Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life'

[brooklynite]

Source: AOL

There are victims of drunken driving. And, according to one Montana legislator, there are victims of drunken driving laws.

While speaking out against a proposed bill that would make DUI laws more strict for repeat offenders, state Rep. Alan Hale, R–Basin, said drunken driving regulations hurt local businesses and are "destroying a way of life."

"These DUI laws are not doing our small businesses in our state any good at all. They are destroying them," he said in a speech on the state House floor. "They are destroying a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years."

Hale, who, according to his campaign website, runs a bar in Basin, says pubs are important gathering places in his rural Montana district -- important gathering places that are only accessible by car.

Read more: http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/31/montana-rep-alan-hale-says-dui-laws-are-destroying-a-way-of-li/

---

And, think of the employment implications: you might have to get rid of ambulance drivers and emergency room technicians if drunk drivers didn't keep causing accidents...

[Dulcinea]

1. Driving drunk is a way of life in Montana?

I got nothin'.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

14. It shore is - the faster the better! -nt

[MedicalAdmin]

21. Back in the day...

you used to be able to just stuff a $5 bill under the windshield wipers and go down the road like a bat out of hell. The fine for speeding was $5 and the cops wouldn't even write a ticket, they'd just pocket the money and wave you on.

The bars could still be gathering places if they also served shit like coffee and food rather than just whiskey, white sheets, and RW radio.

[woodsprite]

2. Don't forget the guns.

Wasn't there something a few days ago where one of their pols was complaining about gun laws hampering the Montana lifestyle?

[redwitch]

24. Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ibVZHgYQRj

[atreides1]

3. I've got a fix for his problem.

Have the bars and "pubs" provide a shuttle service...that way the customers can get to their favorite drinking establishments and home again without getting behind the wheel...and no one gets killed by a drunk driver...maybe!

[RobinA]

39. I Think You Miss

the point. "Gathering" is only part of the culture. The other part is barreling down the local road, sh*t-faced and bouncing off the hard objects on either side of the road, and telling the tale to your buddies at the NEXT gathering so you can all share "What I did to the truck while loaded" stories.

[tanyev]

4. Pro-lifers for drunk driving!

[freshwest]

61. You betcha!

[Chef Eric]

5. Alan Hale?! It's the Skipper!!

I don't think I'll be taking any three-hour tours through Montana.

[brooklynite]

23. Actually, that was Alan Hale, Jr.

His father, Alan Hale was also an actor and also did sailor roles.

[skypilot]

65. Whereas the Alan Hale in question...

...apparently missed his calling as one of the Geico cavemen.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwkzKTyPpOX3Sep-WvbgbOYAxkhQ1_xUdmglfU0RJkI7lH-SGwQWjpSg

[caseymoz]

87. Repealing child labor laws, putting us on the gold standard, now this?

We have an avalanche of stupid ideas from the party thinks it's solving our problems.

[Frank Cannon]

80. There's also Alan Hale the astronomer

Who co-discovered Comet Hale-Bopp using a telescope in his driveway.



Lots of distinguished Alan Hales in history. Then you have the moron in Montana.

[BanzaiBonnie]

6. Self-serving? He runs a bar?

Well, no problem with his motivation. Not hidden at all.

[MineralMan]

7. My heart bleeds for that bar owner...

but only if my chest is crushed in an auto accident with one of his patrons. Sorry, Charlie!

[ieoeja]

8. I agree with the Representative.

Ronald Reagan's MADDness turned my parents into virtual shutins. I also believe it has been a factor in rural political regression. Liberals party. Conservatives don't. As people stopped going out to have fun, they seemed to have turned inward, growing cranky and conservative.

Vast regions of this country have no public transportation and no taxis. The nearest bar to my parents was eight miles away. Their nearest friends were almost as far.

The one-size-fits-all DUI laws have also been blamed for increasing traffic fatalities where I grew up. The county averaged one traffic death every 3 or 4 years. They now average 5-6 per year. These deaths usually involve drinking and driving on the twisting, winding, hilly rock side roads. A sheriff suggested this was due to the DUI roadblocks forcing drinkers off the safer, easy to navigate highway.

[yardwork]

10. Nobody is stopping people from going to bars. We're stopping people from driving drunk.

If people can't go out to a bar without getting drunk and then getting behind the wheel then they are better off at home. At some point there really does have to be some personal responsibility.

