BuffettNews.com

You know, I think it's a great idea. It may cost more in the long run, and I've been drunken enough to qualify sometimes, but put it out early, and let them make their own decisions.

Arizona hate people who like to have a drink

No, Arizona hates drunk drivers, and is making it very painful for those who decide to drive drunk. Good for Arizona!

Punnishment for being irresponsible...imagine that.

Looks like they are actually showing concern for people who drink and drive and those around them.

I like the idea. Federal statistics show that on average for every DUI someone gets there are 40-50 times they were over the limit but didnt get caught. And a 0.20 is WAY above the 0.08, so its not a matter of a close call or not. Good for them!!!

I like it too

Every state should do it.

to put things in perspective, NY has more licensed drivers than AZ has total population, yet we have the 6th highest drunk driver fatality body count.

What's even more amazing is on the memorial, July 4th, and labor day weekends the police publish precisely where the DUI checkpoints are going to be and they still catch around 1000 people each weekend and about 50% are well above the extreme DUI limit.

while i'd argue the .08 limit is too low should go back to .1 since studies have shown the average person is more "impaired" yakking on their cell phone. i'm all in favor of going after the extreme DUIs

Good for you AZ!!

Works for me! It's illegal. It's a problem. They are trying to fix it.

Skibo wrote:Punnishment for being irresponsible...imagine that.

it's a novel concept, but it just might work!!

the only flaw i see in their statistics is the state considers a fatality alcohol related if someone's BAC = .01 or more.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:to put things in perspective, NY has more licensed drivers than AZ has total population, yet we have the 6th highest drunk driver fatality body count.

What's even more amazing is on the memorial, July 4th, and labor day weekends the police publish precisely where the DUI checkpoints are going to be and they still catch around 1000 people each weekend and about 50% are well above the extreme DUI limit.

while i'd argue the .08 limit is too low should go back to .1 since studies have shown the average person is more "impaired" yakking on their cell phone. i'm all in favor of going after the extreme DUIs

CT does the same thing, and someone was telling me that it has something to do with getting the funding to run the checkpoints. Doesn't make much sense to me, but it helps to know. Granted the vast majority of my drinking is done within walking distance of my house anyway, so...

Somewhere, I think Alaska, will seize your car for a second DUI offense.

I like the tough laws. If you're stupid enough to break the law, there should be some major punishment, especially in cases like DUI where you're putting countless other people at risk.

popcornjack wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:to put things in perspective, NY has more licensed drivers than AZ has total population, yet we have the 6th highest drunk driver fatality body count.

What's even more amazing is on the memorial, July 4th, and labor day weekends the police publish precisely where the DUI checkpoints are going to be and they still catch around 1000 people each weekend and about 50% are well above the extreme DUI limit.

while i'd argue the .08 limit is too low should go back to .1 since studies have shown the average person is more "impaired" yakking on their cell phone. i'm all in favor of going after the extreme DUIs

CT does the same thing, and someone was telling me that it has something to do with getting the funding to run the checkpoints. Doesn't make much sense to me, but it helps to know. Granted the vast majority of my drinking is done within walking distance of my house anyway, so...

It has to due with providing notice so people can avoid it....
(yes, I recognize the irony)......it had to do with search & seizure issues....several states have banned them completely....

Good for AZ. Still too lenient in my book.

Everyone knows the effects of alcohol on your ability to drive. To do so is criminal. Personally I think that the charge for killing someone while DUI should be Murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

.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.

Also, in this article it states that it will cause the lawyers to expliot all the errors in testing. GOOD! If they can't get you fairly, they shouldn't get you at all.

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:to put things in perspective, NY has more licensed drivers than AZ has total population, yet we have the 6th highest drunk driver fatality body count.

What's even more amazing is on the memorial, July 4th, and labor day weekends the police publish precisely where the DUI checkpoints are going to be and they still catch around 1000 people each weekend and about 50% are well above the extreme DUI limit.

while i'd argue the .08 limit is too low should go back to .1 since studies have shown the average person is more "impaired" yakking on their cell phone. i'm all in favor of going after the extreme DUIs

exactly. the 0.08 was just welfare for DUI lawyers. But, that said, 0.2 is stupid drunk and someone (the driver) should have just handed off the keys.

12vmanRick wrote:.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.