Posted on 12/16/2005 5:33:56 PM PST by RWR8189
DUI Cop Offender lives here. I drove drunk and could have killed your kids, but I was caught.
2nd offense, permanent firing.
On-duty cops as well (rare, but not unheard-of). Also court officers, jailers, manufacturers of breathalyzers, and anyone else who stands to gain financially or politically from harassing motorists.
And they can be arrested by the very same people who they've unjustly arres...kidnapped in the past.
What is?
I do hope you are not suggesting that DUI laws be repealed.
What is?
I do hope you are not suggesting that DUI laws be repealed.
I just don't have much sympathy for people who run afoul of the DUI laws. It's 100% avoidable. If you're going to drive, don't drink, not even a sip, period. Problem solved. If alcohol is so important to you that you're willing to risk getting pulled over, then you have a drinking problem. It's a personal choice to drink and drive. If you have to face the music, take some personal responsibility and don't whine about how unfair it is.
Calif just raised the premium on car insurance for DUI from 7 years to 10 years...
You're right. And here's why. Most states now require drivers convicted of DUI to attend "drunk drivers school" -- a patented waste of time and effort.
BUT...you have to pay to attend these "schools". And who runs these schools? MADD and other "non-profit" organizations like it.
The so-called "enforcement lobby" is actually a special interest of its own, looking out for its own self. And nobody else.
It's a racket. No different than Planned Parenthood and the abortion clinics (though slightly less loathsome).
Not in California! Here it's called "Implied Consent", which means you automatically give your consent to be tested in order to gain the "Privilege" to drive.
If you turn down the officers demand for a test, it is an automatic one year suspension of your driving privileges.
Ahhh, but therein lies the problem. I maintain that if the people responsible for making, enforcing and exacting tribute through these laws - were themselves fully SUBJECT to these laws...we wouldn't HAVE these laws. Too often they use their corrupt little inside shenanigans to get themselves and family members off the hook.
They would never subject themselves to special enforcement of these PC-Nazi laws, they won't even subject themselves to normal compliance with them.
That said - I totally agree with you that it would be fantastic to corral these imperious bastards and ram their own penalties right up their sanctimonious gizzards.
In Massachusetts, refusal to take a breathalyzer test can mean an immediate loss of license up to 180 days.
Max Borders is going to make MADD, mad to the max.
If you turn down the officers demand for a test, it is an automatic one year suspension of your driving privileges.
Now, just suppose a group of these same people would subsequently refuse to re-register their vehicles, cancel their insurance, sign up for welfare because they were now unable to get to work. Not to mention the loss of tax revenue from fuel, oil, repairs, etc.
I think the government would have to re-think their stategy and what constitutes a "privilege".
That's what my lawyer told me regarding Missouri.
Back in the '60s my father was pulled over after attending a cocktail party at a judge's house while on a business trip. The officer asked if he had been drinking. His reply "not only have I been drinkin', I'm drunk." The cop asked if he was capable of driving back to his hotel. He replied in the affirmative and the cop followed him back. At the hotel the cop told him ... "if I see you on the streets again you're going to jail." End of story. And then "Mommy's Against Drunk Daddies" enters the picture and an industry is spawned.
I remember--and it was a better way to deal with it.
But now the scummy politically correct left and the self righteous evangelical "right" (they're certainly not true conservatives) have joined hands and passed laws to make the chilllleeedren "safer."
Odd how those two seemingly disparate and hostile groups end up on the same side of the same issues time after time after time, though from admittedly vastly different motives.
Well, not so odd, really: both groups are dedicated to the proposition that they should control nearly every facet of our lives.
This is a little wacky. "Here, pretend to drive this car you've never been in." I'd be a little iffy driving an F150 simulator after all the time and miles I've spent in my rice burners.
"If alcohol is so important to you that you're willing to risk getting pulled over, then you have a drinking problem."
That misses the point. One *shouldn't* be rising dire consequences for having a couple of beers on the way home, or a couple of glasses of wine. That is tyranny.
By the way, I hardly drink at all, and never when I'm driving (because I don't want to risk the consequences), but it angers me that I can't have wine with my dinner or cruise down the street sipping a beer because of the damned alcohol Nazis.
Claiming impairment after one glass of wine, is similar to claiming that second hand smoke kills people or that the phrase "In God We Trust" constitutes establishment of religion, or that an unborn child is not a person.
Once the "Nanny Staters" manage to establish their claims as truth, then they can use them to tell you and me what to do.
The amount of regulation based on "Global Warming" is going to go through the roof! And some day you might get tossed in the slammer for driving home from the ball game after enjoying a beer and a hot dog.
So try again: Do you believe that DUI laws should be repealed?
No, you are missing the point. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol is risking "dire consequences" that have nothing to do with the DUI laws. Alcohol increases the chances of getting into an accident. The consequences can be serious injury or death.
You could argue that the drinker should have the right to risk his life that way. The problem is that the drunk too often kills or maims other people too.
By the way, I hardly drink at all, and never when I'm driving (because I don't want to risk the consequences), . . .
Good. It would appear that the DUI laws are working in your case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.