[ieoeja]

11. At .05 you can only have one or two drinks. If that. Even at .08 you probably can't pass after 3.

[Ikonoklast]

34. No one is stopping people from having a drink, no one.

You have NO RIGHT to drive drunk, however.

YOUR rights end when you are endangering OTHERS' lives.


And driving after having 'one drink' is impaired driving.

[hedgehog]

44. Blood level limits shouldn't be set by how many drinks you can have,

but by how impaired you are. Sorry, but if one or two drinks leave you impaired, you shouldn't be driving.

[ieoeja]

53. Remember when they lowered the limit to .15?

They claimed it took your average adult male 6 beers in an hour to hit the .15 limit. The limit being pushed around the country now is one-third of that, or 2 beers in an hour.

And you think that impairs the average person too much to drive?

[hedgehog]

67. I have no idea - I would hope the limit is set based on actual testing rather

than pulling a number out of a hat.

[jmowreader]

86. The limit being pushed around the country now is to make money for the DWI industry

Setting the BAC at 0.10 would not cause a serious upswing in DWI-related fatalities, because most of the people they bust for this crime are way more fucked up than that. It would, however, ensure you could have a couple of drinks with dinner and not worry about getting nailed for DWI.

The 0.08 and possible 0.05 limits do two things. They increase the funds flowing into the state coffers and into the "alcohol education class" industry, and they enable the insurance companies to really jack up rates and/or cancel coverage.

Did you know Candy Lightener, who started MADD, left in disgust when it decided it wanted to be the new Women's Christian Temperance Union? Tis true.

[plumbob]

31. Thank you. There really is no basic human right to get fucked up and

hurt or kill other people, no matter how much fun some find it.

[unc70]

35. Not stopping "drunk" drivers; changing behavior of people who were not the problem

It is like most emotional issues, "facts" are often quite distorted, "obvious" solutions are rarely effective, advocacy groups need to justify their efforts, prejudices and stereotypes, moral superiority, left vs right, etc.

In the last 30 years, almost nothing has changed with the behavior of habitual drunk drivers, but there have been drastic changes in the behavior of those who might drink small amounts and later drive.

Almost the entire reduction in the "alcohol-related" fatality rates are due to safer cars and better medical care. Period. That is also the case for traffic fatalities overall.

BTW If any driver involved in a wreck has been drinking at all, even if that driver is at no fault (e.g. stopped at a stop light), and even if the driver at fault is completely sober, it is still considered "alcohol-related".

Most alcohol-related accidents are single car, are late at night, have male drivers, and are more likely in rural areas. Rural areas with a patchwork of wet and dry counties have the highest rates, urban areas the lowest.

We mostly hear about the "innocent victims", the multi-vehicle accidents caused by a very drunk driver, far over the legal limit, at any time of day. This drunk driver often has prior convictions for DUI, maybe even served time, was driving without a license (revoked). Why were they still driving?

Because unless locked up, that is what they do. Laws, families, friends, AA, MADD, and normal societal controls are not there when they drink, and they will drink. Needing to "do something", we further limit the behavior of everyone else, make a big show of law enforcement, sobriety checkpoints, feel-good PSAs.

Raising the drinking age from 18-21 probably did more harm than good. If those 18 and above were legally drinking in bars (beer and wine in NC), they actually were not getting as drunk as they do now illegally. While those under 18 were still sneaking around to drink, they are relatively less a risk. Those already having a hig risk of accidents in general, males 18-20, are out drinking where they can -- out of sight, unsupervised, in their cars.

[yellowcanine]

49. People who 'drink "small amounts" and later drive' are also part of the problem.

Ask any law officer. Whenever they stop someone for DUI, even when they have been weaving all over the road and their blood alcohol levels are twice the limit, they usually will only admit to "two drinks" when asked. The problem is that people almost never self report accurately when it comes to alcohol consumption. So you can't make any hard and fast conclusions based on this kind of anecdotal information. Also you talk about the habitual drunk driver with "prior convictions for DUI". How do you think those prior convictions were obtained? With traffic checks, in most cases. The problem isn't with the traffic checks. They work. The problem is with ineffective judicial remedies for the habitual drunk driver.

[unc70]

62. By "not stopping" I meant stopping them driving drunk, getting them off the road

I wasn't arguing against the sobriety checkpoints, although I think they have relatively little effect on the habitual drunk driver. When my ex was in AA, she said they were sharing where the checkpoints were scheduled, what police frequencies to monitor, etc. Many of those in AA had been ordered there by the courts.

