Frisky Rant: When Will People Realize Drunk Driving Kills?

bethlynn00
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 12:37 pm: [report]

Drunk driving is a huge issue in WI.  On the regular there are articles in the paper about people receiving their 8th, 10th, or even 14th DUI or OWI.  Last year they tried to make it that your 3rd DUI would automatically be a felony, but it didn’t pass, probably because several lawmakers in WI have DUI convictions themselves.  As a matter of fact one a couple of years ago crashed a state car on a back road, I’m sure she made sure not to let that one go thru. It’s sad that people lose their lives cause people chose to be idiots and get behind the wheel, stay home or call someone to get you, fuc*kin idiots! I have no sympathy for people who do dumb sh*t.

Jenn27549
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]

Not condoning drunk driving, but it seems both of these women were needlessly reckless in their driving with children in the car, regardless of whether they were intoxicated, and I can’t say for sure they wouldn’t have behaved the same way sober.  Its never OK to drive drunk, but there are plenty of people who make bad decisions while driving sober.

equnsuocha
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 12:51 pm: [report]

My ex brother in law just did the SAME thing with my precious niece!  Drove him drunk off his @ss at 11pm, why the 8yo was still with him is beyond me, in his POS VW Thing, no top, no windshield!!! and no seat belt for my niece.  How is retarded girlfriend allowed him to 1. drive and 2. not suggest a seat belt for the child at the VERY least is beyond me.  CPS in NY put an immediate TPO on him so he can not see her at all.  Now he is guilting the other kids to come see him because they wont go out of respect for their little sister.  All I can say is that man is SERIOULSY lucky nothing happened to that child because I would trade my freedom for his BALLS in a heartbeat had something happened.

spatula
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 12:53 pm: [report]

“And drunk drivers have been killing children in New York City recently”. What are they, zombies? THey just got infected, and now they’re roaming the streets of NYC killing children? No..drunk drivers have been killing children everywhere, always.

@bethlynn: it’s a rare weekend here in VA when we don’t see a legislator in the paper for getting a DUI, as well.

equnsuocha
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 12:54 pm: [report]

I apologize for my horrific spelling and grammar up there but this issue makes me shake with anger.. Oh and being 8 days late and hormone raging isnt helping either LMAO

Humble Bee
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:07 pm: [report]

I despise drunk drivers!! Just last week in L.A this dumbass bitch went into the wrong side of the freeway and killed 2 people,and she survived. It absolutely gets to me that the drunk driver never dies, and almost always kills an innocent person. Same with Nick from the Angels who got killed because of a drunk idiot. He had his whole life and career ahead of him. Its so sad. I also once saw this episode of Oprah and it was a woman telling her story of when a drunk driver crashed her limo on her wedding day and half of her family died in the limo, and one of her nieces head was severed off with the seat belt. It was so traumatizing, even if I have 1 beer, I wont drive. I always give my brother sh*t for driving buzzed, even if its to the corner.

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:17 pm: [report]

First of all, drunk driving happens in a lot of places because of the local laws and lack of public transportation.  For example, it is a big problem in Dallas, where there is essentially nothing to do but drink, shop and watch television, and anywhere you go is at least a 20-minute drive away. 

It is illegal here to sell liquor after 9 p.m., beer and wine after midnight (except on Saturdays, when you can buy it until 1 a.m.), but you can go to a bar and drink whatever you want until 2 a.m.  This encourages people to drink more in bars than at home, as alcohol is more readily available through that channel.  Combine that with extensive suburban sprawl and a near-total lack of public transportation, which forces people to either drive themselves home or pay the outrageous fares cabs are charging these days, and you’ve got a recipe for a problem with drunken driving. 

What’s more, these laws aren’t going to change because DWIs are a massive revenue-generator for local governments.  Nobody in government or law enforcement actually gives a damn about the people getting hurt in alcohol-related accidents, they just want any excuse they can think of to extort yet another buck from the public.

Glamby
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]

Not to split hairs, but a lot of people think that if you’re under .08 you can’t be arrested for operating while intoxicated.  Not true.  In most states there are 2 separate laws.  Operating with a blood alcohol concentration of above .08 (if that’s the limit in the state you’re in) is considered the “per se” offense.  What that means is that you don’t necessarily have to be intoxicated, your BAC just is above .08.  Depending on how you handle your alcohol, you may function just fine at .08.  In fact, I recently had a case where the gentleman was a heavy drinker and he tested at .12.  But he wasn’t intoxicated. He just had a BAC above the legal limit.

