sailorjohn

To read your language, it's as if you had nothing to do with 'the whole deal'. You aren't 'going through it', you did it to yourself.

When you come to that realization, you may come to believe that this was actually one of the best things that might ever have happened.

RufusACanal

Some of those old experiences that have paid me dividends in later years; going to jail, going to prison, going homeless, going insane... well kinda insane. How do they pay dividends? I am still alive, so anything beyond breath is a plus.

Too often, we humans do not want to suffer the consequences of our own decisions and actions. We Alcoholics find a thousand ways to place the blame on anything or anyone beside ourselves. I personally can relate to the circumstances that Alcoholics still active in their disease go through, but sympathy is not a part of that process. Why no sympathy? Sympathy kills Drunks. Sympathy is like an open bar tab at your favorite pub. It comes down to this, if you want what we have, do what we do. How do you find out how we do it? Go to a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous and pick up a copy of the Big Book. Inside that book is a proven program of action that works if you work it.

What more will it cost you to be right and do it your way?

SonofaMess

I'll be the first to say driving drunk is obviously dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly. HOWEVER every state takes advantage of it and turns it into a giant money maker and nothing more really. It's a sad truth but still the truth. When getting your license there is minimal schooling on what happens if you get a dui or even worse multiple dui's.

Another sad truth is the simple fact.............PEOPLE DON'T THINK WHEN THEY ARE DRUNK. It's the equivilant of legalizing cocaine and ecstasy and having bars that provide that then punishing people for being coked up and crashing at 100mph.

The laws, fines, penalties should gear more towards education on the consequences of driving drunk and prevention than making people pay a lot of money and having a felony record.

SonofaMess

I mean I hate to say it but one of my now good friends (one of my friends father) had 3 dui's when he was younger. The 3rd DUI resulted in him and another driver (who was also drunk) being in the hospital for months. He spent 6 months in jail and had to pay some fines.

He has a million dollar business and donates more to charity and fundraisers than any non commercial business in chicago. He started up big brother programs all over local neighborhoods. He did this after his DUI'S. If he had been prosecuted by todays standards he would not have even been out of prison let alone do all the good he has for several communties.

The laws should make people pay for their own actions, but they should not put a stamp on them that ruins the rest of their lives for years to come because of a mistake.

sfgirl

But at some point they were thinking correctly, like at the beginning of the night before they went out. They had a choice car or cab or feet or bus. Is convenience worth it?

Now that I am recovering— I drive so much more. I never used to take my car out of the garage. I used to say that I didn't drive because I hate driving. Now I realize that while I don't love driving, the reality is I always wanted the option to drink. I did not drink and drive. I didn't even like to have one drink and drive.

CrackQuack

This is just my opinions on things. So please try not to take offense, as it's not aimed at anyone. Just like my bunghole, I've got one. LOLOLOL. Anyway, here goes.
BACK in the day, people drank and drove, and when the cops saw them doing it, they pulled them over told them to get the F*** home and sleep it off. Or if it were kids, they'd take what's left of their alcohol and threaten to tell their parents. Rarely was there an "alcohol related" accident. My personal opinion is the government MADE THIS UP. People believed it and then used it as an excuse when they got into accidents of their own. "Oh I was drunk" or "I had a few". I believe there are a LOT fewer actually alcohol related accidents than they let on because it REALLY is a money machine for them. Just like the so called "speed related" accidents. One driver admits to going 36 in a 35 and suddenly, people were hurt/killed/in an accident due to excessive speeds. It's MADE UP.
Not that it doesn't really happen. Just like someone going 110 in a 35 HAS caused fatal accidents, someone SERIOUSLY drunk has caused fatal accidents. Honestly, I think the legal limit is a joke and entirely unrealistic. Most people at the limit or slightly above are not drunk, they were followed from the bar by police who know what people do at the bar. Pulled over, harassed, and told to test or lose their license on the spot.
And I really don't believe, for a second, that the system wants to help people who are addicted. NOT FOR A MINUTE. Just think. If they actually helped addicts, then what happens to their OWI/OUI/DUI/DWI money machine? It goes away. So why would the government really want to do that? It would be monetary suicide. Look at all the money they make by "catching" people behind the wheel drunk! Here in Ohio, they even make first offenders buy a special yellow plate with red letters to show the rest of the world their crime. I think they make anyone, who gets limited driving privileges get the plate, but can't remember. I just know I see a LOT of yellow/red plates..
It's a cash crop. The government isn't here to help us in the first place. Not in this manner. I, personally, think it is mental and physical suicide to even expect the government to take care of us or help us. Their only, traditional, purpose is to keep the peace (don't murder or steal, do what you will as long as you harm no other) within and without the country. Our addictions are our own problems, and I believe places like SR, NA, AA, and others came about to help us. We certainly can't do it by ourselves, but personally, I would not want the government's help. I'd prefer something more REAL and WISER. Such as my personal choice, NA and now, SR.