When a habitual drunk driver is in the local news following some incident, their previous convictions and non-convictions are reported in detail. I just looked at a couple of cases and did not find and cannot remember seeing any convictions arising from a checkpoint, though I am sure there are in other cases. Their arrests were following an accident or because they were observed driving erratically, speeding, or in some way drew attention.

You are correct that we have no judicial remedies that are effective in stopping this group of drivers. Except locking them up. Maybe some of the ankle monitors that also detect alcohol levels could help protect everyone, but such solutions require community resources and close monitoring to really work.

The young, mostly male risk takers leaving the bars late and drunk mostly kill themselves, are more easily detected, and usually grow out of this behavior. Still a problem.

You have any ideas what we might do that deals with the problems.

BTW I know that drunks say they only had two, but so might those who drank "responsibly". Two glasses, or maybe a half bottle, of wine during a long meal puts one close to the legal limit. From tests in controlled experiments, it puts me considerable below the limit, though starting to have effects. I might drive half mile at 35 afterward, but would avoid drinking more than one glass if had to drive on the highway or much distance. How responsible is my behavior? Opinions vary widely.

[yellowcanine]

73. Well I would maintain that a DUI conviction from a sobriety checkpoint arrest would

stop many people from doing it again. Enough to make it worthwhile to keep doing the checkpoints. For the casual drinker who is in denial a failed sobriety test followed by a DUI conviction just might shake them out of the denial mode.

[valerief]

13. This has GOT to be your April Fool joke on us! nt

[walerosco]

16. lol

i was wondering what happened to the April fool jokes and then I came across this post.

[ieoeja]

60. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x789805

[valerief]

72. Ha!

[Lifelong Protester]

15. well. lucky you, I hope you still have your parents

my mom was killed by a drunk driver.

I think we need tough drunk driving laws. But then, I'm 'biased'.

[ieoeja]

18. Nope. They got old and died. nt

[AlbertCat]

19. The nearest bar to my parents was eight miles away

So smoke a joint .... and no one will hurt anyone else. And your liver might not die on you.

[provis99]

79. smoking marijuana is illegal.

and if you do it while driving, you will get a DUI. So your solution is absolutely stupid and asinine.

[yellowcanine]

25. So - the only place to get a drink is a bar? I don't think so. Come on, this is a no brainer.

And DUI roadblocks are forcing drivers off the safer highways?

Well good. It is no longer a safe highway if there are drunk drivers on it. At least they are less likely to involve someone else if they insist on driving drunk. That assertion is just that by the way. We do not know that.

People need to get serious about this. If you want to drink in a bar and there is no public transport, recruit a designated driver before you go to the dang bar.

[ieoeja]

26. No, you can drink at a party. But someone has to drive a dozen people home.

To half a dozen different locations scattered over a 20 mile radius. And, of course, they would have to be picked up to get to the party as well or find someone to drive them back the next day to get their vehicles.

Roadblocks - if I had suggested in 1980 that we would have roadblocks for random checks for ANYTHING, people would have called that facism and me insane, and said that Americans would never put up with that shit - and a ridiculously low threshold make legal social drinking a very complex affair in rural areas.

[yellowcanine]

29. Well no, someone doesn't "have to drive a dozen people home."

You are engaging in what is known as a "false choice". It is a logical fallacy.

http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=5793

The law against drunk driving does not tell people how to avoid breaking the law. They are free to choose.

Your example is only one way of obeying the law.

[ieoeja]

38. I did not drink at my niece's wedding reception last year.

But if I had....

I could have stayed at someone's home. But "crashing out" isn't very pleasant at my age.

Sleeping in the car was not permissible.

No taxis.

The nearest hotel was 20+ miles away. And nobody was driving that way.


So I did not drink. I never drink when I visit family anymore. That is the only solution I have found.

Which is, of course, the goal: to get as close to prohibition as they can.

[yellowcanine]

42. "Which is, of course, the goal: to get as close to prohibition as they can."

Well you seem to make a habit of invoking logical fallacies as that one is what is known as a straw man argument. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html


DUI laws are not intended to prohibit people from drinking alcohol or even from getting drunk.
They are intended to prohibit people from driving while drunk.
Not quit the same thing as prohibition, is it?

[ieoeja]

52. I got that from a MADD officer.

She freely admitted that she and everyone else she knew at MADD wanted to stop drinking altogether.


