Wow. Now I'll be too scared to have a 2nd Beer at Tailgating

[Herd Mentality]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8TKKTBO1

I'm not condoning drunk driving, but this is going way too far.



New ND program requires daily testing of repeat drunken drivers

The Associated Press - Wednesday, December 19, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D.

Some North Dakotans who have been arrested more than once for drunken driving may have to take breath tests twice a day.

It's part of a project announced by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. It takes effect next month in 12 counties in south central North Dakota, including Bismarck and Mandan.

The testing applies if a person has been convicted of drunken driving at least once in the previous 10 years.

If that person is arrested again after Jan. 1 for drunken driving, it will mean a trip to the county courthouse twice a day for a breath test.

Stenehjem says if a breath test shows alcohol, the person will be arrested immediately for a bond violation.

[56BISON73]

Absolutely ridiculous. PL

[Bison bison]

baloney.

don't drink and drive.

there's no excuse.

[UTH]

[linky (http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/12-19-07.pdf)] for further reference. This stinks to me and I look forward to seeing a challenge.

[aces1180]

The ACLU will be all over this.

[UTH]

This plan is simply not practical. Say there's a guy who is convicted for a second DUI and he lives in Driscoll. He works in Driscoll. He doesn't have much money. They're expecting to see him twice a day at the Burleigh County Courthouse. They abruptly evacuate the courthouse at exactly 5:00 every day. How is he going to find the time and gas money to comply? During the suspension period of his license, how does he get into town? Even a best friend will only do that X number of times.

They say that this is just a condition of bond. Considering the metric crap tonne of problems, there's likely to be a lot of bonds being revoked. That is likely to fill the jail. That causes another problem. Here we go into another circle.

This will be very interesting.

[Gully]

baloney.

don't drink and drive.

there's no excuse.

I don't think anyone is making excuses for that behavior....just pointing out that the punishment is unreasonable and impractical.

What punishment would be too much for you? Why don't we just shoot them?

[BisonCountry]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8TKKTBO1

I'm not condoning drunk driving, but this is going way too far.



New ND program requires daily testing of repeat drunken drivers

The Associated Press - Wednesday, December 19, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D.

Some North Dakotans who have been arrested more than once for drunken driving may have to take breath tests twice a day.

It's part of a project announced by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. It takes effect next month in 12 counties in south central North Dakota, including Bismarck and Mandan.

The testing applies if a person has been convicted of drunken driving at least once in the previous 10 years.

If that person is arrested again after Jan. 1 for drunken driving, it will mean a trip to the county courthouse twice a day for a breath test.

Stenehjem says if a breath test shows alcohol, the person will be arrested immediately for a bond violation.

Doesn't seem real practical. I recently saw something that is implemented by Arizona where the offender's vehicle is attached to a breathalyzer and the person needs to blow .000 in order for the vehicle to start and then every 5 - 15 minutes to keep the vehicle running. I'm sure ND will not implement such a system unless they crank the fines way up to pay for the devices.

[Bison bison]

I don't think anyone is making excuses for that behavior....just pointing out that the punishment is unreasonable and impractical.

What punishment would be too much for you? Why don't we just shoot them?

the problem is that many individuals have serious problems with alcohol. some of these folks don't think there is a problem/risk with drinking and driving.

anybody who gets a dui and continues to drink and drive has a serious alcohol problem. i don't see why i have to worry about my safety and those of whom i love because somebody can't handle the sauce.

i think the law is good, not perfect, but good. (1) it serves as a deterrent; (2) it shows strong likelihood of improving the health and wellbeing of people in this fine state.

[mebisonII]

Seems reasonable, but not practical to me. I do think that by the time you've racked up a 2nd DUI you have a serious problem and some more extreme measures may be needed to keep you and your neighbors safe, but I can't see this holding up. Once people show up in the courts saying they can't hold a job because they have to leave twice a day, I think something will have to change.

I do like the breathelizer (sp???) on the cars thing, but I imagine that would get pretty expensive.

[SDbison]

Seems reasonable, but not practical to me. I do think that by the time you've racked up a 2nd DUI you have a serious problem and some more extreme measures may be needed to keep you and your neighbors safe, but I can't see this holding up. Once people show up in the courts saying they can't hold a job because they have to leave twice a day, I think something will have to change.

