Arizona hate people who like to have a drink

[12vmanRick]

.20 is way high and if you drive like that you KNOW you are drunk, even a first time offender.

I don't and never will agree with the .08 BAC as legally drunk nor will I ever agree with a first timer within that range being subjected to the total loss of their livelyhood for a mistake.

In addition, most states laws are a JOKE and do not trully address someone that may have an alcohol problem and are merely a money making racket.

That is one thing that I was really proud of our little city for doing.....they started a substance abuse court that gave first time offenders a choice of going through a program to address their alcohol use, determine if it was problem behavior and treatment if it was.......
http://www.riverdalecity.com/departments/RASC.htm

There was one guy that we had arrested multiple times for intox and DUI.....he went through the program and has just hit three years sober....he's one of my neighbors, so I am particularly glad he's not drunk driving anymore!

There are a TON of federal grants out there for these kinds of programs, but they are very labor intensive and a lot of misdemeanor/justice courts don't have or won't commit the staff to do it.

see that is my problem with the whole DUI law thing in most states, they don't really try to help educate people and even offer them true counseling. I know a girl at work that was totally an alcoholic, she finally admitted it and is in counseling ON HER OWN. She got a DUI, before she even went to court got a second one. Neither time was any resemblance of trying to help her with her problem addressed. Only fines, taking her license, jail, etc. She is lucky in that she has people that can get her to work. Some people would lose everything and/or be forced to drive without a license or even resort to a life of crime.

[AlbatrossFlyer]

ol billy clinton capitulated to MADD and forced the states to lower their limit from .1 to .08 if states wanted to receive federal highway funds.

[RinglingRingling]

.20 is way high and if you drive like that you KNOW you are drunk, even a first time offender.

I don't and never will agree with the .08 BAC as legally drunk nor will I ever agree with a first timer within that range being subjected to the total loss of their livelyhood for a mistake.

In addition, most states laws are a JOKE and do not trully address someone that may have an alcohol problem and are merely a money making racket.

That is one thing that I was really proud of our little city for doing.....they started a substance abuse court that gave first time offenders a choice of going through a program to address their alcohol use, determine if it was problem behavior and treatment if it was.......
http://www.riverdalecity.com/departments/RASC.htm

There was one guy that we had arrested multiple times for intox and DUI.....he went through the program and has just hit three years sober....he's one of my neighbors, so I am particularly glad he's not drunk driving anymore!

There are a TON of federal grants out there for these kinds of programs, but they are very labor intensive and a lot of misdemeanor/justice courts don't have or won't commit the staff to do it.

see that is my problem with the whole DUI law thing in most states, they don't really try to help educate people and even offer them true counseling. I know a girl at work that was totally an alcoholic, she finally admitted it and is in counseling ON HER OWN. She got a DUI, before she even went to court got a second one. Neither time was any resemblance of trying to help her with her problem addressed. Only fines, taking her license, jail, etc. She is lucky in that she has people that can get her to work. Some people would lose everything and/or be forced to drive without a license or even resort to a life of crime.

exactly. There are a lot of drivers out there without license or insurance, even tho both are required.

[12vmanRick]

ol billy clinton capitulated to MADD and forced the states to lower their limit from .1 to .08 if states wanted to receive federal highway funds.

and I only thought he was worried about copulation

[LIPH]

ol billy clinton capitulated to MADD and forced the states to lower their limit from .1 to .08 if states wanted to receive federal highway funds.

He probably spotted a MILF or 2 when they met with him.

[12vmanRick]

.20 is way high and if you drive like that you KNOW you are drunk, even a first time offender.

I don't and never will agree with the .08 BAC as legally drunk nor will I ever agree with a first timer within that range being subjected to the total loss of their livelyhood for a mistake.

In addition, most states laws are a JOKE and do not trully address someone that may have an alcohol problem and are merely a money making racket.