Have you noticed a complete absence of insults in my posts to this point? Conversely, you have twice insulted me.


Now, as to the legislators' intent, they are after money. Money for the government as fines and, even more so, court costs in regaining a license after a DUI are enormous. And money from the lobbyists.

An employee of the National Associate of Independant Insurers told me in the mid-80s that DUI was about 90% of their lobbying effort. I naively suggested this was an attempt to save the insurance companies money: fewer crashes = fewer claims. He went on to correct my assumption. First by informing me that NAII statisticians determined alcohol was a rather minor cause of accidents. But if you ignored all other factors and just assumed it was the alcohol, then they could claim a highly inflated percentage.

So it has nothing to do with saving money. It has everything to do with making money. Consumer groups do not complain about the high cost of High Option insurance, because they see that expense as just punishment for the "drunk" driver. Thirty years of demonizing drinking and driving has taken us step by step from .15 to .10 to .08 to .05. Every time they lower that limit, more drivers become qualified for a DUI violation and, hence, High Option insurance.

[yellowcanine]

71. If you are going to use logical fallacies expect to get called on them.

I don't consider calling someone on a logical fallacy an insult. I would not be insulted if someone called me on one. I might dispute it if I thought they were incorrect but I would not be insulted.

MADD does not pass or enforce DUI laws so I would not have assumed that when you said "they" you meant MADD. And even if MADD did have that role, one person does not speak for the organization in spite of what your MADD officer asserts. I doubt very much that it is the policy of MADD to institute Prohibition.

What I don't understand is your need to downplay the effects of alcohol impaired driving. You talk about someone getting rear ended and if the stopped person was above the legal limit this makes it alcohol related. I would venture that for every case like that there are many more cases where the person doing the rear ending is just below the legal limit or isn't tested - many rear end accidents are not reported except to the insurance companies and there is no officer involved. Same would be true for many single car accidents where an officer does not investigate. How many cases of drivers simply being inattentive or falling asleep actually do involve alcohol? Alcohol makes a lot of people sleepy even if they may not be above the legal limit.

[karynnj]

74. Being told that by a MADD officer means nothing

It is a physiological fact that above a certain limit, reactions times and judgment deteriorate. You might be surprised to find that other countries - some where drinking is far more acceptable have stricter laws.

Here are a few countries:
Spain has stricter drunk driving laws than many other countries. The legal limit is 0.05% and 0.01% for new drivers. They are serious about drunk driving and have strict penalties, such as heavy fines, loss of license and imprisonment.
http://www.alicante-spain.com/driving-in-spain.html

When it comes to drunk driving, Norway has the strictest laws in Europe. The maximum blood alcohol content is only 0.1 promille (which is only a small glass of a weak drink) and there are hefty punishments for violators.

(The UK has a limit of .08)
The UK has some of the toughest penalties on drink driving in the world. If you're caught over the limit, you face an automatic driving ban of twelve months and a possible fine of up to £5,000 and/or 6 months in prison.
http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/drive.htm

Italy - Drinking and driving: Don't do it. Over 0.05 per cent and you could face anything up to imprisonment.
http://driving.drive-alive.co.uk/driving-in-italy.htm

Drinking and driving in France

The limit is 0.50g per liter of blood (it is 0.80g/l in the UK). It is not much : about two glasses of wine for an average person. Your alcohol level might be measured by law and order forces via a breath analizer (usually done should the police/gendarmerie officer suspects you drank, or done randomly).
What happens if you are over the limit?

If you have between 0.5g/l and 0.8 g/l, the fine is 135 euros, to be paid on the spot, loss of six points on your driving licence (if french), and you won't be allowed to take the wheel until you are below 0.5g/l.

If you have more than 0.8g/l : licence confiscated, fine up to 4500 euros and possible jail time up to 2 years, decided by a judge (severity of the sentence depending of course on how drunk you were, behaviour etc), plus 6 points taken off the licence. You might also be banned from driving in France for up to 3 years
http://english.controleradar.org/drinking-driving.php

Would you like to argue that France, Italy, Norway and the UK are all just anti-alcohol too?

[hedgehog]

45. My daughter held her wedding reception at a camp ground.

Those who wanted to party hearty were able to do so, then go off to their camper to sleep it off.




Breakfast the next day was strangely quiet.....

