do the right thing... it'll only bite you in the ass!

Officer: I see your license is suspended... You have a problem with drunk driving don't you?
Me: Well actually I'd say am pretty darn good at it.

We're losing more and more freedoms every day. People seem to want to live in a nanny state. I just don't understand it. And it's not just drinking laws. The city right next to be now has photo-enforced intersections. Pull into the crosswalk on red - CLICK - $100 dollar ticket coming your way.

We're slowly becoming a technocracy where everything we do will be monitored - ALL in the name of safety.

Small town is horrible at this. My cousin got a PI after one cup of beer at the local club/bar/redneck hangout. He had enough money to get in and then drink a pitcher, only everyone else helped him drink and didn't have enough o get another pitcher. So, he literally walked out the front door to get more money out of his car and BLAM, busted. He told the county mounty the story and the a$$hole said, "So you have been drinking tonight then?" Wow, pissed his dad off (lawyer) and even had a couple of judges in town pissy. They all said the same thing though, and that was well it is the law and officers discretion. Didn't even phase the sheriffs department, the next night they busted the local college's basketball team for the same thing, only they were drunk. My cousin ask the officer before getting cuffed and stuffed if he could have a sobriety test or a Breathalyzer or something and the cop just laughed and told him to turn the F@*k around and place his hands behind his back. I have zero respect for cops in my town, and wish my Dad's bank and others in town had not raised the money for their bulletproof vests. Ok, that isn't very Christian of me so I take the last part back. They still don't have my respect.

I got popped for PI and it's the only thing I've ever got in trouble with the law on. Once the place closes, you have to leave at which point you're in 'public'. Somehow they also managed to tow my truck that I wasn't even driving at the time. They asked me where my vehicle was, so I showed them. Then after going through the hassle at the station, they allowed me to pay my fine and leave. Then, they told me that my truck had been towed. I was thinking WTF? The station was not the place to cause a scene so I just paid more $ and got my truck.

Even with this stupid incident, I still think that the drunk driving laws in the US need to be a lot stricter. I'm talking about a zero tolerance policy. Permanent suspension of driving priveliges. If you know a substance or a device has been proven to impair driving abilities, there shouldn't be any sort of 'legal' limit. Phones, Alcohol, controlled substances, 'adult acts'... all of that kinda stuff. If it CAN cause an accident, rest assured it will. The drunk driving statistics speak for themselves.

I do not support any laws that dictate what you can do with your own body. But laws that say when and where you can do it are fine with me. Do whatever you want to, but do it at your home and in private. Don't put others at risk.

End rant.

Neomich said:

...I still think that the drunk driving laws in the US need to be a lot stricter. I'm talking about a zero tolerance policy. Permanent suspension of driving priveliges.

Click to expand...

Great idea

Well, I would hate to get into a debate on zero tollerance for the simple fact you couldn't ingest vanilla, or wash your mouth out with mouthwash for the fear of some minute amount of alcohol in your system or on your breath. I agree that DWI needs to be addressed, but how did you plan on getting home before you got arrested for PI Neomich?

I'm thinking he meant "zero tolerance" with regards to if you're convicted, you're done with driving for good (or sent to jail for a long period), not "zero tolerance" in the context of "you blew a 0.001%, now you'll be blowing your cellmate."

Neomich said:

IEven with this stupid incident, I still think that the drunk driving laws in the US need to be a lot stricter. I'm talking about a zero tolerance policy. Permanent suspension of driving priveliges. If you know a substance or a device has been proven to impair driving abilities, there shouldn't be any sort of 'legal' limit. Phones, Alcohol, controlled substances, 'adult acts'... all of that kinda stuff. If it CAN cause an accident, rest assured it will. The drunk driving statistics speak for themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes the drunk driving statistics do say a lot

I'm fine with .08, but anything lower than that is ridiculous. Everybody! Drink in your homes only! Don't let anyone see you or know that you are drinking!

So you can't go to a restaurant and have a beer? What about your favorite local brewpub?

I thought as homebrewers we were supposed to see beer as more of a social tool, rather than some fizzy water that gets your drunk. You know, brew up a delicious beer, invite your buddies over for a few during the game, share with frieds/family, enjoy life, etc.

And public intoxication is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Who cares if you're walking around downtown with a bit of a buzz? As long as you're not stumbling over yourself/other people, puking all over the place, starting ****, who cares?