That is one thing that I was really proud of our little city for doing.....they started a substance abuse court that gave first time offenders a choice of going through a program to address their alcohol use, determine if it was problem behavior and treatment if it was.......
http://www.riverdalecity.com/departments/RASC.htm

There was one guy that we had arrested multiple times for intox and DUI.....he went through the program and has just hit three years sober....he's one of my neighbors, so I am particularly glad he's not drunk driving anymore!

There are a TON of federal grants out there for these kinds of programs, but they are very labor intensive and a lot of misdemeanor/justice courts don't have or won't commit the staff to do it.

see that is my problem with the whole DUI law thing in most states, they don't really try to help educate people and even offer them true counseling. I know a girl at work that was totally an alcoholic, she finally admitted it and is in counseling ON HER OWN. She got a DUI, before she even went to court got a second one. Neither time was any resemblance of trying to help her with her problem addressed. Only fines, taking her license, jail, etc. She is lucky in that she has people that can get her to work. Some people would lose everything and/or be forced to drive without a license or even resort to a life of crime.

exactly. There are a lot of drivers out there without license or insurance, even tho both are required.

this dumbass state has passed something that the cop can't even check for insurance anymore unless you are in an accident.

[12vmanRick]

ol billy clinton capitulated to MADD and forced the states to lower their limit from .1 to .08 if states wanted to receive federal highway funds.

He probably spotted a MILF or 2 when they met with him.

didn't he usually go for the young fat type?

[LIPH]

ol billy clinton capitulated to MADD and forced the states to lower their limit from .1 to .08 if states wanted to receive federal highway funds.

He probably spotted a MILF or 2 when they met with him.

didn't he usually go for the young fat type?

That's true, he did have poor taste in women. I remember when the whole Paula Jones thing was going on, she was on the Today Show one morning. I saw her when I was walking to the office, the woman looked like someone beat her with an ugly stick.

[AlbatrossFlyer]

hillary wouldn't allow the SADD delegation in the white house...

[12vmanRick]

oh and I don't want anyone to get me wrong on my comments. I am totally for DUI laws that actually keep people from drinking and driving AND actually help those that get caught to determine if they have a problem. I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time. Anyone caught a second time, good luck to ya BUT the state still should try to help them as they probably have a real problem. .20 isn't a mistake, you know you are drunk so the AZ law isn't bad BUT it still needs to have HELP for those that do it.

One of the biggest problems I see with most if not all current DUI laws is they aren't a true deterrent either. States do not get out there and tell people the reality of the DUI nor do states offer an alternative to NOT drive. I know, I know, some of you are going, Rick I thought you hated tax money being given away. I do but it's not going to stop and so if they are going to give my money away, provide FREE rides home!!!

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Something needs to be done....this is a start, IMHO.

I was in AZ over the July 4th holiday. On the 4th in the late afternoon we drove out of Mesa, up a nearby lake then out to the big open pit copper mine. We were just exploring and taking the new truck out for some road miles. There is no question that a number of the drivers that were around us and passing us were intoxicated, and I'd be willing to be it was signifcantly over the limit. I'd hate to think what the emergency response time would be when you're out in the middle of nowhere like that. We decided we'd be much safer at home.

It's also why we didn't take the boat out....waaaaay too many drunks on the lake.

Have a DD or take a cab...problem solved.

[12vmanRick]

It's also why we didn't take the boat out....waaaaay too many drunks on the lake.

one good thing Ga has done in recent years is made tougher laws on Boating Under the Influence. If you are over the limit, you can lose your DNR Boat license. It won't affect your drivers license and it shouldn't.

[SharkOnLand]

I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time.

It only takes one time to kill someone. It's not like a potential victim gets a do-over.

If you have any question as to whether you're too impaired to drive, just don't.

[12vmanRick]

I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time.

It only takes one time to kill someone. It's not like a potential victim gets a do-over.

If you have any question as to whether you're too impaired to drive, just don't.

two wrongs don't make a right and it's not right to ruin someone for a minor infraction of the law. You think it'd be equally as right to take your house because you speed? Speed kills as many as drinking and driving.