On the flip side, the other law (again, your state may vary) is simply operating while intoxicated and there’s no legal definition (depending on state) for intoxication.  Some people are intoxicated at .04, .08, or it may take more and be .12 as was the case for the guy above.  I’ve also had a case where a lady tested .06 but she was slurring her words, unable to maintain her balance, stumbling, etc.  She was a light drinker and was intoxicated, even though she wasn’t at .08.  If you’re intoxicated (and showing signs of intoxication due to alcohol or another stubstance), it doesn’t matter what the breath test reads, you can still be arrested, and convicted of operating while intoxicated. 

The moral of the story is don’t drink and drive, period.  Even if you don’t end up in a tragic accident, the consequences on your driving record and potential to screw up future employment chances is not worth it.

GreenAura
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]

My best friend and her mother were killed by a drunk driver when I was 11.  My friend was decapitated as her body flew through the windsheild.  She wasn’t wearing a seatbelt because their vehicle had been stolen 2 weeks prior to the accident.  When the police recovered it, the vehicle was completely stripped of everything, including seatbelts.  Her sister’s injuries included a head injury, a broken pelvis, 2 broken arms and a broken leg.  The drunk driver walked away with ZERO injuries.  Ironically, he lived just 2 houses down from them.  He got 2 years in prison for vehicular manslaughter.

This is what I think about every time I consider driving home while even slightly intoxicated.  Stops me dead in my tracks!

joyy
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:36 pm: [report]

You don’t see why people with other options available (something non-metropolitan america lacks, btw, there is life west of the Hudson you know) still drive drunk?  Really?  Do you have no concept of how inebriated individuals often lose the capacity to make sound decisions?  Please.

Drunk driving happens everywhere, it isn’t suddenly a problem now that bloggers notice it’s become more frequent and tragic in NYC.  Get your head out of the sand.

elizabethmarley
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]

Ever since I’ve been drinking, I’ve lived in a city. I never even had an opportunity to drive drunk because I’d take the subway or a cab everywhere.

A few months ago, while my friends and I were visiting family in the suburbs, we decided to go out dancing. We got all kinds of drunk and when the bars closed we realized none of us were sober enough to drive, but since the suburbs are spread out a cab would be ridiculously expensive. We ended up sobering up in a diner for 3 hours.

I have no idea what people who live in the suburbs do when they go out. I guess that’s why drunk driving is so common.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]

lack of public transportation isnt causing people to drive drunk…  being a moron causes someone to drive drunk.  and im sure there are plenty of people in law enforcement who give a damn about people.  like my aunt, my grandfather, or hopefully in the next year, myself.  CMun ur usually a decent poster, but u came off as pretty ignorant with that one.  u dont like cops?  does that mean they dont care about people?

Squidtermz
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:00 pm: [report]

The drunk drivers never get hurt because theyre bodies go limp and don’t tense up. and drunk drivers never realize theyre out of control ... because therye @!#%@%in drunk!

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:05 pm: [report]

Cops are completely worthless, state-sanctioned thugs in my view.  I’ve nothing but contempt for the vast majority of them.  Their only functions are to intimidate and extort the public. 

My own experiences with their utter ineptitude in dealing with actual crimes and their ruthless efficiency at pursuing offenses punishable by fines initially led me to this outlook.  But it was reinforced when I became friendly acquaintances with a few officers, and heard them telling stories about the ways in which their fellow officers abuse their power. 

