Conference back40::soapbox

	I will lay money on a mad mother anyday.

    
    
    I'll drink to that!

    Another reason to bet on a Mad Mother--the drunks will have diminished
    reflexes.

    
    MADD = Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
    
    DAMM = Drunks Against Mad Mothers

    I'm very impressed with buck's lack of apostrophes 8^) 8^) 8^).

    Mad Moms have the courage of their convictions to keep them going, and
    drunks don't, because Mad Moms know that what they are doing is right,
    but drunk drivers haven't figured out that they are wrong...
    
    which is why the Moms are mad in the first place!
    
    M.
    

    But laws are getting ridiculous these days.  Pretty soon, if you have
    one beer and get behind the wheel, the state will be able to revoke
    your license and auction off your car.
    
    Common sense is needed when you create new laws and punishments.
    
    -steve

    MADD mothers are NOT right.
    
    MADD mothers don't give a squat about individual rights and the
    concept of innocent until proven guilty.
    
    Mark.

    Are you telling me victims have no individual rights?   That they and
    their families have no right to justice?  Or is the right to consume
    alchohol the only one that counts?  I don't agree with everything that
    is happening with drunk driving laws, but I do agree that society
    cannot continue to consider it a crime without a criminal; there are
    simply too many victims!
    
    Look, I drink, I drive.  I combined the two in my stupid youth.  I just
    don't anymore.  I had a friend who was killed by a drunk driver, rear
    ended while riding his motorcycle in broad daylight.  The guy was so
    far gone, he did even know he had hit anything, but swore he'd had only
    one beer.  Since his blood tested out at .37 alchohol, he must be one
    lousy drinker.  Either that, or his beer was seriously spiked.
    
    On the other hand, my husband was nearly arrested for drunk driving
    about 18 months ago, (I mentioned this in a previous topic somewhere)
    based upon a roadside test.  He failed it miserably, because he has a
    service-connected knee/back/hip injury.  He can't stand on one foot
    stone cold sober, and hasn't been able to walk the line as long as I've
    known him.  Considering this, the officers involved were most
    disappointed to discover that his breath tested at .07, with .08 or
    better being legally drunk in Calif.  The area between .03 (!?) and 
    .07 (3 beers consumed over 3 hours, with 2 hours of soft drinks following,
    in my hubby's case) is neither drunk nor sober.  The officers can swear 
    out a complaint, but they cannot arrest and charge you.  The DA has to 
    decide to press charges.  In hubby's case, they decided to charge 
    him with an illegal right hand turn, instead.  However, I was more 
    than startled to learn that, in Calif., you *could* conceivably be charged 
    with a DUI after consuming (2) teaspoons of your favorite
    over-the-counter cough medicine!
    
    I will agree that the drunk driving laws can be difficult for those of
    us who are limited or moderate social drinkers, but, on the other hand,
    isn't using a designated driver or taking a taxi a lot better than
    risking lives, including your own?  And, if the laws are not strict,
    how are we to catch and/or discourage those who *are* stupid and
    abusive?
    
    M.

	The thing that bothers me about the DD laws is this. If the law states
that you should not be allowed to drive if your alcohol level is .1+, then
ANYTHING below that level will mean NOTHING should happen, PERIOD. In the state 
of MA, when it was at .1, if you were .05+, you went to court. They just weren't
allowed to say you passed or failed the breathelizer test. To me this is 
absolutely STUPID. IF you want .05 to be the level, then set it at .05. I have
a friend this happened to and it cost a lot of money for something that is
legal.


Glen

    <- It was at the officer's discretion for a court appearance. 
    
       Your BAC is always available to you... They don't volunteer it,
       you have to ask for it.
    
       Chip

    Read the Statute.  BAC = Blood Alcohol Content.  Period.
    
    And they got your breath?  Had any mouthwash, tooth paste, cough
    syrup today boy?  This is why the statute reads BAC (and has some
    rules and other findings about how the breathalyzer is ok to use,
    sorta, usually).
    
    > Your BAC is always available to you... They don't volunteer it,
    > you have to ask for it.
    
    So you must prove your innocense.  Think about it, the state can't
    legally stick a needle into your body, and I sure as hell ain't gonna
    for the sake of proving my innoncense.
    
    Glens friend spent a fortune, because the state "has the ability"
    to extract money from people due to a machine whose precision only
    goes to the hundredth of grams, which "conviniently" is what the
    statute reads (actually vice versa).
    