SonofaMess

I'm not going to stick up for a person who gets a DUI. The laws were a good intention but are messed up everywhere. I definitely agree there should be consequences....BUT NOT PERMANENT.

There was a huge discussion in the city when a reporter was in an accident and his passenger was killed. Both were known alcoholics and the driver was attacked and sued by everyone possible. It's a sad sad thing what happened but the fact is..........that other person made the decision to be with the drunk driver. He shouldn't spend 20 years in prison for that.

Everyone says people who drive drunk should have to face the consequences.......which I agree. But the consequences aren't always accurate to the circumstances.

If that were the case there should be no such thing as manslaughter or homicide charges involving drunk drivers killing passengers. Those passengers made a decision to get into the vehicle with them right?

ToABetterMe

I am not saying I do not take responsiblity for what I did. I will NEVER drink & drive again. I have learned a lesson! To say the least. I cant believe I did it! I am so grateful I didn't hurt anyone or myself. I was simply saying that yes the fines are excessive. My Brother got popped for stolen guns, meth & Pot. His total fine was $250 & he never lost his license.

I dont even qualify for a work permit because I work too late of hours & because I work at a place that serves alcohol.
I learned a lot in my DUI class. And am grateful I have decided to better my self.

TheShallot

Let the punishment fit the crime. Its a simple rule until you put politicians in that want to get re-elected. Because you CANT let your opponent let ANYONE think youre 'soft' on what folks think is a very serious matter. Not if you want to get re-elected.

I personally have hung around cops for 6 years and they violate driving while intoxicated more than any other group I know/knew. So its obvious they dont give a rats ass about it on a personal level.

Any comments on that?

OH!!!! And if there is anything that will effect the politician, they will vote against it. If it effects the general public but they could skate out of a situation(s), then they will pass a law. BUt if THEY are suddenly going to be effected (ie breathalyzers in cars as a safety device) they will NEVER pass it.

adore79

Im going through the DUI court process now. So far I have learned a lot about responsibility and personal accountablility.

TheShallot

That is 100% of what folks SHOULD do so as to not break the law.
Driving while under the influence of ANYTHING is a dangerous proposition.

What ticks ME off is the States could and SHOULD put breathalyzers as mandatory in every single car. PERIOD.
But I strongly feel that the States care about the revenue more.
That the politicians care about being re-elected more.
The police officers care about taking care of their own more.
That MADD cares about keeping their business IN business more.


There are EASY solutions for negating drunk driving. But depending on ones job from the list above, none of them seem to WANT the easy solution.

And the people that DIE because of it are the victims. It makes me SICK!!!!

SelfSeeking

Shallot, for someone who doesn't have a problem, you sure spend a lot of time on an addiction recovery website. What's goin' on?

TheShallot

I want to discuss the topic. I didnt know you had to be a alcoholic to post here
Not sure why this would bring any more attention than any other posts.
Is there a problem? Did I do something wrong?

OZboy

Oh,your in the right section alright. My brother was killed by a DRUNK driver,so guess
what I'm thinkin????????????????????????

TheShallot

I have no idea. What do you think of my post:

Done_With_It

Don't think you 'did' anything wrong, Just a thought, but
maybe....... your so stuck on being right here and stuck
on your own opinions your not hearing what other people's
feelings or thoughts on the matter are.
Your talking to people who have messed up a lot of their lives
and affected many other's lives by their drinking, we
are taught in order for us to get to recovery we have to
take responsibility for our actions. You are saying things like,

on a site like this we try and take responsibility for are own actions,
it is not the states responsibility to make us not drink and drive.


