On Drunk Driving

I thought that both responses were interesting. Large SUVs are inherently unsafe under the best of conditions and people under the influence tend to underestimate the amount they've had to drink when talking to the police, so both perspectives are valid.
I'm with Chris, I rarely imbibe & my non-drinking other half is always the designated driver.

I can't believe someone would have the opinion that public breathalyzers wouldn't help.
We do have public breathalyzers here and there in Toronto. One time, I had a few too many drinks and I used it. I blew over the limit and decided to spend some extra hours on the practice greens. Eventually, I blew well under the limit and I drove home.
That's called WORKING!
Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com

I can't believe someone would have the opinion that public breathalyzers wouldn't help.
We do have public breathalyzers here and there in Toronto. One time, I had a few too many drinks and I used it. I blew over the limit and decided to spend some extra hours on the practice greens. Eventually, I blew well under the limit and I drove home.
That's called WORKING!
Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com

Dear Chris,
I think your comments on drunk driving are among the most naive I have read by a public figure in quite some time. I spent 30+ years as a trial lawyer in the New Jersey and Federal Court systems. Most of my career was as a defense attorney for individuals and corporations sued for money damages. In 90% of the cases involving alcohol, the particular defendant had little to no idea he was as intoxicated as later testing determined. All the rational judgments that you have an individual making before driving and after drinking are exactly the faculties impaired first and most by the consumption. No, the availability of public use breathalyzers won't stop drunk driving on its own, but think of how many lives it may save as a group of people leave a bar or restaurant and decide to have some fun with the machine, only to learn they are over the legal limit. Even if the awareness is only of the penalty to be paid if stopped and only one in ten turns the keys over to another in the group who is sober, there is value in that. Regards, Bob Hallas

It would be nice to see a day when people didn't worry if they were “over the limit” or not before driving. That just means that your concern is about getting a ticket, or losing your license. You should be more concerned about have an accident and killing other people on the road, or your passengers.
If you have had 1 drink, regardless of your body mass or experience, your reaction times are reduced. You should hand the keys to someone else until at least 1-2 hours for every drink has passed since you finished it. Then you don't have to worry about trying to figure out if you are legal or not – because you are being responsible.
Curtis

DWI, drunk driving, dui, and a license to drink.
Madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related.
Copyright: 1987-2005 © Bruce Alm. Documentation is available.
The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.
This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.
If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.
There could also be many other positive results;
families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.
This new law could go something like this:
Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.
For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.
What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?
What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.
This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.
Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive.
This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.
After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.
Would this be a violation of rights?
There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.
This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink.”
Here are some other pluses to this idea:
A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.
The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.
What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.
Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.
A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on.
But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.
Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.
P.S.
What ever happened to the skid row drunk?
http://www.geocities.com/dwi_dui/index.html

nkhnn/ll//////////////////////////////

IT IS STUPID AND IF YOU DO IT you THE DRUNK DRIVER NEEDS TO DIE NOT THE INNOCENT PEOPLE THAT YOU WOULD BE KILLING

I think everyone needs to find something more productive to do with their surplus of time.