have you ever had a dui, or been close?

[Tower]

All I want is a



So it wont matter....

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by driveway

Considering the vehemence demonstrated towards people who drive while intoxicated, do you all favour similarly harsh punishments for people who talk on the phone while driving?

First step is making it illegal to talk or text on a cell phone while driving. I support that measure fully.

We've had many years of education on the dangers of drinking and driving, so ANYONE who does it has made a conscious decision to do something that is dangerous to him/herself and others. As people get more educated on the dangers of talking while driving, you can increase punishment.

Originally Posted by ikaris

The fact that there is a severe disconnect regarding the consistency of enforcement (eg. sometimes getting off only with a 24 hour versus getting a full DUI charge when you're just over the limit) suggests that there is a fundamental lack of justice issue here.

Should the police really have this sort of discretion? This is one of the reasons I find it so difficult to trust police officers because you really don't know how they're going to treat you. If you're stupid enough to get into this situation, make sure you lawyer up.

That is actually a good point. My understanding is that the 24 hour suspension was created so that police good have some power over people that maybe did not meet the criteria of being legally impaired (the officer just couldn't form his opinion of impairment) but felt that this person needed to be off the road. A great idea in essence.

However, due to the frustrations of officers who get stuck doing 3-4 hours of paperwork and the seemingly lack of tenacity on the part of the crown to convict these guys and the generallylenient sentencing, police can be more apt to issue the 24 hreven when someone is clearly impaired.God damn italics won't turn off.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by ikaris

The fact that there is a severe disconnect regarding the consistency of enforcement (eg. sometimes getting off only with a 24 hour versus getting a full DUI charge when you're just over the limit) suggests that there is a fundamental lack of justice issue here.

Should the police really have this sort of discretion? This is one of the reasons I find it so difficult to trust police officers because you really don't know how they're going to treat you. If you're stupid enough to get into this situation, make sure you lawyer up.

I'm pretty sure police do it because they'd rather solve the problem there then charge the guy with impaired and the judge letting him go with a minor or no sentance.

[redforever]

Well, I have 0% tolerance or patience when it comes to drunk drivers. And I don't care if I come off sounding holier than thou either. My daughter was hit by a drunk who ran a red light going full speed. Yeah, my daugher is alive although she did require extensive physio for a year as well as surgery. Yeah, the guy was young, he did plead guilty to spare my daughter a trial, and he actually did get a lot of punishment compared to some, and apparently has learned his lesson and turned his life around. But it might have taken my daughter's life to do that.

I have zero tolerance for saying, well, the education programs don't seem to be working, so let's subsidize some means of transit to get the drunks home. Sorry, that does not cut it for me and really, it will not work either. For one thing, not all the drunks live in a city large enough to even implement that kind of policy. What are you going to do in a smaller town, say the size of Okotoks, where taxis and public transit don't even exist. And why in the heck should drunks be coddled even further by putting them on the payroll of the public taxpayer.

Drunk drivers are very selfish people. Actually, I will include those driving under the influence, period, no matter if that involves medication, drugs or liquor. First of all, they are basically saying, I want to drink and have my fun, period. Secondly, they are saying I want to drink without having to plan or worry about getting home. And now some suggest, I want to drink, and I want you, the public, to make sure I have a means to get home. ENOUGH!!!

Sorry, if there are many programs already in existence and some don't seem to be getting the picture. You know what, if they can't see, put them where the sun don't shine. I really could care less where that is, just get them the hell off the roads.

The suggestions that CC outlined are excellent.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by redforever

What are you going to do in a smaller town, say the size of Okotoks, where taxis and public transit don't even exist. And why in the heck should drunks be coddled even further by putting them on the payroll of the public taxpayer.

Okotoks does have taxis. Big Rock Taxi and O K Taxi Services. And if we are talking about smaller towns than Okotoks, then no- my suggestions may not work. But seeing as most people (I would guess over 90%) of Albertans live in cities as big or bigger; why not a solution that would impact most people?

I just don't understand the arguement that some of you are making- if the number one priority is getting drunks off the street; why not take action? Heck- my "more taxi licenses" will be revenue positive from a public standpoint.

As somebody who had a family member suffer at the hands of a drunk driver, wouldn't you want something in place to allow the next family to avoid having to go through the same thing? You've already said that the programs in place don't seem to be working. Why not try something new?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm fine with more taxis on the street, I have no problem with that, if its affordable I have no problem with extended transit hours as long as it doesn't impact my tax dollars. But in combination with that I'm sticking with my harsh punishment and seizure of vehicles.

Drunk or stoned or medicated driving is no excuse no matter what. Period.

I guess my real frustration is the attitude that we have to go beyond informing people of the consequences of their action. At the end of the day, people have to make the choice, and I'm pretty sure that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. Social Engineering, or trying to go out of your way on prevention doesn't work, at the end of the day, its up to the person to make the choice. This goes into other areas too, codling drug crimes and not blaming the offender, using the excuse of ignorance of the law, the young offenders sentencing for violent crimes. These things are not working in my humble opinion.