I think any mother who has lost or had a child hurt child is
justified in their actions against drunk drivers, and mothers who have often come to site like this for support, it's a little backwards to come here to knock them.


I am not saying you are wrong, you have your own opinions I'm not here to change them, just made me think since we were just talking about being right and wrong, You may just understand if you try and understand where others are coming from.

If you really want to make a difference, there are things you can do, people do it all the time. People get laws put in place, get education programs funded, etc. You can use your voice to get something done if you are serious.


and with that I am out of this thread......

:ghug

robc

I do not agree with your opinion that breathalyzers should be mandatory in cars. Why should people that don't drink and drive have this added cost? With that being said, I do think that the over all good would justify the cost, but there are too many ways around the breathalyzer in the car anyway. I am sure the drunk driver who thinks they are ok to drive would have no problem getting someone who is not intoxicated to blow into the breathalyzer. I know it sounds crazy, but I am sure it would happen.

gneiss

Two thoughts from my personal experience:

1) I've driven drunk a number of times, nearly every day for about 5 months actually, and often during blackouts at that. I'm not proud of it, and have no idea how I was not arrested or killed; or far worse, killed someone else. But I'm actually more ashamed of the fact that I was so mad at one of my friends one day when I was sober that when he wanted to leave I blew into his breathalyzer so he could start his truck and leave. Nothing happened to him, but the "what-ifs" continue to haunt me.

2) Another friend has a breathalyzer in his car right now. Supposedly those things reset occasionally so every few minutes you have to blow into it again. If you don't you get a violation and have to pay to have it fixed at the shop. His doesn't work properly. Once his car is started it never resets, so as long as he can keep his car running he can drive wherever he wants, as drunk as he wants. Plus there are TONS of ways to defeat breathalyzers. I don't want to post a how-to manual but I've seen a pretty impressive variety. Creativity knows no bounds.

Arvid

To begin, I apologize that my first post here will no doubt be an unpopular one.

I think what the original poster is trying to convey is not that we should be easy on drunk driving but the fines incurred as a result are counter productive. Not only are the fines a burden but the legal fees from hiring a decent lawyer also need to be considered.

Before I make my case I would like to give some background. As most of the people here, I have had my battles with the bottle. About four years ago I earned my first DUI. I was driving home a few blocks in a downtown area late at night when I was pulled over for expired tags. I blew a .1 and still to this day do not think I was a danger on the road but that doesn't matter, I was guilty and paid the price. In the state that this happened the fines came to around $1000 including the towing and $800 for my lawyer. I received 6 months probation and a 3 month suspension and for some reason my insurance provider never found out about it. Two years past in which I never drove drunk. This was impressive since I drank every day. One night while drinking at my girlfriends apartment I walked out to get some cigarettes. I poked my head into my vehicle and looked in my glove compartment to find it empty. I proceeded to walk down the street to the convenience store when a police cruiser pulled up next to me. He asked me for ID and informed me that there had been many car thefts in the neighborhood recently and had to check everyone (I still had my shirt and tie on from work). After he ran my info he said that he smelled alcohol on me and I explained that I had been drinking at a friends house up the street. He then pointed to my car and asked me if it was mine to which I said yes. He then drove me back to it, checked my insurance and registration, and told me he just saw me driving the vehicle and was charging me with a DUI. I didn't put up any fight because I have had enough experience with the police to know that they are out there to arrest and arguing would only hurt me.

The first lawyer I hired took a $200 dollar down payment and didn't show up for my arraignment and avoided me for weeks. Due to bad timing I moved out of state a week after that and decided to cut my lossed with that lawyer. After a year of having a warrant out for my arrest I finally saved enough to hire another lawyer. This one came to my court date late and hadn't reviewed my case. The prosecutor read the policeman's statement that claimed he had followed me for blocks watching me swerve and then pulled me over and arrested me (obvious form statement). And if I hadn't spoke up to point out that my arrest was before the state dui laws had changed I would have spent 30 days in jail instead of 2.

I here about these stories more and more. I had a friend that owned a bar who slept in the back room at nights he was there late. He went out to get his bag and was charged with a dui. Recently a man was convicted of a dui for not driving. He had been drinking and decided to sleep in the back of his car instead of drive home. That seems to be preventative prevention.