If you don’t agree with my assessment, fine.  Prove me wrong and be a good cop.  And by good cop, I mean don’t you dare let other cops get away with incompetence or abuse of their authority.

bumbler
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:10 pm: [report]

@elizabethmarley I live in the suburbs right outside of a small city with limited public transportation.  When we go out we plan ahead and carpool deciding beforehand who will be the driver.  That doesn’t mean the driver doesn’t have any drinks but s/he doesn’t get drunk or even buzzed.  That’s just how we do it, most people I know operate the same way or if they’re planning on having a blow-out night they all go in together and rent a hotel room downtown.  It does require more foresight, planning and restraint than a city with public transportation.  All things young 20-somethings are known for right?

bethlynn00
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:30 pm: [report]

Lack of transportation, being in surburbia and restriction on how liquor is sold are bs excuses for drunk driving.  Seriously, if you know you are going to go out drinking then plan how you are going to get home, BEFORE YOU START DRINKING! Seriously, how hard is that? You can’t sell liquor in WI after 9pm either, but bar time is 2am, so freaking find a designated driver, call a cab, call a friend, get on bus, something. Better yet you have two legs, walk off some of that liquor, call a friend, a family member, there really is no excuse for anyone, anywhere to get behind the wheel of a car and risk your life or others cause you are an un-inventive, ignorant, backwards a**hole!  WI has a lot of rural areas, but there are cabs that will drive out into the boonies to pick people up and honestly if you can’t afford a cab ride, you can’t afford to go out to a bar an drink all night.  Besides it’s cheaper to go an buy liquor at the store then to go drink diluted ones at the bar, so stay at home! No excuses, just don’t be a fu**in jerk and don’t do dumb sh*t and put others at risk.  Plain and simple.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]

Some states it’s legal to drink and drive in:
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15435

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 02:46 pm: [report]

Lack of transportation, being in surburbia and restriction on how liquor is sold are bs excuses for drunk driving. 

BS or not, those are the reasons it happens.  Not excuses for doing it.  If you want drunk driving to stop, you have to be willing to attack the problem from every possible angle.  Calling people jerks doesn’t change a damn thing.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:02 pm: [report]

CMun u seem pretty sure that drunk driving is caused by external issues, and not internal ones.  i think a lot of us disagree.

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:05 pm: [report]

CMun u seem pretty sure that drunk driving is caused by external issues, and not internal ones.  i think a lot of us disagree.

Ultimately, it is always the individual’s choice to drive while intoxicated.  I understand that.  What I want y’all to understand is that individual choices are often influenced to a large degree by external factors.

SouthOC
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:08 pm: [report]

@C.Munro:  Drunk driving is caused by the “it’ll never happen to me” mentality.  Unfortunately, they’re dead wrong.

As far as lack of public transportation is concerned, if they’re adults, they can make their own plans for a designated driver… poor excuse.

equnsuocha
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:11 pm: [report]

A reason for something is not always an excuse, and those may be factors but the real “reason” is the person is a selfish a-hole who doesnt deserve the decency you would show a rat IMO.  Plan ahead get a designated, drink at home, or walk your lazy ass somewhere but as someone pointed out if you can’t afford to get home safely via cab, then consider how expenisive driving yourself will be if you manage to kill someone along the way.  If money is your motivation TO drive drunk, the cost of doing it is WAY higher than not!

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:14 pm: [report]

For the last time, I’m not making excuses.  I do not drive while intoxicated myself, and I’m not at all trying to justify this behavior. 

But saying something is a poor excuse, once again, does not eliminate the pattern of undesirable behavior.  And if you think personal responsibility alone is enough to alter behavior, well, I don’t agree.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]

if i dont have a DD or cab money (its $40 or so to get back home) i just dont drink…

writergirl
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:15 pm: [report]

We got hit by a drunk driver almost three years ago now.  It was the middle of a Sunday afternoon…we were just stopped at a red light and he blew through the intersection and somehow lost control of the car, t-boning us.

There but for the Grace of God we weren’t hurt.  Our car got pushed over the curb, and the wheels bent under, stabilizing the car.  If they hadn’t we would have rolled down the hill and most likely me and my son would be dead.

This wasn’t the guy’s first offense either, but there are no really tough laws for repeat offenders and taking their license away doesn’t work.  They don’t care and drive anyway.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:17 pm: [report]

im a big fan of making multiple DUI/DWI’s felonies.  I have a relative who had had 6.  Still drinks.  Still drives.  Not sure if he drinks and drives, but it wouldnt shock me.

SouthOC
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:22 pm: [report]

In California, the law is .08 It’s pretty easy to reach that level without being stumbling drunk.