Also at times there's nothing the matter with getting people who make these bad informed choices off of the street for a long period of time, and protecting the general public.

Its all good to talk about prevention, but people who repeatedly drink and drive don't care about preventative measures. Drug addicts who have no problem stealing and killing to get their fix don't care about getting better or getting help. Prison terms to me should be rock bottom, and they should be a lesson learned period.

But I've gone way off topic.

My gut tells me that repeated drunk drivers don't care if there are taxis available, they won't take the bus, they don't think about anyone other then themselves when they get into their car and drive, so we shouldn't be gentle with them at all.

I guess there's a bit of a generational difference here, because I don't have enough faith in humanities ability to change behavior without being punched in the nose with a rolled up newspaper first.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I'm pretty sure police do it because they'd rather solve the problem there then charge the guy with impaired and the judge letting him go with a minor or no sentance.

So it's OK because police are lazy? A 24 hour suspension is then acceptable for a DUI?

A DUI charge carries a mandatory minimum 3 month license suspension regardless of the outcome in the courts. You can be found innocent, but still your license would have been suspended for 3 months.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

So it's OK because police are lazy? A 24 hour suspension is then acceptable for a DUI?

A DUI charge carries a mandatory minimum 3 month license suspension regardless of the outcome in the courts. You can be found innocent, but still your license would have been suspended for 3 months.

Agreed, I don't think the cops should be able to give sentences (which a 24 hour suspension is) on the spot. You blow over, your acting erratically, then the police have no choice except to write you up on charges, slap the cuffs on you and toss your ass in a holding tank until a judge can decide what to do with you.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Okotoks does have taxis. Big Rock Taxi and O K Taxi Services. And if we are talking about smaller towns than Okotoks, then no- my suggestions may not work. But seeing as most people (I would guess over 90%) of Albertans live in cities as big or bigger; why not a solution that would impact most people?

I just don't understand the arguement that some of you are making- if the number one priority is getting drunks off the street; why not take action? Heck- my "more taxi licenses" will be revenue positive from a public standpoint.

As somebody who had a family member suffer at the hands of a drunk driver, wouldn't you want something in place to allow the next family to avoid having to go through the same thing? You've already said that the programs in place don't seem to be working. Why not try something new?

Enough action has been taken through the education programs. And there will never be enough that you can provide for some. What is needed is action on behalf of those who are doing the drinking. We have done enough, it is their turn to step up and implement some actions so they are not on the streets when they are under the influence.

Cry me a river, I am fed up!!! I have had it with the suggestions that education is not working, let us try something else. The onus should be on the DRUNK DRIVERS, not the INNOCENT PUBLIC.

It is the innocent public who alll too often pays with their lives for the discretions of those who wish to drink but not take plans to get home after they drive.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Agreed, I don't think the cops should be able to give sentences (which a 24 hour suspension is) on the spot. You blow over, your acting erratically, then the police have no choice except to write you up on charges, slap the cuffs on you and toss your ass in a holding tank until a judge can decide what to do with you.

To be clear, the 24 hour suspension was never created to be a substitute for a true impaired driving charge. It has been suggested that the '24 hour' has been used to avoid the headaches associated with an impaired driving charge. Right or wrong, the reality of charging someone with impaired driving is time consuming, frustrating and is filled with judicial incompetency. Thus the 24 hour is seen a means to band aid the issue and get a drunk driver off the road.

Further, if you are charged with impaired driving, you don't go to jail. You are released with a court date. In fact, you can drive 24 hours later and get a temporary drivers permit valid for 21 days (unless there's an injury accident involved) until the 3 month provincially imposed suspension kicks in.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by redforever

Well, I have 0% tolerance or patience when it comes to drunk drivers. And I don't care if I come off sounding holier than thou either. My daughter was hit by a drunk who ran a red light going full speed. Yeah, my daugher is alive although she did require extensive physio for a year as well as surgery. Yeah, the guy was young, he did plead guilty to spare my daughter a trial, and he actually did get a lot of punishment compared to some, and apparently has learned his lesson and turned his life around. But it might have taken my daughter's life to do that.

Sorry to be off-topic, but have you actually "forgiven" this individual?

The drunk driver that nearly took my brother seems to have not progressed at all compared to the young-person in your story. But then again, my brother and/or parents never pressed charges. The crown did, though.

Just wondering.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

To be clear, the 24 hour suspension was never created to be a substitute for a true impaired driving charge. It has been suggested that the '24 hour' has been used to avoid the headaches associated with an impaired driving charge. Right or wrong, the reality of charging someone with impaired driving is time consuming, frustrating and is filled with judicial incompetency. Thus the 24 hour is seen a means to band aid the issue and get a drunk driver off the road.