/Nanny state, indeed!

I wondered Bird, I think you are right by what you think he meant, and I agree with that stance. My brother is a teetotaller and we have some really heated arguments sometimes. He smokes and everyone gets to "enjoy" it with him, but he thinks it is a violation of his personal rights to not be able to smoke anywhere he wants. That's a whole other thread right there.

Personally, .08 is about spot on where the limit should be, however I do believe the punishment for DUI/DWI should be far more strict then most states currently have.

It would be easy for me to claim I planned on sleeping in my truck like I've done before but honestly, I can't make that claim because I don't know what I would have done. I have just slept it off in my truck/car before if I know I shouldn't be driving. When I realized that it could have been a lot worse, I just shut up and paid my fine and left. I knew I had gotten off easy with a PI. Plus, I was underage and had someone else's ID on me. I left as quickly as possible.

As far as my zero tolerance statment, yes if you were to be convicted of it, then sure, I believe you're no longer entitled to be driving. We know mouthwash and other substances can show a false positive on tests though. I think that a blood test is the most accurate way to tell if someone's actually drunk but I don't know how easy or safe it is to administer that at the jail.

I've known people with multiple DD arrests that just keep on doing it. I would hate to have someone else killed because they choose to do it and the laws don't apply enough punishment to deter anyone from repeating.

Question along these lines. Has anyone known someone to actually 'pass' a breathalizer test if they've had a couple drinks?

I'm wondering how accurate those things are.

.08 is too low, and it got there via nanny statists like MADD. Most accidents happen at much higher thresholds, but the neoprohibitionists think that they can just keep lowering the limit if they want to stem drunk driving accidents.

Hell, the woman that founded MADD (no longer with the organization) says as much in the article:

Although alcohol nannies generally support zero tolerance, one dissenting voice doesn't. "I thought the emphasis on .08 laws was not where the emphasis should have been placed," Candace Lightner told the Los Angeles Times in 2002. "The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers. Lowering the blood-alcohol concentration was not a solution to the alcohol problem."

Click to expand...

Exactly. Talking to your passengers is just about as dangerous as having a 0.08 BAC. So would you advocate that someone should be put in jail and have their license suspended indefinitely whenever they talk to their passengers? Personally, I have no problem with going after drunk drivers...but you're not going to solve anything by continuously lowering the definition of "drunk".

But the problem is, just lowering that number and arresting more people is EASY. It doesn't take any real thinking or action...you blow into a device, they arrest you. Attacking the real problem isn't quite as easy, so they just keep redefining "drunk" to make it look like they're doing something useful. Did drunk driving accident rates plummet when the feds blackmailed the states into lowering the limit to 0.08? Of course not....because most accidents happen at at least 0.15.

So how the **** are you supposed to get home if you can't even walk home drunk now?

To the OP, I don't know if I'd say nanny state... I think there's another word that better fits what our country is heading towards.

On the up side of prohibition, if it returns, us knowing how to make good beer, we could become very rich

If somebody is convicted of drunk driving (assuming it's defined not too far from where it is defined today), has their license suspended, and is caught drinking and driving again, they need to be locked up (and hopefully some treatment is made available to them). If you've proven that you're unable or unwilling to NOT D&D, you're a threat to public health and ought to be off the street. Now, that won't happen because it's expensive, but that's the kind of thing that even a tax-hating libertarian like me thinks ought to be a priority.

rdwj said:

We're losing more and more freedoms every day. People seem to want to live in a nanny state. I just don't understand it. And it's not just drinking laws. The city right next to be now has photo-enforced intersections. Pull into the crosswalk on red - CLICK - $100 dollar ticket coming your way.

We're slowly becoming a technocracy where everything we do will be monitored - ALL in the name of safety.

Click to expand...

Don't even get me started on marijuana....

You are right, but I cringe at the thought of a blood test outside a hospital, much less a jail, yuck!!!! LOL, I would have left as quite as you did under those same conditions, lol. I think .1 is good, .08 I can do but am not happy about it, I have a .08 DWI from Texas. I am in no way saying I didn't do anything wrong, but the cop was going to let me go after my sobriety test, except he had a tag a long and wanted to have him do the Breathalyzer. I blew .07 something and they took me to the jail. At jail they re-breathalyzed me and I blew .08. They were really nice state troopers though, and very polite and apologetic even. I have to say, if your ever going to get thrown in jail Crosbyton, TX is a nice place, lol.