What chaps my ass, however, are the people who get multiples.  One of my brother-in-law attorneys told me about a client who while awaiting trial for one DUI, got another.  This in my opinion is the definition of a dumb ass who isn’t capable of learning from his mistakes.

equnsuocha
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:23 pm: [report]

Tha man who made the largest Megabucks winner at that point a quadrapalegic and killed her sister had, had 13 count ‘em 13 DUI’s in the previous 10years because Clark County NV is more interested in your $$$ than justice.

@C.Munro I was actually defending you lol

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:26 pm: [report]

@equnsuocha:  Sorry for the misunderstanding.  I just wanted it to be clear that I was not defending the drunken drivers.

MuchoMacho
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:32 pm: [report]

most people dont realize how easy it is to reach the legal limit…  im 5’11 240 lbs and if i drink 2 cocktails in an hour im over for another hour.

spatula
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:41 pm: [report]

I think C.Munro has a point. Obviously the responsibility lies with the person who makes the choice to drink and drive, but which do you honestly think is more likely to happen, or to work: getting everyone in the world to agree to stop being #&@$% and driving drunk? OR changing their access to public transportation and access to alcohol so that it is less necessary and less convenient for people to drink and drive?

Lexington
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 03:49 pm: [report]

@C.Munro- I completely agree with you. I live in Dallas (too, I guess?) and it is ridiculous how many times my friends drive drunk just because there is no other way to get home- not only are cabs ridiculously expensive, you have to actually call for one to come pick you up.

If I go out with my friends, I tend to be the DD, or go with someone who I know won’t be drinking. And you’re right (just for everyone here who isn’t from Texas) it is almost impossible to go somewhere without driving. No one walks any place because either it’s A) Too hot and if you walk to someplace further than down the block you’ll pass out from heat stroke or B) Too cold (there is no in between) and C) There is no good public transportation in Dallas- you can get on the bus with the creepers and rapists and dirt or you can get on the Dart rail which is like the bus but with slightly less dirt and it only goes two places. And @bethlynoo- you really can’t walk anywhere in Dallas. I have to get on the highway just to get anywhere further than the grocery store. Which is two+ miles away. I’m not excusing people, I’m just following up on C.Munro’s explanation.

I would love to have more convenient transportation, but unfortunately, the Texas soil is not able to support a subway system. Our roads are under constant construction due to the fact that they break down approximately every five years. And a lot of Dallas people have the specific me-mindset- you would catch a bunch of my friends on the bus on a cold day in hell- I’m not knocking Dallas, it’s my home and I love it, but there are specific things you have to be aware of. If it tells you anything, there was an article a few years back called the $30,000 millionare about how Dallas up-and-coming like to live beyond their means, and going out and partying is a big way of them making themselves feel better.

But you will never, never, never catch me driving if I’ve had more than one beer- I won’t put other people in danger and I have zero desire to have a DWI on my record!

joyy
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 04:02 pm: [report]

@lexington - Dallas gets “too cold”?  lmao - that’s adorable. 

I’m totally with you on public transportation though.  I live in a small town now where I can bike or walk, but where I grew up, there was only transportation from one little town to the next with no real usable infrastructure since a lot of people lived in the sticks and had to drive everywhere for that reason.

C.Munro
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]

@Lexington:  Yes, I’m in the Addison area.  Even worse, huh? 

I’d add “D) you will probably be run over by somebody in a car” to that list.  DFW is, for the most part, remarkably pedestrian-unfriendly. 

Oh, and the Dart rail quits running after midnight, too.  Which makes it a lot less useful for those who want to get home safely with a buzz.  And now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bus that late either. 

I forgot about the cabs.  Yeah, they’re not lined up outside the bar waiting for you, or even prowling the streets looking for fares.  You have to call them and wait anywhere from 30 minutes to more than an hour for them to pick you up. 

A whole lot of my friends here have DWIs.  It’s almost as common as having hair here.  And while I don’t agree with their behavior, I can see why it’s my friends in DFW who have this problem and not my friends in Austin (where it’s a lot easier to walk to places) or in Ventura County, Calif., (where you can buy any kind of alcohol you want at a grocery store, 24/7/365).

_jsw_
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 04:23 pm: [report]

I fully back C.Munro’s comments. Yes, it’s ultimately the individual’s decision to drive while intoxicated - and to get intoxicated prior to having an alternate way home - but society definitely shares the responsibility in making it easy to get drunk in public, hard to get home from bars (in many but not all areas), and relatively easy to continue getting arrested for DUI without serving much if any jail time (until you kill someone).