Further, if you are charged with impaired driving, you don't go to jail. You are released with a court date. In fact, you can drive 24 hours later and get a temporary drivers permit valid for 21 days (unless there's an injury accident involved) until the 3 month provincially imposed suspension kicks in.

I understand that, and to me its whats wrong with the system.

If your charged with impaired driving, you should have to sit in a jail cell until you make bail, or until a judge can see you. You shouldn't be able to drive until after your court date.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Sorry to be off-topic, but have you actually "forgiven" this individual?

The drunk driver that nearly took my brother seems to have not progressed at all compared to the young-person in your story.

Just wondering.

I follow the lead of my daughter. We both know you can not undo what has happened, she has moved on, so have I. Was I mad that a drunk driver was on the streets and hit my daughter? You better damned well believe I was and if I sound bitter about that, well you know what, I don't give a rat's arse.

Yes, the young man in question in this case seems to have learned his lesson. And for that we are thankful. By the way, it was not only drunk driving, it was also hit and run, double whammy. I mentioned before that he did get quite a stiff sentence, which he deserved of course. He got 300 community hours, a 5 year suspension of his license and I forget what all of his fines were.

The fact that this young man seems to have learned his lesson does not however condone the fact that drinking and driving is still prevalent in our society.

You know when each and everyone of you will say "we have enough programs to address this issue, the emphasis should now be on dealing with the individuals who still choose to drink and drive"?

It will be when each and every one of you has had someone they love either hurt badly or killed by a drunk driver. I hope you don't have to experience that.

[driveway]

Considering the pain and suffering that has been caused by intoxicated drivers, a slightly higher tax-burden seems to be an incredibly small price to pay if it gets more of them off the street.

I would also like to point out that increased sentences will require increased funds to support, which would doubtless increase our tax-burden as well.

Given that any steps forward would require money, the question then becomes whether the proper place to spend it is in a way that will prevent incidents from occurring, or on punishment after the fact.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

To be clear, the 24 hour suspension was never created to be a substitute for a true impaired driving charge. It has been suggested that the '24 hour' has been used to avoid the headaches associated with an impaired driving charge. Right or wrong, the reality of charging someone with impaired driving is time consuming, frustrating and is filled with judicial incompetency. Thus the 24 hour is seen a means to band aid the issue and get a drunk driver off the road.

Further, if you are charged with impaired driving, you don't go to jail. You are released with a court date. In fact, you can drive 24 hours later and get a temporary drivers permit valid for 21 days (unless there's an injury accident involved) until the 3 month provincially imposed suspension kicks in.

How is charging someone with a DUI not getting them off the road? Judicial incompetence or not, it's just an inconsistent standard that is applied by police officers that are not qualified to make that judgement. In my opinion, this "band-aid" encourages the drunk driver to continue in their habits because they got off pretty easily.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by driveway

Considering the pain and suffering that has been caused by intoxicated drivers, a slightly higher tax-burden seems to be an incredibly small price to pay if it gets more of them off the street.

I would also like to point out that increased sentences will require increased funds to support, which would doubtless increase our tax-burden as well.

Given that any steps forward would require money, the question then becomes whether the proper place to spend it is in a way that will prevent incidents from occurring, or on punishment after the fact.

Frankly, I don't care if it costs more money to get them off the streets or if it costs more money to incarcerate them. The plain fact is, no matter how much you do, many still drink and drive and disregard the public's efforts.

I just want them off the streets.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by redforever

Frankly, I don't care if it costs more money to get them off the streets or if it costs more money to incarcerate them. The plain fact is, no matter how much you do, many still drink and drive and disregard the public's efforts.

I just want them off the streets.

The reality is that there are many more drunk drivers out there than the ones that get caught. A solution that involves higher taxes on alcohol that produces more options for public transportation or taxis is something that is more palatable than stiffer penalties.

In my opinion, the penalties are just fine, it's the enforcement that is the issue, and the lack of options for the offenders.

Originally Posted by ikaris

How is charging someone with a DUI not getting them off the road? Judicial incompetence or not, it's just an inconsistent standard that is applied by police officers that are not qualified to make that judgement. In my opinion, this "band-aid" encourages the drunk driver to continue in their habits because they got off pretty easily.

Not qualified to do judge what exactly.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Not qualified to do judge what exactly.

The law is very clear: if you are over the limit, you are considered under the influence and therefore should be charged with a DUI. A police officer is not qualified to say that we will let you off on a 24 hour "just because" if you're over the limit.

On the flip side, police officers have charged impaired drivers with DUI when they have been under the limit. In almost all cases, these charges are overturned in court. This further underlines the fact in how police officers have to enforce the law. There is a reason these laws are so verbose; it's to ensure that discretionary policies like this are avoided. The fact that some police officers ignore the very stringent intent of the law is what I have issue with.