[yardwork]

54. If not drinking at a wedding reception was a hardship to you then drinking is running your life.

Be honest with yourself. A lot of us have been there.

[Dogtown]

50. Denial

You need to get your ass to a meeting.

[karynnj]

70. I went to a wedding in Norway where this is exactly what they did

The bride's step father had several of his nieces and nephews, who agreed not to drink, pick up people and take them to the church. I think each took two trips. Then they took them to the reception and home. This was a rather small wedding and I think everyone was driven by them. The bride had spent a year with us as an au pair and we were extremely honored to have been invited - about 14 years later.

Here, the laws are not as strict, but people should not drive who had more than the legal limit.

[tpsbmam]

28. I'm liberal and I drink ETOH BUT I don't drink if I'm going to be driving

and I have a perfectly good time without the booze. If one can only have a good time while drinking booze, that's too bad. That's the way I was in my early 20's before I grew up.

That's too bad about your parents but it's a choice, and choosing to be a "shut-in" because you can't drink and drive is just sad.

[Nihil]

32. Agree and in addition ...

> ... choosing to be a "shut-in" because you can't drink and drive is just sad.

Especially true given that the original poster stated that it "made" his parents
into "shut-ins" ... what on earth prevented them taking turns to drive?

Both my wife & I drive and we both drink but we somehow manage to have a social life
without breaking the drink-drive laws ...

:wtf:

[tpsbmam]

48. Exactly. I don't drink at all when I'm going to drive because

I have chronic renal failure (kidneys are going, though I've managed through diet to stay stable for 2+ years so hopefully no dialysis in my future....hopefully) and I have no idea how even one small glass of wine would register because of that, so I simply go out without drinking. I know I'm fine after one glass of wine and I know for sure that I'm not after two (which I rarely have). Just not worth the chance to get picked up for a DUI and certainly to endanger me and others. And I usually have a great time when I go out.

My brother used to drive drunk....a lot. He, using his typical logic at the time, actually got pissed that the cops used to target the bar he frequented at all times of day with his buddies. How dare they keep an eye on the people coming out of that bar that was a known hangout for the drink & drive type! The sense of entitlement was astonishing. I told him point blank that the day he had a major crash I hoped he'd just injure or kill himself and not someone else. Told him I'd be really sad if that happened but I'd never forgive him if he killed someone else. We had some major battles over his driving while really intoxicated. Fortunately he got REALLY lucky and met a great woman and cleaned up his act. Thank god!

[Nihil]

30. Sounds like a win-win to me ...

> They now average 5-6 per year. These deaths usually involve drinking and driving
> on the twisting, winding, hilly rock side roads. A sheriff suggested this was due
> to the DUI roadblocks forcing drinkers off the safer, easy to navigate highway.

Not only do the sober drivers get safer highways but the number of drunk drivers
is going down too!

What's there to complain about?
:evilgrin:

[drm604]

41. If that's true

then why don't they put roadblocks on the twisting winding hilly roads?

[yellowcanine]

43. Good point. Someone should ask the sheriff that. If they are too lazy to move their checkpoints

to more challenging locations from time to time, maybe someone else should be sheriff who is willing to do what it takes to enforce the law.

[ieoeja]

55. He actually said that if DUI was about saving lives, that is what they should do.

But DUI is now more about making money than saving lives. They have lowered the blood alcohol limit so low that you don't have to be impaired to get a DUI. If it was about saving lives, why would they do that?

[drm604]

64. Then they should move the road blocks to the more dangerous roads

thus making it about saving lifes.

[alarimer]

88. I agree with you but trying to inject reason into this discussion is a losing battle.

Most people in this thread are reacting from emotion rather than from reason. I see no reason why a person who drinks one or two beers, gets pulled over but has otherwise hurt no one, is treated the same as someone who has. It make no sense AND it simply does not work. Driving under the influence where no one is hurt should be treated exactly the same as someone who texts but doesn't hurt anyone. A ticket and fine. It is ridiculous to lower the thresholds so low that everyone is guilty should they be caught. But it is a moneymaker for municipalities that need the money from the fines. People use designated drivers not because they really care about the issue but because they don't want to get caught. Makes sense because the laws are stupid and ineffective as currently constituted. What MADD and others want but can't admit it is Prohibition. Which we all know was an abject failure.

