2/21/2011

Your opinion on how drunk drivers should be dealt with ?
Here's mine I stated at the bottom of an article how they
should be dealt with :

http://disqus.com/dashboard/


Cheers..Joe

What did you say? I can't see it.

I don't know what to do with them--I could certainly do without them though!

2/21/2011

Alice..

In my reply to the article I said:

1st time offense .......1 year in jail

2nd time offense........3 years in jail

3rd time offense.........5 years in jail

Kill someone " LIFE IN PRISON !"

Here in this town I've read about people who have been
caught drunk driving 6,7,8,10,12 times ....This guy who was
convicted 29 years old worked at Los Alamos Labs was
driving at 106 miles an hour and hit a guy on a motorcyle
the man died he was the father of 3 children.. The driver
only got 10 years in prison big deal !


Cheers.Joe

Incarceration does not prevent drunk driving. Treatment programs for the illness of alcoholism do a better, though not perfect, job. Alcoholism is a mental and physical illness. One drunk driving offense requires the cancellation of driving privileges. The reinstatement of those privileges should require drug treatment and community service related to restitution of damages caused. Lives cannot be replaced; however, loss of income because of loss of life can be cured by a financial responsibility by the drunken driver as well as all costs associated with the loss. Incarceration cures nothing.

I remember foreign countries where hitting a man's cow on the highway would mean the driver would have to replace the cow. If the head of the household was hit on the highway, the drunken driver would have to pay for the living expenses for that household the rest of their natural lives. Those seemed like appropriate consequences.

Good post DK.
Loss of driving privileges can be devastating to someone who works for a living. Getting to and from work is a problem, but even greater for someone who drives a vehicle for a living. Taking away priviliges has a greater impact than incarceration, and costs less for the taxpayer.

Paying for damage done, as DK mentioned, is a big deterrent. There is no amount of money that can replace a lost life, however the deterrent can be an effective weapon.

Leaving a Pub in a drunken condition means that someone should take responsibility to see that the person doesn't drive. Designated Drivers have been a help, but when someone is alone, who takes responsibility? The drunk person lacks reason. They lost their self-control when they drank too much. Can you expect them to control their actions afterwards?

A business for sign makers for signs to be placed at the exit doors of Taverns that remind people about the risks and penalties of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Place mats and/or napkins can also include reminders.

Dealing with the person after the fact does not save lives. Dealing with the potential problem before will help to save lives as well as preserve the ability to earn a living.

I remember many years ago attending a party in Germany with friends. On the way, they drew straws for the "designated driver." At that time, it was a strange practice to me. Our friends said that the last resort job was driving a taxi. If they were stopped for driving with alcohol on their breath, they would never be able to get a taxi license. I don't know if it still the same, but that was too many years ago to count among youthful party goers. It's only been in recent years in the U.S. that the term "designated driver" has become common. It is an excellent practice.

As Abe mentioned, many people go to pubs and bars alone. Maybe a key box at the door might only release keys by blowing into a breathalizer machine. However, the machine would likely go on the fritze like all electronics or a clever person would just hide their keys in their car.

I also agree that prevention while a person has some reasoning ability is the best approach. Laws in the U.S. now hold private persons and bar owners responsible for obviously inebriated people who leave that location and do harm. However, it's quite an expensive legal process with many complications.

I am not at all sympathetic to the alcohol disease theory.

Taking a bunch of drunks and labeling them diseased and incurable does little more than provide them with an excuse for their deplorable state.

I have had occasion to observe alcohol rehab programs which are run by alcoholics. They spend a lot of time instilling the "patients" with excuses and thoughts of how powerless they are to change.

The worst messes become the examples and love to rant about how awful they are. they can only not drink if they go to AA meetings etc.

People do what they want to do.

If a person drives drunk they obviously have no regard for life.

First time offense--no injuries--Warning must be displayed on person at all times You Have been found guilty of driving a car while intoxicated.
Fortunately no one was hurt or killed. You and only you are capable of seeing to it that this does not happen again.
You are all powerful.
You do not need to drink to live. From this point on exercise some restraint, drink one drink only when away from home.

The percentage of drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents is higher than the percentage of sober drivers involved in fatal accidents ... but more people die on the road at the hands of sober drivers than drunk drivers.

Scientists in Europe are developing cars that will brake automatically if an oncoming car is going to hit them or they are about to hit another car. Accidents in the next decade should be reduced when this technology becomes widely available. See the video here:

http://www.thinkingcars.com/#/6

Maybe the sober ones are impaired by cell phones!

They are driving too fast, Alice.

I am sure that is true. Is that a disease also?

Yes, and it's fatal.

It is s also curable and no one is powerless over it. Slow down!

Alcohol addiction is often a symptom of deeper emotional and psychological trauma, often creating a chemical imbalance in the brain that affects the ability to reason - even without the alcohol. Addiction symptoms often arise in people with the genes that predispose them to chemical dependency and sometimes there is a diabetes gene also that carries a craving for the chemical brain reactions to sugar. Living in families with alcohol issues seems to contribute.

It's amazing how little medical science has traveled in healing the mentally ill. The continued hatred by society of people who are different or suffer from mental disorders contributes to this slow motion process. The brain is organic. It breaks and becomes diseased just as any other organic part of the body. Yet, medical insurance to meet these needs is more limited than for a broken leg.

I make no excuses for behavior that results from addiction. I do not condemn the person but rather the behavior. The cure must be found in a society that accepts drinking and getting a buzz as okay - and it's not okay for a significant number of people who have the predisposition for a chemical response in their brain that other people might not experience.

Unfortunately, since alcohol addiction symptoms are obvious and lethal, the person is damned. Yet, many other addictions have lethal consequences also, just not as obvious.

The powerless issue is the measure of the alcohol's grip of the suffering addict. Willpower alone is not sufficient to break the brain's dependency on its affects. Therefore, admitting powerlessness is a tool to clarify the need for continued help; there is no cure at the present time, only remission. Remission requires vigilance.