    What I'm trying to say is (in Georgia the statute limit is .08)
    That's all the machine reads out to .08, .09, .07.
    
    .080 +/-  .001   One THOUSANDTH of a gram 
    = .079 and the difference between $$$$$$$/jail or vindication.
    
    It's a Farce.   
      

    
    in kaliph i believe you have a choice between the BAC and the
    breath analyser.
    
    i find it hard to believe that people will drink anything before
    driving and put themselves in a position to be in violation if
    they have a cough medicine for the road in addition to anything 
    else they may have imbibed.

    .13
    
    bac is invasive and unacceptable.  breathalyzer can be fooled into
    reporting a positive by something as innocuous as monosodium glutamate. 
    meaning, of course, don't eat at a chinese resto and then drive home.

    
    but usually, one doesn't get attention from the nice officer
    without some evidence of impairment, such as bobbing and
    weaving in the traffic lane.
    
     

    >but usually, one doesn't get attention from the nice officer
    >without some evidence of impairment, such as bobbing and
    >weaving in the traffic lane.
    
    
    ...but some of us do this normally!

isn't DAM mothers against dyslexia? why is it in a drinking string?


:-}

       <<< Note 161.9 by SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA "Blondes have more Brains!" >>>
                         -< Victims have no rights?? >-
    
    Please take a breath and re-read .8.
    
    I drink. I drive.  When I drink, I don't drive and vice-versa.
    
    Please don't propose laws that assume that I'm guilty unless I prove
    otherwise (roadblocks. pass breathalyzer, etc.). 
    
    I said nothing about rights of the victims.  Your reference is simply a
    red herring.
    
    Mark.

    First up, drinking and driving is irresponsible behavior.  Ok...
    
    If a 210# man drinks 2 beers in an hour, what is his bac?
    If a 100# man drinks 2 beers in an hour, what is his bac?
    If a 150# man takes a shot of 80proof whiskey, what is his bac?
    
    If any of the above 3 situations were repeated, but checked via a 
    breathalyer, the little paper will report flawed results.  Especially
    if a short period of time has elapsed.  Does the guy driving the 
    machine enter your weight into this box anywhere?  I don't think so.
    Anyone have data/opinions on this?   

    re: .9
    
    .37?! I'm suprised the guy could even talk seeing how you are supposed
    to die at .40.......

	I hate having a mad mother after I've been driving drunk %^(






















	Just kidding..............I hate having a mad mother period..%^(

| <<< Note 161.21 by GMT1::TEEKEMA "Tangerine Dream." >>>


| Just kidding..............I hate having a mad mother period..%^(


	With you as a kid I don't wonder....

	I never thought of that, it would explain a LOT..........

    
    if MADD is the driving force behind the proscecution of the woman
    whose _drunken husband_ killed himself and their two daughters in an 
    automobile accident (its her fault because she didn't stop him from
    driving), i think they are a bunch of power-hungry whackos. 
    
    bill

 I believe the mother is being blamed for allowing her children to go with
 this man whom she knew had a history of drunk driving and whom she knew
 had been drinking at the time.  The man had one of the children activate
 breathe into the gizmo that allowed the car to start, aware of the fact that
 had he done so the thing probably would have melted.



 Jim

    According to the newspaper reports, the woman spent the 2 or 3 days
    immediately before the accident, drinking with the man (her
    ex-husband).  As .25 said, she let them go with him knowing that he
    would have to have one of the kids do the breath test for him.
    
    If all of this turns out to be true, she deserves to be in deep brown
    stuff.
    
    Bob

    
    .26
    
    agreed.  if it went down as described in the news report on one of
    the networks, she would be guilty of reckless endangerment.  however,
    she's being prosecuted for either manslaughter or homicide.  the man
    was a repeat dui offender, and a judge decided to let him drive with
    this easily defeated gizmo hooked up to his car.  in my mind it is 
    like releasing a habitual arsonist back into society after giving him
    a five gallon can of gasoline and taking away his lighter, then blaming
    survivors of the next building he torches for not stopping him.  if
    the do-gooders want to harass someone, they should go after the judge
    who decided it was safe for him to drive.
    
    
        bill 

    So, DAMM is mad at MADD and MADD is damn tired of DAMM. They complement 
    each other quite well.
    