Just FYI, unless you have taken a swig of mouthwash or had been previously sucking on a can of binaka immediately before being administered a Breathalyzer test it will not register. Even if it had the most it will read is .01 or less. Also in most states a blood test is always an option, it is just a matter of dragging the person in question to the local ER. Also generally the alcu-check devices used for roadside tests are not admissible in court, they are considered a go/no-go test, and are just a tool to judge whether or not the subject has alcohol in their system and whether or not there is justification to take them to either the city or counties Intoxilyzer 5000 machine (or what every one they are using).

By all means, if you are pulled for DUI/DWI ask for a blood test, it is the most accurate and in most states your right, be cautioned however, there is almost no refuting a blood test.

Of course this can all be countered by visiting any of the "I'm a poor victim" websites which advise people of circumventing state and Federal laws.

Zero tolerance? That's great..... if the person is actually drunk. I have a friend that blew a .005, but was arrested, charged, and convicted. It was psychotic, we hadn't even made it to the bar yet. The cop decided that he failed the sobriety "tests" and locked him up. Then he asked me if I was sober enough to drive his car. I told him that the way they handled things in this hick town, I'll never drive a car here. That cop left me standing on the side of the highway. THAT is the REAL problem with intoxication laws. If a cop wants to be an ass, he can and will. It's like the day I got a ticket for speeding in a school zone.... But I got it in the mail???? Before that I had no clue that a school bus driver can report you resulting in a ticket. Thing is, I'd never been within 20 miles of the school. It took a couple weeks, but the ticket was dropped by the officer that wrote it, only after he got a vehicle description that didn't match my car.

It's very PC to say that we need to crack down on drunk drivers, but the reality is that those who want to drive, WILL!! whether they have a license or not! The punishment around here is usually a couple days in jail, a couple THOUSAND dollars, high risk insurance rates, difficulty getting jobs, etc, etc, etc. The last thing we need is to let that get any more out of whack. It's cheaper to be convicted of cocaine possession! If you are a small town that doesn't want any "drunk" driving, OUTLAW ALCOHOL AND SHUT DOWN ALL BARS..... Oh, that would reduce your town's municipal income by 80% and half your citizens would move away? Too bad! Have the cake or eat it.

the_bird said:

If somebody is convicted of drunk driving (assuming it's defined not too far from where it is defined today), has their license suspended, and is caught drinking and driving again, they need to be locked up (and hopefully some treatment is made available to them). If you've proven that you're unable or unwilling to NOT D&D, you're a threat to public health and ought to be off the street. Now, that won't happen because it's expensive, but that's the kind of thing that even a tax-hating libertarian like me thinks ought to be a priority.

Click to expand...

Same here. Even libertarian types can agree that there are certain externalities that have to be overseen by the government in the public realm...and our roads are the public realm. And yeah, multiple offenders need to be taken off the streets so they can't hurt anyone...though, I still think that this business of putting someone in prison and charging them about $10,000 because of a 0.08 is nonsense. It should be at the very lowest 0.10. OR just have a sliding scale of punishment. You drive with 0.08, you pay a fine. You drive with 0.10, you get your license suspended too. You drive with a 0.15, you go to jail and get your license suspended. Something like that. I mean, it just doesn't sound right that someone with a 0.08 is treated the same as someone with a 0.13.

Evan! said:

Same here. Even libertarian types can agree that there are certain externalities that have to be overseen by the government in the public realm...and our roads are the public realm. And yeah, multiple offenders need to be taken off the streets so they can't hurt anyone...though, I still think that this business of putting someone in prison and charging them about $10,000 because of a 0.08 is nonsense. It should be at the very lowest 0.10. OR just have a sliding scale of punishment. You drive with 0.08, you pay a fine. You drive with 0.10, you get your license suspended too. You drive with a 0.15, you go to jail and get your license suspended. Something like that. I mean, it just doesn't sound right that someone with a 0.08 is treated the same as someone with a 0.13.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

I mean, this issue is further complicated by the fact that a lightweight like me's not going to be in any shape to think about driving if I'm pushing a 0.12%, but for others, they might be OK. The 0.08% standard, I think, assumes the worst-case in terms of an individual's alcholol tolerance.

