I would not disagree with that. I don't remember hearing about 9th DUIs in IL or IA.
Excessive Alcohol to Blame for 1 in 10 Deaths
- Thread starter besserheimerphat
- Start date
I would not disagree with that. I don't remember hearing about 9th DUIs in IL or IA.
There are additional administrative (DOT) penalties related to obtaining a restricted license for BACs over .10 and .15.
I would support a system that allowed for increased penalties as BAC increases, if it lowered the current penalty for lower level BACs. Right now, first offense OWI in Iowa is a serious misdemeanor, regardless of BAC. It also carries a 180 day license revocation if you submit to preliminary breath testing (1 year if you don't).
I'd posit something like this:
-.08-.10 is a traffic ticket (simple misdemeanor) that you can be arrested on
-.10-.15 is a Serious Misdemeanor
-.15-.20 is an Aggravated Misdemeanor
-.20+ is a Class D Felony
-Deferred Judgment available on all first offenses
I'd posit something like this:
-.08-.10 is a traffic ticket (simple misdemeanor) that you can be arrested on
-.10-.15 is a Serious Misdemeanor
-.15-.20 is an Aggravated Misdemeanor
-.20+ is a Class D Felony
-Deferred Judgment available on all first offenses
I'm talking about the criminal code, not the administrative sanctions. Some states have different punishments built into their criminal code based on BAC level. Outisde of the deferred judgment thing, Iowa does not.
Any how many business deals? And no, I'm not talking about getting someone drunk and taking advantage of them, I'm taking about loosening up and speaking freely. It happens all the time.
No, not really, or, at least, that was not my primary intent. I was just pointing out the ridiculously inconsistent, hypocritical, and wrongheaded nature of our drug laws where basically (a) alcohol is completely allowed, saved for <18 and you are punished for your behavior, rather than your consumption (b) tobacco is allowed but heavily regulated, discouraged, and taxed (c) everything else is basically illegal.
Relative to one another and the actual real, medical incidence of harm to the user and, more importantly in many cases, the potential harm to innocents (from drunk drivers, second hand spoke, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other, hallucinogenic or otherwise-related violence), A, B, and C make zero sense in how they are treated:
MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analyzed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm
Alcohol is fine as long as you can "handle it" or don't hurt others under your standard criminal laws against harm to our persons or property. Other drugs? Not even close--possession or consumption is the crime, even though, statistically and otherwise, they're much more likely to do either no harm or only harm to their user. I just don't see why our society sees the bottle as somehow okay despite the fact that, statistically, it poses the most risk to innocents and, naturally, reality has bared out plenty of people can't "handle it."
I'd just like to see it addressed in a consistent manner to its "threat level" or, if we are in the consistency business, shouldn't we classify other substances in the "can you handle it" camp and punish on whatever behavior results instead of simply the act of consumption or possession, even if completely harmless to others?
As someone who has gotten an OWI for driving 3 miles from a farm to my folks place on lightly traveled gravel roads at 4 am, it is entirely different than an OWI outside court ave in DM. I agree with Al, not that it matters. This country is on the path to more personal liberties and less substance banning, see marijuana.
That's not an alcohol problem. That's a "too many dumb people" problem. There should be an IQ test before people are allowed to have children.
Reads like a who's-who list of countries on the terrorism watch list. Maybe that's why they're so angry at the US, because we can drink and they cannot. I am kidding. I know the Muslim view of alcohol, so save the crazy response for another day.
They have this really cool thing now call PARENTING where adults teach their children things, such as responsible consumption of alcohol. More people should look into it.
As soon as you initiate some differentiation between urban and rural, you open a loop hole for lawyers to drag court cases through the ringer. This increases court costs, time of cases and leads to LESS people being punished for an OWI. It's either against the law or it's not. Common sense cannot be allowed when lawyers are involved or it will be exploited to the max.
This is an impossible task. There is no way that all factors can ever be taken into account. Road surface, weather, wildlife, pedestrians, other drivers. You cannot eliminate it. Plus, I can 100% guarantee that some people would drive like complete maniacs if they thought they were driving a car that "could not" get in an accident. If someone comes around a curve and a kid runs out on the street, the laws of physics will always exist. If there is not enough time and distance to bring the moving vehicle to a stop then it will either have to hit the kid or change lanes, where there is no guarantee of not hitting something else.
To believe that this is a possibility is flat out dumb. Sure, it works in a freaking parking lot or a controlled test. Zero chance it works on a regular basis. Some kid ran out in front of my car this morning when I was taking my daughter to swim practice. If there was traffic coming the other way at the time there is a 0% chance that I would have gotten through that without hitting something. I had to swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid him.
Probably sounds insensitive but the obese little kids you see everywhere have a slim chance if reaching anywhere near 90. We're headed towards a bigger and bigger divide where people who can eat and live healthy with modern medicine are going to live longer and longer while others are going to self terminate on a diet of almost exclusively processed foods.
Google's driverless car has over 700,000 miles on it and has been in 2 accidents. Both accidents were other cars rear ending it.
The rear ending could've been caused by the Google car to some extent. California drivers and Texas drivers move at a different pace. I became used to the driving style of California and almost rear ended all kinds of drivers in Texas. It's a different pace. The California driver will make that light. The Texas driver was more likely to stop or wait before turning. I'm hitting the gas while the guy in front is on the break.
I'm ready for the Google car. Most people are horrible drivers. I get run into by people pushing shopping carts at the store. People drive the same way. Better traffic flow, increased gas mileage and fewer accidents when more of these vehicles can talk to each other. I'm in.
