Crimsoncrew
Well-Known Member
- 10,323
- 56
- 48
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
Great post. I thought you were going to take it too far the opposite way but you were well balanced and reasonable, IMO. I have a friend of the family who died because of a drunk driver and a my brother's friend's sister died, too. But you're right, these laws should be built to help prevent or adequately punish actual impairment, not lower the standards so that seemingly any level is treated the same. I do agree with some harsh penalties but sometimes they are considered harsh not because of what is being restricted but rather who and whether the crime fit the punishment.
I used to work for the prosecutor's office and there was a case where a person was in their car, keys in the ignition, reportedly there for enough time for the officers to arrive, didn't drive, but was hammered as hell. I left before the conclusion of the trial, so I don't know the results but I knew the arguments made. I have also heard stories of drunken tractor driving in the middle of Nowhere, USA and a bicycle rider riding drunk. Ruined something, not someone, and paying for the damages should have been sufficient. I forgot what they got him for but it wasn't DUI. It was like disorderly conduct but not.
I don't have any problem with a limit that is based on considerable research. As Clyde noted, you can be prosecuted below the limit if you are actually impaired, which is not all that uncommon - though curiously, Clyde seemed upset both that there was an "arbitrary" limit and that people could be prosecuted for being below that limit. There is no reason that I can see why someone should have to be swerving all over the road before they're deemed a hazard to others.