<-- calls dibs on the Beer Baron title.
_____

These nanny state laws are draconian and ridiculous. Especially in the cases outlined in that article. Unfortunately most American's are more than happy to elect representation that will enact and enforce these laws. Politicians in both parties are more than happy to pander to the "but but but... think of the children!" crowd and lump the 95% of us who are responsible for our actions with the lowest common denominator of society.

We get the government we deserve.

Start at the ground level, organize and systematically vote the Sheriffs, City Council members, DA's, Judges, Mayors, etc... out of office who are responsible.

the_bird said:

I can agree with that.

I mean, this issue is further complicated by the fact that a lightweight like me's not going to be in any shape to think about driving if I'm pushing a 0.12%, but for others, they might be OK. The 0.08% standard, I think, assumes the worst-case in terms of an individual's alcholol tolerance.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue, regardless of your weight, you may be fine at 1.0 BAC and may show no signs what so ever of even looking at alcohol in the last 24 hours, while your buddy maybe lazy eyed and staggering at .08 BAC.

EDIT: On a side note I personally think the OP's linked article is one sided and sensationalized, but most things media-wise these days are.

Whiskey® said:

Therein lies the issue, regardless of your weight, you may be fine at 1.0 BAC and may show no signs what so ever of even looking at alcohol in the last 24 hours, while your buddy maybe lazy eyed and staggering at .08 BAC.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and heaven forbid we actually have laws that allow people to use their common sense when enforcing them.

But common sense is no longer common. Far from it.

Whiskey® said:

Therein lies the issue, regardless of your weight, you may be fine at 1.0 BAC and may show no signs what so ever of even looking at alcohol in the last 24 hours, while your buddy maybe lazy eyed and staggering at .08 BAC.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you deal with that, though.

If you intentionally leave the laws written "gray," you get power-trippy cops like those described above deciding they don't like you and tossing you in jail for a 0.02%. I hate to think what those Texas cops would do to me when they see my Mass license!

You write the law strictly, i.e. "blow a 0.10% = DWI," you don't take into account a person's tolerance. Whatever that number is - if you've got a 110lb co-ed on her 21st birthday, she's could well be wasted at 0.08%. You want to let her off because she's little and has no tolerance?

I don't know how you get around this...

Neomich said:

Yeah, and heaven forbid we actually have laws that allow people to use their common sense when enforcing them.

But common sense is no longer common. Far from it.

Click to expand...

Lol, believe me I'd love for laws to be common sense, but it just takes a 10 minute drive through AnytownUSA, to see exactly why there are so many nit-picky traffic laws.

I think the most ridiculous was the Philly guy that told his doctor about the six pack. I guess in that state they could probably also do stupid stuff like your fiancé could pre-divorce you and take half your crap if you got caught cheating on her before the wedding, I mean he could do it again right so why not get him before he does. LOL The preemptive stuff floors me, because they are the same people like my brother who feel what they do is their business and what you do is " their " business too. They should be able to smoke anywhere and I shouldn't be able to drink because something might happen. While he is "getting" emphysema and "giving" me and everyone else around him bronchitis, I "might" get into a car wreck after a beer and get hurt.

Seems you could get a DUI/DWI riding a bull, lol. I know a guy that got one on a horse. Classic George Jones DUI on his riding lawn mower in Lakeland, FL LOL.

wow lots of false info in this thread.
If you drink don't drive easy as that. A taxi is cheap. I don't care if its 5 beers or one, it is affecting your motor skills, and you better be willing to take on the responsibility of the ticket or worse case killing someone.

Neomich said:

It would be easy for me to claim I planned on sleeping in my truck like I've done before but honestly, I can't make that claim because I don't know what I would have done. I have just slept it off in my truck/car before if I know I shouldn't be driving.

Click to expand...

Sorry, sleeping in your truck when your drunk is against the law too (in some states, OK for one), because you have posession of the keys, (in the ignition or in your pocket). In their mind, you can start the truck and drive drunk when they are gone. It is called APC (Actual Physical Control), and it carries a penalty the same as a DUI. I have also SEEN the cops come into a bar and give small verbal tests to the guys sitting around the bar. They actually arrested on guy cause he was drunk. Got him for PI, while SITTING IN A BAR!
Again, like most other laws it comes down to $$$. Why raise tax's and have the chance you may not get re-elected, just lower the BAC and catch more people and fill the local tills. And on top of that, you look good for the nannie-state wannabes that your protecting the innocent people. Want to see a good example of how America is heading to a nannie state? Look at the UK, those people are going to wake up one day and realize Orwell was right, just a few decades off.

the_bird said:

I don't know how you deal with that, though.