If you can find a state that has laws that actually deter and help people with alcohol problems, good luck. Mostly it's a political campaign issue to get specific votes and a way to produce money.

[SharkOnLand]

I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time.

It only takes one time to kill someone. It's not like a potential victim gets a do-over.

If you have any question as to whether you're too impaired to drive, just don't.

two wrongs don't make a right and it's not right to ruin someone for a minor infraction of the law. You think it'd be equally as right to take your house because you speed? Speed kills as many as drinking and driving.

If you can find a state that has laws that actually deter and help people with alcohol problems, good luck. Mostly it's a political campaign issue to get specific votes and a way to produce money.

I guess I don't view drinking and driving as a "minor infraction". It's akin to Russian Roulette: at any given time, that drunk driver could kill someone. If extreme speeding causes the same number of deaths (of innocent victims, if idiots are killing themselves, then it's Darwin taking care of things), then maybe those folks should get the book thrown at them too.

Offering rehab is kindof a double-edged sword in my mind. You will waste resources on people who don't want help, and won't accept it, but will try the rehab thing to get out of a longer jail sentence or whatever, and they will just "go through the motions", so to speak. Unless a person wants help with an addiction problem, rehab doesn't work. Sure, there's cases where it has worked for some, but I'd bet that the failure rate of rehab-instead-of-jail is pretty high.

[12vmanRick]

I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time.

It only takes one time to kill someone. It's not like a potential victim gets a do-over.

If you have any question as to whether you're too impaired to drive, just don't.

two wrongs don't make a right and it's not right to ruin someone for a minor infraction of the law. You think it'd be equally as right to take your house because you speed? Speed kills as many as drinking and driving.

If you can find a state that has laws that actually deter and help people with alcohol problems, good luck. Mostly it's a political campaign issue to get specific votes and a way to produce money.

I guess I don't view drinking and driving as a "minor infraction". It's akin to Russian Roulette: at any given time, that drunk driver could kill someone. If extreme speeding causes the same number of deaths (of innocent victims, if idiots are killing themselves, then it's Darwin taking care of things), then maybe those folks should get the book thrown at them too.

Offering rehab is kindof a double-edged sword in my mind. You will waste resources on people who don't want help, and won't accept it, but will try the rehab thing to get out of a longer jail sentence or whatever, and they will just "go through the motions", so to speak. Unless a person wants help with an addiction problem, rehab doesn't work. Sure, there's cases where it has worked for some, but I'd bet that the failure rate of rehab-instead-of-jail is pretty high.

I see your point but I didn't mean rehab as a lighter sentence. Keep the stiff sentences but if you are truly trying to stop drinking and driving, tell people what happens and force them into rehab.

But you didn't answer my question, speeding kills more than drinking and driving, should someone speeding go to jail, lose their license, cost them thousands and possible loss of job and home?

Not one thing in there that is truly a deterrent or helps someone with a problem, that's my main point.

Current DUI laws in Ga
300.00 -$1000.00 plus any statutory surcharges (typically 15-25%).
10 days to 12 months, all except for 24 hours may be suspended, stayed or probated.
Theoretically, if your blood alcohol level is less than 0.08 grams %, you do not even have to do the 24 hours.
The law requires a minimum of 40 hours of community service unless you are under 21 years of age in which case you must do at least 20 hours. The actual time is set by the Court.
If you are 21 or over, your license will be suspended for one year. You will be able to get your license back at the end of 120* days if you have completed an alcohol/drug risk reduction course (DUI school) and paid the appropriate reinstatement fee. During those 120 days, you will be able to get a limited driving permit.
If you are under 21, your license will be revoked for either 6 months (under 0.08 blood alcohol level) or 12 months (0.08 or higher) and no limited permit is allowed.
Also, a failure to sample or refusal to sample is an automatic 1 yr license suspension, whether their machine is at fault or not.

[SharkOnLand]

But you didn't answer my question, speeding kills more than drinking and driving, should someone speeding go to jail, lose their license, cost them thousands and possible loss of job and home?

