Bieber got a DUI

[Balta1701]

And before someone posts that they drive better high than straight then why isn't there a scandal in autoracing calling marijuana a performace enhancing drug?

Because it's not true? Not sure I'd exactly believe Steve Howe if he called cocaine a performance enhancing drug either.

[StrangeSox]

The whole impaired driving argument is why I thought the legalization of marijuana wouldn't happen this fast. As we've become stricter and stricter about impaired driving, adding another legal substance to the list of potential causes seemed to run counter to conventional wisdom.

 

It's not like pot wasn't incredibly easy for anyone to get and still illegal to drive under the influence of before, though. Just like it's not legal to take a bunch of pain killers and go for a spin. There might not be easy breathylizer tests, but you can still be pulled over and charged for it.

 

edit: I would not be surprised if people drove better while high than while drunk, though.

Edited January 24, 2014 by StrangeSox

[RockRaines]

The whole impaired driving argument is why I thought the legalization of marijuana wouldn't happen this fast. As we've become stricter and stricter about impaired driving, adding another legal substance to the list of potential causes seemed to run counter to conventional wisdom.

 

And before someone posts that they drive better high than straight then why isn't there a scandal in autoracing calling marijuana a performace enhancing drug?

There is no way to drive "better", you may drive a little slower. Its alot easier to drive stoned than drunk though, not even close.

[Steve9347]

.08 is by definition two beers.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I will admit to the fact that I have gotten an OWI in Wisconsin and I will honestly say the laws here are pretty lax. It really is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I believe Wisconsin is still the only state where a first OWI is treated as a simple traffic violation. When I got mine, the cop takes you in but you do not sit in a cell. They just let you call someone to pick you up and you're on your way. The ticket was around $700, $200 for an alcohol assessment, $200 to take a class, around $50/month insurance hike, no license for 7 months (occupational license is given) and that's it. It really does not seem to deter people at all. I'm not one to say that our jails should be filled with people who were arrested for driving home after 4-5 beers, but the laws definitely should be a lot stricter in WI.

[iamshack]

You leave Giorgio out of this!

[MexSoxFan#1]

Goddam, does Duke ALWAYS has to have the contrarian unpopular opinion? Lol. I could make a thread about how cute puppies and kittens are and he'd no doubt post that they are evil or something.

 

I straight believe he's just putting up an act and trolling the f*** out of us. I hope so, no human can be that dark...defending drunk driving, really Duke?

[Soxbadger]

The whole impaired driving argument is why I thought the legalization of marijuana wouldn't happen this fast. As we've become stricter and stricter about impaired driving, adding another legal substance to the list of potential causes seemed to run counter to conventional wisdom.

 

And before someone posts that they drive better high than straight then why isn't there a scandal in autoracing calling marijuana a performace enhancing drug?

 

I dont think anyone will say you "drive better" when you smoke. But I think most will agree that unless you fall asleep from smoking that you are likely in a much better condition than drinking.

 

Alcohol is one of the few drugs that really can just shut down your brain function.

[StrangeSox]

Oh, Lisa! You and your stories! "Dad, Bart is a vampire." "Beer kills brain cells." Now, let's get back to that... building thingy... where our beds and T.V... is.

[DukeNukeEm]

The biggest trigger to repeated drunk driving is doing it without having something bad happen. This is why it's illegal. It hopefully stops anyone from doing it once, but if they do, it drastically increases the chance of "something bad" happening without increasing the chance somebody dies.

So let's make bad things happen to innocent people! If the concern here was just to make the roads safer they'd be going after cell phone use 10 times as hard as they are drinking.

 

Not saying they wont, it's already kind of started, but people like their phones for now and haven't been brainwashed into thinking they are murderers for reading a text.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont think anyone will say you "drive better" when you smoke. But I think most will agree that unless you fall asleep from smoking that you are likely in a much better condition than drinking.

 

Alcohol is one of the few drugs that really can just shut down your brain function.

 

I think they've done studies that show you're just as impaired high as you are drunk. In both situations your reaction time drops significantly.

 

I'm amazed I never got a ticket for DWI. My then gf/now wife and two roommates would drive all around the state high as a kite during college to go to various nature preserves/parks to hike through. Smoke before we left, smoke on the drive there, smoke while hiking and maybe smoke on the way back. At some point we all established a pretty good tolerance, so that we were high but not baked out of our minds. Still though, I bet we could have been considered impaired.