    

Is the result of a breathalyzer run admissable as irrefutable evidence of
DUI anywhere, or is a blood test BAC required for that? My younger sister
works in a hospital med lab. She says that most of their business on Friday
and Saturday nights is taking samples for the cops from suspects on their
way to the drunk tank. They often are called into court to testify regarding
the samples and results in cases where a defense is mounted, so at least in
that jurisdiction, the Breathalyzer isn't admissable in court..

    A new salvo in the war against drunk drivers...already taken their
    license?  take their car.  From today's SF Chronicle.
    
    DougO
    -----
    Unlicensed Drivers Face Car Seizure / 
    Harsher punishments go into effect Sunday 


    David Dietz, Chronicle Staff Writer 

    Police in California will have a New Year's jolt for people caught
    driving  without licenses: Say good- by to your car for a while -- and
    perhaps forever. 

    The toughest state laws in the country aimed at illegal drivers go into
    effect  Sunday, the legislative response to hundreds of accidents every
    year in which people have  been killed or seriously injured by
    motorists with suspended licenses or no licenses  at all. 

    Under two measures signed by Governor Wilson in September, lawmakers
    bypassed proposals to raise fines for offenders in favor of an approach
    that has  apparently succeeded in scattered localities -- seizing
    violators' cars. 

    The state Department of Motor Vehicles estimates that more than 1
    million  unlicensed drivers, out of a total driver population of 20
    million, regularly get behind  the wheel. With so many unlicensed
    drivers flouting the law, some state officials expect the  strict new
    laws to have widespread fallout. 

    ``When you start seizing cars, people are going to be in an uproar,''
    said DMV  researcher David DeYoung. ``This is going to take a lot of
    people by surprise.'' 

    Until now, police could confiscate an offender's car, but they could
    hold it  only until a friend or relative with a valid license showed
    up. The new laws increase the  punishment dramatically, even extending
    it to people who knowingly allow unlicensed drivers  to use their cars. 

    Among major provisions of the new laws: 

    -- People caught driving for the first time with a suspended license or
    with no  license face arrest and 30-day impoundment of their cars.
    After towing and storage  charges and administrative penalties,
    impoundment charges could exceed $1,000. 

    -- In perhaps the harshest step of the crackdown, offenders with a
    record of  illegal driving convictions face permanent seizure of their
    cars. The autos will be sold  at auction, the proceeds defraying
    towing, storage and administrative costs. 

    -- Unlicensed drivers nabbed for the second time within five years no
    longer  will be able to avoid jail. A judge previously could waive a
    10-day jail sentence. Now, the  sentence will be mandatory. 

    -- People who knowingly lend their cars to unlicensed drivers face
    prosecution,  a minimum fine of $300 and possibly jail. The step was
    taken to keep offenders  whose cars have been confiscated from
    continuing to drive with borrowed vehicles. 

    The new laws were written by state Senator Quentin Kopp, a San
    Francisco independent, and Los Angeles Assemblyman Richard Katz, a
    Democrat, in response  to a 1993 Chronicle report on the perils of
    unlicensed driving. 

    The Chronicle found tens of thousands of motorists, including convicted
    drunken  drivers, who had been caught time and again driving without
    licenses, some as many as 15  times. Unlicensed drivers are involved in
    four times as many fatal accidents as  licensed drivers and caused one
    in five traffic deaths in San Francisco in 1993, the report  showed. 

    Police expect the laws to produce accelerated impoundments at first but
    believe  that the more stringent punishment will ultimately curtail
    illegal driving. Driver  resistance could lead to court tests of the
    new laws, although similar crackdowns in communities  in California and
    Oregon have withstood legal challenges thus far. 

    Santa Rosa police have been fighting unlicensed driving for more than a
    year  with a special impoundment program, and they say their effort has
    helped reduce the  number of accidents by as much as 50 percent. Police
    Chief Sal Rosano predicted that Santa Rosa's impoundment rate would
    double under the new laws -- to 2,800 cars a year  -- if illegal
    drivers do not get the message. 

    San Francisco, like Santa Rosa, embarked on its own crackdown before
    state  officials acted. Using $1 million in grants, police have been
    looking for unlicensed  drivers at random roadblocks, and a special
    prosecutor has been named to bolster the city's  low rate of
    convictions for unlicensed driving. 

    ``If your license is suspended, the message is `do not drive,' '' said
    the  prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Angela Brown. ``I can't
    make it any simpler than  that.'' 

    First-time offenders usually pay about $300 in court fines and now also
    will be  faced with stiff impoundment fees. 