I don't have the statistics, but if speeding kills innocent victims, not the idiot doing the speeding, then maybe punishments should be higher. If it's the speeder that's killing himself, then blame Darwin

And percentage-wise, how many speeders get into accidents compared with drunk drivers? I'd bet the percentages are much higher for drunk drivers. A lot of people speed, so maybe punishments should be higher, or states should actually enforce the laws that are in place, with regards to points and taking licenses away. You see too much these days where states/cities whatever just use speeding tickets as revenue-generators and will forgive the points against licenses....

I do see where you are coming from though, getting your license taken away in my area, is practically a sentence where you lose your job. There's no public transportation, and being a rural area, having to take a cab would cost more than you'd likely make every day.

[12vmanRick]

But you didn't answer my question, speeding kills more than drinking and driving, should someone speeding go to jail, lose their license, cost them thousands and possible loss of job and home?

I don't have the statistics, but if speeding kills innocent victims, not the idiot doing the speeding, then maybe punishments should be higher. If it's the speeder that's killing himself, then blame Darwin

And percentage-wise, how many speeders get into accidents compared with drunk drivers? I'd bet the percentages are much higher for drunk drivers. A lot of people speed, so maybe punishments should be higher, or states should actually enforce the laws that are in place, with regards to points and taking licenses away. You see too much these days where states/cities whatever just use speeding tickets as revenue-generators and will forgive the points against licenses....

I do see where you are coming from though, getting your license taken away in my area, is practically a sentence where you lose your job. There's no public transportation, and being a rural area, having to take a cab would cost more than you'd likely make every day.

there ya go

[pbans]

I am NOT for ruining someone over a mistake on a first time.

It only takes one time to kill someone. It's not like a potential victim gets a do-over.

If you have any question as to whether you're too impaired to drive, just don't.

two wrongs don't make a right and it's not right to ruin someone for a minor infraction of the law. You think it'd be equally as right to take your house because you speed? Speed kills as many as drinking and driving.

If you can find a state that has laws that actually deter and help people with alcohol problems, good luck. Mostly it's a political campaign issue to get specific votes and a way to produce money.

I guess I don't view drinking and driving as a "minor infraction". It's akin to Russian Roulette: at any given time, that drunk driver could kill someone. If extreme speeding causes the same number of deaths (of innocent victims, if idiots are killing themselves, then it's Darwin taking care of things), then maybe those folks should get the book thrown at them too.

Offering rehab is kindof a double-edged sword in my mind. You will waste resources on people who don't want help, and won't accept it, but will try the rehab thing to get out of a longer jail sentence or whatever, and they will just "go through the motions", so to speak. Unless a person wants help with an addiction problem, rehab doesn't work. Sure, there's cases where it has worked for some, but I'd bet that the failure rate of rehab-instead-of-jail is pretty high.

Most substance abuse courts aren't an either/or.....the sentence is still hanging out there and if at any time they don't comply with the treatment, including random testing for a significant period of time, the original sentence is carried out......

I'm not very familiar with treatment once inside a facility......maybe Robin would know......

[redwinemaker]

Being in a major in alcoholic beverage production back in the college days, we had a course on the physiology of alcohol. According to the info at the time, "Impared" for the average person is .12 to .14 % blood alcohol level. At the time, most states were calling .10 legally impared to cover for the minority of people who exhibit impaired behavior at a slighly lower level.

.08 as a legal level of impairment was a concession to get MADD and neo-prohibitionist votes. As with so many laws, there is no basis in science for it. What it has done is lined the coffers of municipalities with fine money, increased insurance company revenues and as stated before, beefed up the wallets of attorneys.

The increase in DUI arrests has been called a "victory" by countless law enforcement agencies and anti-alcohol groups. I call it a Machiavellian manipulation of the law to increase statistics. It has also created the problem of mixing those who have "had a few" with those who have "had a few too many", making it harder to get the real problem drunks off the road permanently.