But this country is full of Puritans on their fucking high horses about other people's behavior. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[shanti]

51. then stay home and drink

damn, why is that so hard to understand? :shrug:

[ieoeja]

56. That is very easy to understand.

But I don't like to drink alone. I want to go out. I want to socialize. I want to discuss the day's events. Which I can since I live in the city.

Rural people can not. Or at least they can not include alcohol.

[SOS]

84. Be glad the you didn't live in the former German Democratic Republic

The BAC for a drunk driving conviction was anything over 0.0%.
First offense was loss of license for life.
It was considered a serious criminal offense to endanger the lives of your fellow workers.

Needless to say, DWI did not exist in the GDR.

[Jkid]

93. Quoted for Truth

Vast regions of this country have no public transportation and no taxis. The nearest bar to my parents was eight miles away. Their nearest friends were almost as far.

And if you lobby for expanded public transit, they expect you to get a car or move to the city (if you are able to because children don't have a choice when parents move).

[w4rma]

9. He's got a point. There needs to be requirements on bars to stay open an hour later without serving

drinks or mass transportation made available. Bars have last call 15 minutes before sending everyone to their cars. That is the problem, right there.

[valerief]

12. Republicans love drunk drivers. They lower the senior Social Security population. nt

[No Elephants]

17. Hale's death panel.

[L. Coyote]

20. The Montana economy is dependent on drunk drivers. What does that tell you?

Other than, stay off the road in Montana!! :rofl:

[matt819]

22. The Onion can now fire its writers

All they have to do is report on the antics of Republicans. Surely this is from The Onion. Right? Support drunk driving? Maybe there's no MADD chapter in Montana.

[Turbineguy]

27. Work.

The curse of the drinking class.

[BrightSideOfLife]

Idiot Teabaggers

[BrightSideOfLife]

33. Idiot Teabaggers

Why do conservatives always advocate personal responsibility until it inconveniences them. If you plan to go to the bar in your podunk little town, then plan to have a designated driver! How is that "destroying a way of life?!"
They just tried to force rape victims to give birth to their rapist's babies by changing the definition of rape in abortion legislation, I guess because they think all women ask for it, and these irresponsible 13 year old women need to accept personal responsibility for their lifestyle of being force raped, but getting a designated driver is too much for these people!
The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me!

[tuckessee]

36. Modern DUI laws are the creation of neo-prohibitionists.

The founder of MADD quit because the group had been hijacked by fanatical neo-prohibitionists who seek to make any form of alcohol consumption illegal.

[ieoeja]

57. I spoke to a MADD officer once. She was in the Womens Christian Temperance Union.

And said every officer she knew in the organization was in the WCTU.

[hatrack]

82. Wow, so you spoke to this woman once, and she said that such-and-such was true.

I guess that sews it up, then!

[placton]

37. hey for once, this guy it totally correct

the crime is no longer "drunk driving," first of all - that has been replaced with every more expansive defintions, like UBAL (unlawful blood alcohol) which, in MI at least, has NO bottom limit!

next, the programs allows pullovers for DWIB/Y/H/A driving while black, young, hispanic, attractive - the cops are allowed UNLIMITED power to pull anyone over, for looking at them, for not looking at them, for being UNDER the speed limit and dozens of other "clues"

finally, and by not means all, op'g after a drink or 2 is a huuuuuuge money maker for cops and courts and government - they are addicted to this moola!

[unc70]

47. Mostly agree with you, but Montana bill is about repeat offenders

The bill as reported is about a second conviction within a period of time. It would increase the period from 5 to 10 years and significantly increase the penalties. Without knowing a lot more about the Montana laws and this specific bill, I have no idea whether this would be a "good" bill.

I agree that MADD and others are pushing towards zero-tolerance laws and that those give LE to much power and latitude in enforcement. Neo-prohibitionists.

Interesting how the language used has changed over the years. We have gone from "drunk drivers", "don't drive drunk" and "DWI" to "alcohol-related", "don't drink and drive" and DUI.

At first, it was good that everyone became more aware of the risks involved. Those who were already acting fairly responsibly became more careful themselves and more aware wrt their friends. Designated drivers, etc. Little change in the behavior of problem alcoholics.

Since then, this has become a morality debate where any alcohol is too much impairment to drive, and where the "relative or friend killed by a drunk driver" trump card is used to support regulations that are completely unrelated to that example except that it involves alcohol somehow.

Interesting that DU has linked this in as Tea Party issue.

[bongbong]

40. repigs

The love that repigs have for their own crimes is equaled only by their hatred for law-abiding Liberals.