 

I was very close to getting a DUI once. Had about 6-7 beers with a small group of friends. Was just in a bad mood so I never got drunk or even buzzed. We started to drive back from off-campus ISU to IWU (a 7 min drive at most) and got pulled over. My wife was pretty lit and had a bowl in her small purse. Cops told us to get out and wanted to search the car. We complied. I chatted up the cops and told them we went to IWU. Luckily my wife had taken her bra off and put it in her purse. As the cops were looking through her bag, one of them pulled the bra out and then got embarrassed and immediately put it back and then gave my wife her purse. They didn't find anything, so I ended my chat and off we went. I'll never forget the cop telling me before we left that he pulled us over because of the graduation tassle hanging from the mirror and how that impaired the drivers' vision. And then he basically admitted that was bulls*** and said really it was a campus town so, "you know, want to just make sure everyone is ok."

 

 

[pettie4sox]

So let's make bad things happen to innocent people! If the concern here was just to make the roads safer they'd be going after cell phone use 10 times as hard as they are drinking.

 

Not saying they wont, it's already kind of started, but people like their phones for now and haven't been brainwashed into thinking they are murderers for reading a text.

 

Huge difference from being distracted to having your brain high on booze.

[Jenksismyhero]

So let's make bad things happen to innocent people! If the concern here was just to make the roads safer they'd be going after cell phone use 10 times as hard as they are drinking.

Not saying they wont, it's already kind of started, but people like their phones for now and haven't been brainwashed into thinking they are murderers for reading a text.

 

As the death tolls continue to mount, it'll get to that point.

[Kyyle23]

Huge difference from being distracted to having your brain high on booze.

 

I read a study that said people reading texts are just as "impaired" as people that are drunk.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004

 

Its an older study, but interesting nonetheless

 

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting.

 

The results:

 

•Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake

•Legally drunk: add 4 feet

•Reading e-mail: add 36 feet

•Sending a text: add 70 feet

 

When I took the test for reading e-mail or texting, I was just as slow to react. On average, it took me four times longer to hit the brake. Mike Austin at Car and Driver told me in blunt terms that I was "way worse" than the average driver.

 

brainwashed indeed

[witesoxfan]

Of course, part of the intoxication is not the loss of reaction time but also the loss of motor skills, which is where swerving comes into play, and the loss of cognition and intelligence, which is when you see people driving the wrong way up a one way.

 

**not that these can't happen while texting or talking on the phone, they are both incredibly dangerous as well.

Edited January 24, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Soxbadger]

I think they've done studies that show you're just as impaired high as you are drunk. In both situations your reaction time drops significantly.

 

I dont think there is an absolute science behind it. But I can count the amount of times Ive been so high Ive had to sit down on 2 hands. In comparison, I cant count how many times ive been so drunk I could barely walk or needed assistance getting into a cab.

 

Its more about how high/drunk you can get. At least for me, marijuana hits a plateau where it just doesnt matter how much more I smoke, its the same result. Alcohol not so much.

 

Honestly at this point smoking a cigarette is more likely to put me on my ass than weed.

[Jake]

So let's make bad things happen to innocent people! If the concern here was just to make the roads safer they'd be going after cell phone use 10 times as hard as they are drinking.

 

Not saying they wont, it's already kind of started, but people like their phones for now and haven't been brainwashed into thinking they are murderers for reading a text.

 

Of course, they aren't innocent. The whole problem is that as one becomes drunk, they lose agency. You no longer make decisions the same way (you do it worse), you don't make decisions as quickly, you don't react, you lose coordination, etc. etc. We're a progressive society that is mostly happy for you to live your life this way. But since you are licensed to drive around a rolling killing machine, we have decided you need to have something approximating your very best motor skills and judgment when you operate that vehicle.

 

It isn't, "I'm only guilty if I cause harm because I was drunk." That assumes that one of your drunk driving events was different from another. You made a bad call the time you hit somebody and not the time you didn't. This isn't the case. You were always equally likely to kill somebody, the circumstances around you just changed the time you killed somebody.

 

In many places, getting caught driving drunk is a life changing act and it should be. My older brother got a DUI and lost his license for all purposes for 60 days while he had to submit to random breathalyzer tests, then got a restricted license that required him to operate only vehicles with a breathalyzer attached to the ignition -- a system that cost 200 to install and 50 per month to maintain -- for two years. He lost around $10,000 after paying fines, lawyer, and drunk driving classes that allowed his sentence and other punishments to be as "slight" as they were. If I weren't willing to drive him to work for 60 days, he would have had to quit his job.