    Under Katz's measure, cars driven by repeat violators will be sold
    within 60  days. Drivers can appeal at hearings, but only vehicles
    owned by employers or held as  community property are potentially
    exempt from sale. 

    .30
    
    And what happens when one's license is stolen and you're pulled over? 
    The way I read the law, its no excuses, Sister!  You better have 
    SOMEONE ELSE DRIVE you to DMV for the replacement.
    
    

    
    about an hour ago, i tied a red ribbon to my door handle...
    
    
    and i always thought that you had 24 hours to provide a valid driver's
    license if you do not have one on you at time of being pulled over...
    
    

    .32
    
    Not in California after January 1.

    	Progress!

    .30
    
    Very interesting; unlicensed drivers are involved in 4 times as
    many fatal accidents as licensed drivers.  Duh, didn't it ever
    occur to anyone before that if these wingnuts had learned to drive
    properly, they would be legally licensed (or are most of the un-
    licensed drivers in that situation because of DUIs etc.)?
    
    

    Unlicensed drivers comes from many venues.  I'd be curious as to what %
    makes up what category.  My guess those who have lost their licenses
    legally.
    

    And you americans poo poo us for our draconian laws. Boy.
    
    Glenn

    a coupla months ago I got stopped on my way into work (NH) and was
    stopped. Just so happened I had lost my license while cycling the day
    before. I offered up my LTC, he took it, ran me, came back, told me
    to slow down a little, and I was outa there!
    
    My kinda state... take a pistol permit and send you on your way!
    
    Chip

     Unlicensed doesn't mean you left it home; it means you do not hold a
    valid driver's license.
    
     This law is a good idea so long as only cars actually owned by
    unlicensed drivers are confiscated.

    .39
    
    That's the rub... it will effect licensed drivers who don't have their
    license on them for whatever the reason.

    .30> -- People who knowingly lend their cars to unlicensed drivers
    > face prosecution,  a minimum fine of $300 and possibly jail. The step
    > was taken to keep offenders  whose cars have been confiscated from
    > continuing to drive with borrowed vehicles. 
    
    any problem with this part, Mark?
    
    DougO

     If you know someone is unlicensed and you allow them to use your car,
    then you are enabling them to commit a crime. It's essentially the same
    thing as allowing someone to use anything else you own for criminal
    purposes. Like loaning an underage friend your driver's license so they
    can illegally obtain alcohol.

    re: Note 161.35 by DECLNE::REESE
    
    > I wouldn't mind seeing this implemented in Ga.
    
    I would. 
    
    .30 is interesting, yet concerning.  They talk about anyone without
    a license is a criminal (or an assumed drunk who lost his priviledge
    to operate a motor vehicle)... yet, you can still use an automobile 
    without having state approval. (notice the drastic attempt at shutting
    that down - even more usurpation of unalienable rights)
    
    Let me break this down a little simpler.  We see some brewing interest
    in parental licensing... ah, no biggie, you say.  I'm an ok parent.
    Well, what if you tell your master to blow their license out of their 
    arse... do you lose your kids?  I won't.  This is the same deal.
    
    You want to set an example?  You want to clean up the carnage?
    Hang the 1st hundred SOB's that plow into someone (fatally) while all lit 
    up.  If you only get into a fender bender, you can sit in the pokey for
    a couple weeks. That should fix the problem without destroying 
    individual freedom.  I'm absolutely sick and tired of government
    intervention in my life.  My "license" will soon be a letter from
    Sam Nunn, Paul Coverdele and Nathan Deal.  My automobile will be
    lawfully converted into PRIVATE property.  The penalty for anyone
    who has ideas of molesting me while travelling will be clearly
    identified in my paperwork. 
    
    Look up the definition of "license" in a law dictionary prior to
    jumping to feel good conclusions.
    
    MadMike

    re: Note 161.42 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE
    
    > If you know someone is unlicensed and you allow them to use your car,
    > then you are enabling them to commit a crime. It's essentially the
    > same thing as allowing someone to use anything else you own for
    > criminal purposes.
    
    Think this over.  I hate wine.  I sucessfully push for legislation that 
    says anyone who has XX bottles (aka like a wine celler) is considered
    a stocking dealer, or an outright criminal.  You can, however, obtain
    a license to possess that amount of wine, for say.... $150/year.
    Penalty for failing to obtain a license means you may forfeit your house.
    