I do like the breathelizer (sp???) on the cars thing, but I imagine that would get pretty expensive.
With the current limits (.08) and the crackdowns (checkpoints) you don't have to be an alcoholic to have a one or two DUI's. Just a couple drinks after work and the law now wants to ruin your life. I am not convinced that a person in the .08 to .10 range is any worse than a sleepy driver, a kid text messaging, an adult on their cell phone or being distracted by their unruly young kids. All the law is trying to do is scare anyone who goes out for a drink. I want to see the studies that show causes of all fatality accidents and if they are alcohol related how many were between .08 and .10 at the time of the accident. My bet is the majority are at much higher levels. Also suspect as a percentage how many are now related to distracted drivers (sleepy, cell phone, kids, etc.). Maybe it is time to put video cameras in your car so the cops can haul those irresponsible drivers to jail for their stupid acts that could potentially cause an accident. Hmmmmm..............

[mebisonII]

With the current limits (.08) and the crackdowns (checkpoints) you don't have to be an alcoholic to have a one or two DUI's. Just a couple drinks after work and the law now wants to ruin your life. I am not convinced that a person in the .08 to .10 range is any worse than a sleepy driver, a kid text messaging, an adult on their cell phone or being distracted by their unruly young kids. All the law is trying to do is scare anyone who goes out for a drink. I want to see the studies that show causes of all fatality accidents and if they are alcohol related how many were between .08 and .10 at the time of the accident. My bet is the majority are at much higher levels. Also suspect as a percentage how many are now related to distracted drivers (sleepy, cell phone, kids, etc.). Maybe it is time to put video cameras in your car so the cops can haul those irresponsible drivers to jail for their stupid acts that could potentially cause an accident. Hmmmmm..............

I had some similar thoughts wondering how possible it was to get a DUI when you really hadn't had all that much to drink. I'm not much of a drinker, so I don't have any idea "how drunk" a 0.08 or 0.10 is. I certainly agree that many of the distractions you describe are potentially as dangerous as having a little to drink (there have been studies on sleepiness, I know, and I know that one from personal experience).

That being said, drinking and driving IS dangerous and I've seen far too many people come stumbling up to me claiming they are perfectly capable to drive to believe that people are able to judge when they've had too much. If you've already had one DUI, you've been put on notice and you know you need to start acting more responsibly. I don't believe making it impossible for people to hold a job is going to help matters, but I also won't give any sympathy to someone who complains that now they can only have one beer at happy hour on their way home from work.

Is the 10-year thing that this law only applies if you get 2 DUIs in 10 years or less, or that they can be within any time period, and they'll count any that were up to 10 years before this law was passed (ie one in 2030 and one in 1999 makes you do a breathilizer?)?

[Gully]

With the current limits (.08) and the crackdowns (checkpoints) you don't have to be an alcoholic to have a one or two DUI's. Just a couple drinks after work and the law now wants to ruin your life. I am not convinced that a person in the .08 to .10 range is any worse than a sleepy driver, a kid text messaging, an adult on their cell phone or being distracted by their unruly young kids. All the law is trying to do is scare anyone who goes out for a drink. I want to see the studies that show causes of all fatality accidents and if they are alcohol related how many were between .08 and .10 at the time of the accident. My bet is the majority are at much higher levels. Also suspect as a percentage how many are now related to distracted drivers (sleepy, cell phone, kids, etc.). Maybe it is time to put video cameras in your car so the cops can haul those irresponsible drivers to jail for their stupid acts that could potentially cause an accident. Hmmmmm..............

Great post. I think this is less about "public safety" and more about big government types wanting even more control over our lives.

I'll just continue talking on my cell phone, looking under the seat for my CDs, shaving, and reading the newspaper like I normally do.

[bisonaudit]

In Virginia they've got a program for repeat offenders that rather than jail them for whatever the sentance is they place them under a home monitoring program. The offender can go to work but when they're not a work they're expected to be at home and sober. They're called randomly (about twice a day but you can never be sure) and take a breath test on a device attached to their telephone.

[ndsubison1]

If you dont learn your lesson the first time getting a DUI than I guess you deserve this punishment

[tjbison]

Dumb rule, pretty hard for some people to get to work let alone the courhouse twice daily! They just keep pulling on the rope tighter on our freedom!

[UTH]

Let's all be careful out there tonight. And be extra extra extra careful in Japan, even if you aren't driving... [LINKY (http://www.duiblog.com/2007/12/31/the-next-step-arrest-the-passengers/)]

Have a Happy New Year, everyone!

*I swear no rickrolls

[travelingbison]

While I do believe that there are some very valid points to this thread, I also believe that this issue came up because of the continued DUI/DWI/alcoholic rankings North Dakota has been recieving - placing the state in the top 10 nation-wide in several alochol-related categories.

I find that this would be incredibly hard to overcome for someone who wants to make a difference in their life, but I do honestly think that it's more of a step in the right direction than continuing to do nothing.