There are a lot of young and/or reckless and/or stupid and/or self-centered individuals out there. To claim it’s all their fault might be true enough but it doesn’t bring back the people killed by them, like my cousin and like my niece’s 8-year-old schoolmate. If we truly felt that people were always responsible, we wouldn’t need laws, we wouldn’t need speed limits, etc.

Almost all people tend to be idiots, at least on occasion, and it’s better to recognize that fact ahead of time and make it easier for them to be idiots in less life-threatening ways than it is to point fingers afterwards and cash in on the DUI tickets as we scrape someone’s child off the pavement.

nikkialli
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 04:59 pm: [report]

Thinking about drunk driving makes me ill. I know so many people my age who do it for no reason, they have a place to stay, they have people to call. It’s disgusting.

If you’re going to drink and not have a way back, stumble home.

equnsuocha
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 05:03 pm: [report]

@C.Munro no worries, I used to go through the reason/excuses agruement on a daily basis with an old boss of mine.  A reason is sometimes just that a reason and not neccessarily an excuse. 

Obviously many of us have done it at least once and I feel the .08 limit is a bit low, sent that low to generate revenue for cities/states/counties, especially for someone who is a regular wine drinker but weighs 100lbs, 2 glasses of wine in 90 min will not cloud their judgement but it will make them blow over.  My issue is with people who are driving more than buzzed, more than drunk with .13+ BACs.  There is no reason or excuse for that aside from sheer stupidity and narcissism.  If you are grown up enough to drink alchohol you should be responsible enough not to risk SOMEONE ELSE’S life for your convenience.

txninmn
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 05:51 pm: [report]

@equnsuocha - .08 does seem low; alcohol, as with any drug, produces different effects on each person’s brain. Yet I can also understand the necessity of setting the limit lower in order to account for those people who have (and lack self-awareness of their) low tolerances.

@lexington & @cmunro - I’m from North Dallas/Plano (now in Minneapolis) and I couldn’t agree more - the culture and civic planning, or lack thereof - is quite nearly asking you to drink & drive. (For the record, public transport is only marginally better up here in the Twin Cities.) I don’t know what the quick solution is, but it’s not as if people just suddenly started drinking. It’s surprising to me that civic planners don’t take the DUI aspect of public safety into mass-transit planning - I’d gladly hop on a train from an evening out in Dallas back up to my sister’s house in McKinney when I visit - but it’s not an option.

Coral
wrote on October 29 2009 @ 08:40 pm: [report]

Ultimately there are many, many reasons why people drive drunk. One of the common reasons is that some people view themselves as ‘immortal’ and that it will never happen to them. As stupid as it sounds, other reasons are because some people are too cheap to take a cab and assume they are alright, or that no one will be a designated driver because all of the people involved want to drink.

spatula
wrote on October 30 2009 @ 09:02 am: [report]

@_jsw_ FTMFW

Lexington
wrote on October 31 2009 @ 07:38 am: [report]

@Joyy- well, to me it gets cold But really, temperatures do drop pretty drastically, and it tends to be windy and rainy and most people don’t have proper winter clothing, and there’s approximately one snowfall a year (I firmly believe that the only reason for cold weather is snow), and when you’re used to higher temperatures from mid-Aprilish to… well, it was 80 degrees two days ago, but next month that’s going to drop, about 40 degrees all at once- people don’t like walking around outside in that.

@C.Munro- nice. And I second the pedestrian thing and double it for people on bikes, but that’s probably just me. I hate people on bikes in the middle of the road.

joyy
wrote on October 31 2009 @ 10:15 am: [report]

@lexington - I know what you mean, I meant it in fun - Texas has a special little place in my heart.

EastCoastMale
wrote on November 2 2009 @ 10:36 am: [report]

I think it is time we start implementing cold, callous punishments with regard to people who drive drunk. 1 DUI and you should get your license taken for 10 years in my opinion. Suspensions of licenses and these other half measures are not doing the job and people don’t care partly because, in my opinion, they know that the penalties while severe can be skirted and/or they can manage until they get their licenses back. If you hit a car while driving drunk and kill someone, I say break out the death penalty and don’t wait years and years for the legal system. The person you killed didn’t get the luxury of time and neither should you.