 

...and I'm okay with that. It's extremely easy to not drive drunk. The risk involved in driving drunk is colossal compared to the already-high risks associated with driving a car.

 

I also lost a brother in a drunk driving accident that he caused -- I wish he would have gotten a DUI, too, because maybe he wouldn't have decided that it wasn't a problem to drive drunk until you get into an accident, because that's how we learn our limits.

 

I'll put it in libertarian terms, because I know it means more to you. We have agreed as a society that driving a car requires some level of aptitude. It isn't a ton, you basically need to just be an adult, know the law sorta well, and drive for 10 minutes with a state worker without scaring the s*** out of them. These are the minimal restraints we need on motor transport to make sure we don't have pure calamity. Allowing drunk people to drive erases all of that - not only are they no longer rational actors that are able to make decisions for their own good, this infringes upon my right to be alive. Allowing drunk drivers to persist until something bad happens is like inciting a riot: if you start a riot for no reason, that's bad! This is a basic restriction on free speech. We aren't dealing in speech here, but we are dealing in breaking the social trust that keeps this entire thing together.

 

Or to think of this in another way...

 

Roughly 40% of all traffic deaths involve drunk drivers.

 

20% of transport drivers tested after an accident are drunk.

 

30% of all Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident before they die

 

In 1979, when nationwide changes began to enforce DUI laws without the prerequisite of an accident, there 50,000 traffic deaths, 60% of which were caused by drunk drivers. In 2012, there were 34,000 traffic deaths, between 1/3 and 40% were caused by drunk drivers (data collection is incomplete since people aren't happy to just admit they were drunk). That already looks great -- now consider that American cars drove twice as many miles on aggregate.

 

If you eliminate drunk driving, you have eliminated the bulk of the inherent risk of death when driving. Our society relies on driving to function, especially given our terrible infrastructure and lack of public transport options.

 

Of course, we still do much, much worse in all regards, total per capita and alcohol-related traffic deaths, compared to places like the UK and Australia.

 

[Soxbadger]

Jake,

 

Its really not worth it. Even I, who actually hates govt regulation, understands you just cant let people do whatever they want on the road, because there is no way to fix the possible harm.

 

General libertarian/utilitarian principles are about things that can be replaced. Until we can bring back the dead, we have to recognize that we are going to have to disallow some risky behavior.

[LittleHurt05]

Speaking of celebrity DUI, former Illini and Dallas Cowboy Josh Brent just received 10 years probation & 180 days in jail for killing his teammate in a drunk driving crash.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Its an older study, but interesting nonetheless

 

That methodology is really questionable. Driving isn't a process of waiting for 1 specific stimulus (a red light turning on in your car) to occur. Even as the drunk driver, he can just sit there and stare at it until it goes off.

[Kyyle23]

That methodology is really questionable. Driving isn't a process of waiting for 1 specific stimulus (a red light turning on in your car) to occur. Even as the drunk driver, he can just sit there and stare at it until it goes off.

 

It isnt perfect by any means, I agree. I think the increasing fines and charges for cell phone usage while driving have demonstrated that they really are starting to believe that it is quite a bad distraction though

[DukeNukeEm]

Of couse, they aren't innocent. The whole problem is that as one becomes drunk, they lose agency. You no longer make decisions the same way (you do it worse), you don't make decisions as quickly, you don't react, you lose coordination, etc. etc. We're a progressive society that is mostly happy for you to live your life this way. But since you are licensed to drive around a rolling killing machine, we have decided you need to have something approximating your very best motor skills and judgment when you operate that vehicle.

 

It isn't, "I'm only guilty if I cause harm because I was drunk." That assumes that one of your drunk driving events was different from another. You made a bad call the time you hit somebody and not the time you didn't. This isn't the case. You were always equally likely to kill somebody, the circumstances around you just changed the time you killed somebody.

 

In many places, getting caught driving drunk is a life changing act and it should be. My older brother got a DUI and lost his license for all purposes for 60 days while he had to submit to random breathalyzer tests, then got a restricted license that required him to operate only vehicles with a breathalyzer attached to the ignition -- a system that cost 200 to install and 50 per month to maintain -- for two years. He lost around $10,000 after paying fines, lawyer, and drunk driving classes that allowed his sentence and other punishments to be as "slight" as they were. If I weren't willing to drive him to work for 60 days, he would have had to quit his job.

 

...and I'm okay with that. It's extremely easy to not drive drunk. The risk involved in driving drunk is colossal compared to the already-high risks associated with driving a car.