What has happened is organizations like MADD, while they started out with a noble cause, have gone overboard. They have pushed for harsh drunk driving laws and have succeeded. But the problem with these organizations is that once they have accomplished the goals they need new ones. That results in things such as random check points that are (in my opinion) an incredible intrusion on our civil rights. Next time they publish the results of these random searches in the paper count the number of stops and compare them to the number of arrests and then the number of arrests for DUI. These stops aren't being used to prevent drunk driving, they are being abused by police to run background checks on citizens. And the bad part is the hardcore drunk knows how to get home without running into these checkpoints. And while the BAC count is low enough that the light drinker will have his world turned upside down if caught MADD is still fighting to lower it to zero tolerance. There has even been talk of fines for having intoxicated passengers in your vehicle. There is a lot of money flowing into MADD and I doubt they are willing to give up these salaries anytime soon.

And as far as fines go, they contribute more to the problem than solve it. While someone with a bit of wealth and power have no problem with the fines, people that have families and a modest income a DUI arrest can put them in a truly dire situation. And as I can say first hand, if you want someone to quit drinking then it isn't best to put them in an extremely stressful situation where they can find any number of excuses to turn to destructive behavior.

As far as the fines go I am not an expert as to where they go but I am guessing that little to none goes into the rehab programs that the offenders are required to attend. The last one I attended was out of an old downtown brick building and was run by volunteers. While these volunteers were well meaning and knew from experience what an addict goes through they were hardly qualified for the jobs they were doing. The program was unorganized and the material was incredibly dated. I honestly thought they were going to throw a copy of "Reefer Madness" in the VCR (yes, I said VCR).

If you ask me (and I know that no one has) I would cut the fines in half at least. I would approach the BAC levels in a progressive manner. .08 would receive a fine and no suspension, .1 a larger fine and a ten day suspension, any thing above that would incur a fine and progressively longer rehabilitation and community service with driving privileges to and from work and rehab contingent on perfect attendance. This would punish the casual drinker (the ones that pad the dui death stats) for driving but not destroy their lives and help the ones that have deeper rooted problems (the ones that cause the deaths). A majority of fine revenue would be applied to rehabilitation facilities with the minor work done by community service thanks to the arrests. Simply enacting draconian DUI laws across the board is putting forth a short term solution to a long term problem.

I hope I don't come off as condoning driving under the influence of any drug but we have to be serious about it. People are going to drink and drive and as many of you know it is because the funnest place for people to drink (for those who don't have a problem) is at a bar or a gathering. They are going to drive home but want we should be trying to prevent is the person that can barely walk to the car yet alone drive it.


And like I said, I apologize about my first post here because it will be unpopular but I have to address a few comments that have been made.

Actually they should. The entire reasoning behind the DUI laws is the health of the population. I would rather an addict be treated than fined heavily which only encourages the disease. If that treatment is successful that will have far more benefit to our society than milking him dry of cash they probably don't have. From saving costs for future incarceration to tax money used to treat whatever illness has been developed through drug abuse. Rehabilitation is the logical first choice.

When people are sentence with probation it really is a social services intervention. That's why you are assigned a social services agent in a probation officer. We don't want to throw these people in jail because the way the law is set up we would be throwing 100,000+ people in jail extra each year

What you are saying is DUI offenders that have been caught should have the scarlet letter. I'd bet that 99% of the people here have driven drunk and that means they are guilty of driving under the influence whether they were busted or not. They should have to have the same fate as the ones that have been caught shouldn't they?

That seems like an easy solution although it is a bit intrusive for those who do not drink. The problem is that without supervision it would be worthless. There are ways to beat drug tests that are supervised, how easy would it be to create technology that would trick a mandatory breathalyzer?

gneiss

From what I read, no one seems terribly concerned about the fees involved, including me. No one is required to pay those fines; it's completely optional because all you have to do is not drive drunk. I no longer give any thought to how much the fines are for DUI because I don't drink and drive.

And frankly, at least here in the US, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed by the court on your behalf. If you don't like the public defender, don't think he can do a good enough job you have two choices: plan to hire your own lawyer and don't complain-- you were offered a freebie and you said no; or stop breaking the law.

But welcome to SR, Arvid. Please continue to post, that was very thoughtful.