    Do you:
    A). Pay extortion money to the tune of $150/year, "because it's the law"?
    B). Stop collecting wine because you can't afford it?
    C). Tell the government to GTF OUTTA MY BUSINESS! 
    
    Think of what the definition of "criminal" is over the holiday.  At one
    time, it was easy to identify a criminal.  They were the ones hurting
    people or stealing other peoples stuff.  Today, it could be anything.
                                                                    

    Mike,
    
    I know your feelings make sense to you, but I'm coming from a 
    different place on the unlicensed driver.  Two days after Thanksgiving
    my sister and her husband were creamed by a drunk driver while they
    were stopped at an intersection.  He had no license (habitual offender,
    he's done jail time will now do more); I forget how many times he's
    been arrested etc.  The truck was registered in his wife's name; you
    KNOW he won't get strung up over this, so how do we realistically keep
    this bozo off the roads when he's released?
    
    My brother-in-law is still on crutches, my sister still has short-term
    memory loss and possible permanent hearing problems from the fractured
    skull she suffered.  If you could see their van you'd wonder how either
    of them survived.
    
    His wife was all apologies at the hospital when she came to see him
    (kept him over-night for the bump on his head).  Wife admitted she
    should have hidden the keys or called the local copys when he got in
    the truck (apparently she's done this before to stop him).  I know,
    I know folks, we can't make the wife responsible for his actions, but
    who the HELL gets to be responsible for this?
    
    If knowing vehicles will be impounded penetrates skulls when jail
    time and other penalties haven't, then I'm all for it.
    
    

    That's a bummer karen.  Sounds like Mr. DD should go sit in prison
    for a few years.
    
    Your last sentance was troubling.  I own lot's of things that can
    be potentially mis-used.  Taking them from me in a "preemptive" strike
    is not the way to solve things.  The piece of trash that slammed into
    your sister should be put away for a long time.  But he won't,
    especially if this is only his 9th or 15th DD offense.

Karen,

The problem is that the courts still don't take DUI seriously.  If the guy who
hit your relatives had done it with anything other than a motor vehicle, he
would be in jail, possibly facing attempted murder charges.  If this was his
third time, in many states he would be deemed a habitual offender and facing
mandatory life in prison.

If someone can't keep from hurting other people, the only solution is to lock
them up until they can control themselves.

Bob

    Thanks folks,
    
    The guy IS a habitual offender; he's spent lots of time in jail (he's
    there now).  I don't know if most states would go for attempted mur-
    der but I consider this equal to assault with a deadly weapon <---
    perhaps the penalties are stronger than for DUI.
    
    I'm not saying I consider confiscation the perfect solution; I'm just
    looking at it (or even the threat of it) getting some people's atten-
    tion.
    
    Let's face it they've put those devices you must breathe into before
    starting the ignition and that guy in Texas found a way around it.
    Seeing how so many people put their cars/trucks ABOVE all else, I
    just feel knowing your vehicle WILL DEFINITELY be confiscated and you
    and your family will be forced to rely on public transportation/taxies
    whatever, might penetrate the alcoholic fogs.
    
    Maybe peddling your butts around on a bike for a good long while 
    would do it.
    
    
    

    re: .44
    
     That's nonsense. You are equating essentially very different things.
    This is not a case of ownership implying criminality (like your wine
    example.) This is a case of performing an anti-social action. 
    
     Here's an example you might like better. You have an arsenal of guns.
    Your buddy is a real corker. Goes out and gets wasted, then come home
    and beats the old lady. Well, one day he gets home and the old lady's
    getting banged in his bed by someone else. He goes ballistic. Beats the
    crap out of her, and leaves to get drunk. On the way home, he stops by
    your place and tells you the story and he's still really pissed and
    drunk and totally out of control. He asks you if he can borrow a
    handgun. If you are stupid enough to give it to him and he pops the
    wife, don't you think you share responsibility for that action? No? Too
    bad, the law does.

    > This is a case of performing an anti-social action.
    
    The Constitution is supposed to protect people from others who think
    something is "anti-social".  (worshiping chicken guts for example).
    
    Getting all lit up and plowing into someone, or blowing someones head
    off are both against the law.  They're anti-social as well.  At one
    time, the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic beverages was
    considered "anti-social" too.  What would you have done if you lived
    in America in 1919?  My point was valid.
    
    People do not wish to be personally responsible for their actions 
    anymore.  We need to legislate "anti-social" behavior.  Whatta load...
    your right, it is nonsense.
    
    MadMike