 

I also lost a brother in a drunk driving accident that he caused -- I wish he would have gotten a DUI, too, because maybe he wouldn't have decided that it wasn't a problem to drive drunk until you get into an accident, because that's how we learn our limits.

 

I'll put it in libertarian terms, because I know it means more to you. We have agreed as a society that driving a car requires some level of aptitude. It isn't a ton, you basically need to just be an adult, know the law sorta well, and drive for 10 minutes with a state worker without scaring the s*** out of them. These are the minimal restraints we need on motor transport to make sure we don't have pure calamity. Allowing drunk people to drive erases all of that - not only are they no longer rational actors that are able to make decisions for their own good, this infringes upon my right to be alive. Allowing drunk drivers to persist until something bad happens is like inciting a riot: if you start a riot for no reason, that's bad! This is a basic restriction on free speech. We aren't dealing in speech here, but we are dealing in breaking the social trust that keeps this entire thing together.

 

Or to think of this in another way...

 

Roughly 40% of all traffic deaths involve drunk drivers.

 

20% of transport drivers tested after an accident are drunk.

 

30% of all Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related accident before they die

 

In 1979, when nationwide changes began to enforce DUI laws without the prerequisite of an accident, there 50,000 traffic deaths, 60% of which were caused by drunk drivers. In 2012, there were 34,000 traffic deaths, between 1/3 and 40% were caused by drunk drivers (data collection is incomplete since people aren't happy to just admit they were drunk). That already looks great -- now consider that American cars drove twice as many miles on aggregate.

 

If you eliminate drunk driving, you have eliminated the bulk of the inherent risk of death when driving. Our society relies on driving to function, especially given our terrible infrastructure and lack of public transport options.

 

Of course, we still do much, much worse in all regards, total per capita and alcohol-related traffic deaths, compared to places like the UK and Australia.

Here's the thing, and you already know this about me, I don't necessarily care about the lives saved by anything. Sometimes I pretend to, because I'm an asshole, but much more often I don't think the consequence of outlawing human behavior is really relevant. The way I see it once you go down that route it's one big slippery slope where everything is nerfed in this country so nobody gets hurt or feels bad. In just the time I've been alive, 90's, 00's and 10's I've noticed this slide markedly. I don't like it, George Carlin had a quote I really like that goes something like "were adding years to life, but not living to years." And he's right, all of us know he's right.

 

Even if the event of fatal DUI crashes there's no malice. Most of the time they're not bad people. Now I'm willing to say if you wreck someone's s*** or kill them it's time for you to become acquainted with the criminal justice system, but in a vast majority of these cases were just creating criminals. Some guy at .10 driving 4 blocks home from the bar at 2 AM gets clipped at a DUI checkpoint (WHICH WE ACTUALLY STAND BY AND LET EXIST BECAUSE WE'RE SO f***ING SUBSERVIENT TO THE STATE) and now he's a criminal. He could be made into a felon. There were no victims, nobody got hurt; but now imaginary buzzed dude in his Monte Carlo is a criminal.

 

Look, there's a line that people probably shouldn't cross. Would I be ripping coke from the filter of the Parliament casually drinking a 12 pack on some chemically induced blitz ride in an old M3 from Roanoke VA to Bangor ME now? No. And not just because I'd lose my job but because I don't want to risk it anymore. Personal responsibility, although nobody got hurt (and that is a very important point in and of itself, 1000 miles of that s*** without a scratch) I just won't do it anymore. The thing is I trust myself and the people around me to know when they've hit that point. I live and work amongst these people, statistically I'm much more likely to be killed by them than anyone in this thread, but I don't fear it constantly because I figure if someone was too far gone to drive they just wouldnt. Sure some will, but that's just a risk we have to live with.

[Iwritecode]

The thing is I trust myself and the people around me to know when they've hit that point.

 

You have much more faith in your fellow man than I (and many others) do.

 

I just think that the more people we can get off the road before they kill someone rather than after, the better we are.

 

If we happen to catch a couple of people that “only had a couple of beers” and still decided to drive fully knowing the possible consequences, that's just a risk we have to live with.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Iwritecode

[DukeNukeEm]

I really dont, but I don't really have the choice not to. Society, etc.

[Texsox]

Speaking of celebrity DUI, former Illini and Dallas Cowboy Josh Brent just received 10 years probation & 180 days in jail for killing his teammate in a drunk driving crash.

 

It's interesting you didn't write "accident". A friend of mine is a local director for MADD and they are very explicit to not call it an accident.