If you intentionally leave the laws written "gray," you get power-trippy cops like those described above deciding they don't like you and tossing you in jail for a 0.02%. I hate to think what those Texas cops would do to me when they see my Mass license!

You write the law strictly, i.e. "blow a 0.10% = DWI," you don't take into account a person's tolerance. Whatever that number is - if you've got a 110lb co-ed on her 21st birthday, she's could well be wasted at 0.08%. You want to let her off because she's little and has no tolerance?

I don't know how you get around this...

Click to expand...

You don't deal with it you just enforce the laws that are on the books. If the books say .000000001% that what you enforce.

Of course you may have ass-hole cops in your town, there is not a profession on earth that does not have power trippers, just like you have ass-holes who automatically bad-mouth cops on hearsay or based on media reports of bad cops. On the same note if those Officers in the article had let this bleeding heart go, and she wound up in an collision and killed someone, the Officers in question would have been torn apart because they were not doing their job.

The Officers do their jobs, they are ass-holes, the Officers let stuff go and they are inept.

The laws I've read in various states are written pretty strictly there is no mention of tolerance and their shouldn't be, you blow .08 you go to jail.

Of course these are my opinions, I'm not saying anyone is wrong for having different ones.

Evan! said:

OR just have a sliding scale of punishment. You drive with 0.08, you pay a fine. You drive with 0.10, you get your license suspended too. You drive with a 0.15, you go to jail and get your license suspended. Something like that. I mean, it just doesn't sound right that someone with a 0.08 is treated the same as someone with a 0.13.

Click to expand...

I think there may be something like that in some states, but I'm not sure. Over a certain limit: lose your license permanently.

Should we also ban the movie "It's a wonderful life," since Jimmy Stuart's character drives drunk and crashes into a tree? Hahaha. Teaching people the wrong thing Jimmy!

Whiskey® said:

Lol, believe me I'd love for laws to be common sense, but it just takes a 10 minute drive through AnytownUSA, to see exactly why there are so many nit-picky traffic laws.

Click to expand...

Some idiotic states think stuff like doing away with inspection stickers is a good idea (Oklahoma). They hoped it would allow cops to do what they should have already been doing and pulling cars over that don't need to be on the road, as well as an excuse to pull people over for anything. They claimed it was pointless since 95% of the cars the inspected passed and got a sticker, lol. Now all I see is break lights out, cracked windshields you can't see out of, even cop cars with the third break light not working. If I were a cop and tried to do my civic duty of protection through busting these violations I would get told to stop because there is way worse things to worry about, lol. I called a cop once to come down to the store because we had skateboarders by our huge non-safety glass front windows. He told me they may make it down there in a little while but there was not much he could do. I asked him if there was a city ordinance against skateboarding downtown and he said, "yes but do you want us to catch skateboarders or criminals?" I then told him the reason I ask is not 15 minutes before I called a cop drove right past them skating and did nothing, then I told him I listen to the police scanner and hadn't heard of a jailbreak or rash of anything other than 5 cops at a fender bender across town. I was being an ass, but in the most polite way possible. I closed by asking him if my call and complaint was going to be logged somewhere so I could have some sort of legal protection in the case someone was injured. I told him that I trying to stop something illegal/bad from happening before a kids parents sue me when their kid gets cut in half from a glass shower of shards. He told me no, I was floored and ask to speak to his upper. I got nothing but yes sir from the second guy and had a cop there in minutes, seeing as we were two blocks from the station. I guess you have to be an ass and know someone else's job, and how to tell them to do it. Frickin weinis'

Whiskey® said:

The laws I've read in various states are written pretty strictly there is no mention of tolerance and their shouldn't be, you blow .08 you go to jail.

Click to expand...

If only it actually worked like that. Giving the officers options based on their opinion is as dangerous for them as it is for everyone else.

I read an article just a few months ago about some town in Illinois (or around there) that was trying to pass a law to ban alcohol all together, buying or possesing. Luckily that it didnt end up passing.