BlueVibe
wrote on November 2 2009 @ 11:54 am: [report]

I’ve never actually lost a friend or family member to a drunk driver, but I’ve had some that were very badly injured.  One was rear-ended by a guy driving drunk at 7:30 in the morning—yes, you read that right—and had her car shoved under a semi trailer.  Her seat collapsed or she would have been crushed from the shoulders up.  (Her legs were mangled instead, which was obviously better but still involved multiple surgeries, months of rehab, and probably permanent pain and some degree of disability).

I really don’t have any humor about it.  If you kill somebody while driving drunk, you’re a murderer, as far as I’m concerned, and should be treated as such.  I don’t care if you are technically incapable of making the decision to kill: You weren’t drunk when you started the evening without a plan to get home safely.  People who get multiple DUI’s and refuse to stop ought to be locked up to protect the rest of us who aren’t careless morons.

Perceptible
wrote on November 2 2009 @ 01:25 pm: [report]

Once a driver is caught driving drunk, they should lose their license PERMANENTLY. As in FOREVER. They should never get a second chance to kill someone. They should also have a permanent record of the DWI which employers should be allowed to use to not hire someone. And if a drunk driver kills someone, life in prison should be the ONLY sentence. Without extremely harsh punishments, anyone dumb enough to attempt to drive under the influence won’t get the message. The people who get the message are people who are not dumb or egotistical enough to drive under the influence in the first place.

This topic makes my blood boil. I refuse to be friends or acquaintances with ANYONE who has or would consider driving while buzzed or under the influence. That simply would not be the type of person I would want to know.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 2 2009 @ 01:46 pm: [report]

*Yawn* Everyone would be off the roads if it was decided that all distractions would make you lose your license. Applying makeup, shaving (Ive seen it), reading the newspaper, texting, talking on the phone (even hands free is still detrimental to driving), eating….

EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:02 pm: [report]

CheeeEEEse

Are you calling driving buzzed/drunk a distraction or referring to a post elsewhere that I’m not aware of…

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:08 pm: [report]

@ECM: Just referencing a study that texting is more dangerous while driving than getting behind the wheel drunk.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/texting-is-more-dangerous-than-driving-drunk/

EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]

Oh I am sure both are pretty damn dangerous. One is a crime nationally and one isn’t. Both are stupid behavior and driving drunk should make you a pedestrian the rest of your life without you having a choice. Not you personally CheeeEEEse, the general you.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:30 pm: [report]

Wow, I’m my own generalized meme now. Thanks.

EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]

no prob bob =)

Riley
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:35 pm: [report]

The only way we can implement this draconian punishment system is to employ Judges.  We’ll need Stallone for sure, maybe Armand Assante.

retro chic
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 01:59 pm: [report]

Agreed with bethlynn00, Perceptible, ECM, MM, nikki, et al.
I find these rationalizations in the name of “gray areas” or societal blame or regional inconveniences wholly offensive and objectionable. Do understand the difference between right and wrong – rights and privileges.
Driving is a privilege.
Drinking is a privilege.
Do not confuse them with rights.
Laws lag behind necessary behavior controls, ie, they don’t determine them, but are a reaction to known preventable crimes and “accidents.” I say increase fines, license revocations and jailtime – and plan ahead for your beer-buying and bar-trolling nights better. Take personal responsibility.

@CheeeeEEEEse: Arnold caught sh*t out here for not outlawing texting when he banned hand-held mobile phone calls after the largest train collision in our (CA’s) history. He sped legislation thru 2 weeks later to ban that – too little, too late. His poli-cred is less than zero and unelectable.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

@retro chic: Maria Shriver got busted the same week he signed that bill too I think.

retro chic
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]

@CheeeeEEEEse, believe it or not, the texting law was in effect for over 8 months when she was snapped not once, but three times talking on her cell while driving. Arrogant, both of them! Her only punishment: going on the Today show to apologize and declare her donation of her old phone to a charity with assurances of obtaining a hands-free device. If hair could pull itself out.

EastCoastMale
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:44 pm: [report]

A celebrity gets spotlight instead of punishment after breaking a law….can’t say I’m shocked.

retro chic
wrote on November 3 2009 @ 02:47 pm: [report]

Here in LA, I’m shocked when they don’t.