[hedgehog]

46. The real problem is having a culture that says you aren't having a good

time unless everyone is getting shit faced.

[ieoeja]

58. You get shit faced after two beers? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

59. Drunk driving is a way of life?

Did he seriously say this or was he (a) drunk; (b) April-Fooling everyone; or (c) both?

[FLPanhandle]

63. I wonder if he feels the same about Hate Crimes

Wasn't beating up gays a "way of life" once too?

Some "ways of life" deserve to be destroyed.

[Blue_Tires]

68. Hale thinks laws should only apply to 'other people'

I bet dollars to yen one or more of Hales close relatives/influential friends has been dinged multiple times for DUI...That's the only time these supposed 'tough on crime' right wingers want to re-write the law books...

[Judi Lynn]

66. Montana lawmaker's speech perpetuates boozy image

Apr 1, 3:31 PM EDT
Montana lawmaker's speech perpetuates boozy image
By STEPHEN DOCKERY
Associated Press

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- A lawmaker's speech railing against drunken driving reform - mocked mercilessly by political opponents - is no laughing matter to activists who say it perpetuates the state's dangerous boozy culture.

Bar owner Alan Hale said in a speech on the House floor this week that DUI laws are harmful to small businesses, implying people need to drive home after drinking.

Tough DUI laws "are destroying a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years," said the Republican from the rural town Basin, where a few hundred people live near the mountains of the Continental Divide.

Hale's speech was perhaps most surprising for its honesty. Until only recently, Montana had one of the most permissive drunken driving cultures in the country. Montanans could legally sip a beer while driving, and repeat DUI offenders tallied sixth and seventh offenses with little punishment.

More:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DRUNKEN_DRIVING_MONTANA?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://i.dailymail.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/i/pix/2011/03/31/article-1372020-0B6D749600000578-902_468x326.jpg

Rep. Alan Hale
http://rlv.zcache.com.nyud.net:8090/hows_my_driving_call_1_888_bite_me_bumper_sticker-p128810660948720849tmn6_152.jpg

[Ter]

69. He's 100% right

Now I certainly agree that we need drunk driving laws, but the level of what's intoxicated should be dramatically raised. If you can drive without closing one eye, you're not drunk. Spot checks are also blatantly unconstitutional and need to be scrapped.

[RBInMaine]

77. And your analysis is 100% silly. You don't know your science and you don't know your law.

.08 or higher blood alcohol content dramatically impairs driving ability as compared to sober drivers, and random DUI spot checks are entirely constitutional and have been ruled so. This is a public safety issue. No way of life is being destroyed. Want to drink? Go to pubs and one person is the designated driver. Or WALK to the local pub. Or take a cab. If you're in a rural area, one person takes it very light and is the DD. Simple. Give me a break. These are important public safety laws.

[CreekDog]

75. I thought they were "Destroying a way of death"

:eyes:

[hunter]

76. In the old days you'd drink at an Inn.

Before automobiles it was a matter of safety. You didn't want to be out staggering drunk among the highwaymen and footpads.

This should be seen as a business opportunity. A place to drink, and a place to sleep it off. Special rooms with concrete floors and drains for them not holding their drink.

I'll bet some customers would never go home.

[freshwest]

78. Destroying a way of life? Or his bottom line? Give me a break...

[formercia]

81. A way of life, where distance is measured in the number of beers it takes to get there.

:wtf:

[timo]

83. screw that

drinking and driving is a total asshole way of life, people that drink and drive deserve to eat shit!!

[MikeW]

85. the laws arnt strict enough ... 3rd DUI you lose your license forever

[Codeine]

91. 3rd?

You're a lot less draconian than I am! :evilgrin:

[freshwest]

89. I just thought of the perfect solution! STARBUCKS!!!

They can hang out, eat some healthy food, listen to music, talk to all these friends and even get on the internet.

The expresso will improve the safety statistics for the entire state!

There's always a progressive solution to braindead conservatism!

[gtar100]

90. Oh look - another incredibly stupid statement by a republican.

He just had to prove America has it's share of idiots by saying out loud what most people would consider nonsense if they even thought it.

[Jkid]

92. He has the point about the car fact

Why not he proposed expanded public transport or on-call buses that drunks can take after the bars close. We are all fully aware that in rural areas, public transit sucks. Especially on the weekends unless you're willing to pay an arm and a leg for a taxi.