I personally feel that it's time to change the environments that we, as North Dakotans, are submitting the youth in this state to - and if the only way we can change is to abide by new policy, then we will adapt accordingly. It won't stop us from being ourselves, but it might make us more accountable for our actions.

[UTH]

While I do believe that there are some very valid points to this thread, I also believe that this issue came up because of the continued DUI/DWI/alcoholic rankings North Dakota has been recieving - placing the state in the top 10 nation-wide in several alochol-related categories.

I find that this would be incredibly hard to overcome for someone who wants to make a difference in their life, but I do honestly think that it's more of a step in the right direction than continuing to do nothing.

I personally feel that it's time to change the environments that we, as North Dakotans, are submitting the youth in this state to - and if the only way we can change is to abide by new policy, then we will adapt accordingly. It won't stop us from being ourselves, but it might make us more accountable for our actions.

So long as new statutes, rules, and other hoops to jump through are designed to attack a legitimate problem, where would you draw the line and say, "enough"? The pretext of a noble cause is used far too often as an excuse to justify the means to the end. As it stands now, a judge can order you to not drink alcohol or consume any other intoxicating substances with the flip of a pen, anyway. You're then given the opportunity to man up on your own and stay out of trouble like a big boy. Requiring twice daily verification that you are not drinking creates a presumption that you're physically incapable of staying off the sauce. That idea stinks to me. We as Americans have paid a great price for the freedoms we enjoy. I don't like the idea of giving anything away for free.


http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff311/indio_rojas/GivemelibertyordeathPatrickHenry.jpg

Opinions are very likely to vary on this issue, but the measures taken here seem more punitive than rehabilitative in nature. The way I read this, it's another way for the State to keep the man down. It is true that this is an alternative to incarceration; but it is likely to increase the amount of incarceration added on in sentencing.

example: Say you're facing a first DUI and the judge really wants to make sure you stay sober. He can sentence you to 30 days in the pokey and say he's being nice by giving you the opportunity to remain free, so long as you stop by for a breathalyzer twice a day. In a place like North Dakota, where a person may have to travel a great distance to stay in the good graces of the Court, this can take the form of a setup very easily. A well-intentioned person can end up going down for a month just because he ran out of friends, relatives, etc. to drive him to his twice daily breathalyzer test. Setup - I say it's a bad thing to set someone up for failure. Bad. Setup. Bad.

*i won't accept the argument 'but he screwed up' as a valid rebuttal. this is being advertised as a rehabilitative, not punitive solution

[Hammersmith]

The article that started all this is no longer available, but I'm almost certain there was an option that didn't require you to show up at the courthouse if it was impractical. There was a daily fee involved($5?), but the option existed.

Edit: here it is:

If people cannot get to the county sheriff's department twice a day, a judge can instead have them wear an ankle bracelet that can detect alcohol use. The bracelet's sensors test the skin several times a day for alcohol use and transmit the test results by modem and telephone line to a computer at the sheriff's department. People opting for that route pay $5 a day and must pay the first two weeks in advance along with a $25 activation fee and $25 deactivation fee.

[BlueBisonRock]

So long as new statutes, rules, and other hoops to jump through are designed to attack a legitimate problem, where would you draw the line and say, "enough"? The pretext of a noble cause is used far too often as an excuse to justify the means to the end. As it stands now, a judge can order you to not drink alcohol or consume any other intoxicating substances with the flip of a pen, anyway. You're then given the opportunity to man up on your own and stay out of trouble like a big boy. Requiring twice daily verification that you are not drinking creates a presumption that you're physically incapable of staying off the sauce. That idea stinks to me. We as Americans have paid a great price for the freedoms we enjoy. I don't like the idea of giving anything away for free.


Opinions are very likely to vary on this issue, but the measures taken here seem more punitive than rehabilitative in nature. The way I read this, it's another way for the State to keep the man down. It is true that this is an alternative to incarceration; but it is likely to increase the amount of incarceration added on in sentencing.

example: Say you're facing a first DUI and the judge really wants to make sure you stay sober. He can sentence you to 30 days in the pokey and say he's being nice by giving you the opportunity to remain free, so long as you stop by for a breathalyzer twice a day. In a place like North Dakota, where a person may have to travel a great distance to stay in the good graces of the Court, this can take the form of a setup very easily. A well-intentioned person can end up going down for a month just because he ran out of friends, relatives, etc. to drive him to his twice daily breathalyzer test. Setup - I say it's a bad thing to set someone up for failure. Bad. Setup. Bad.

*i won't accept the argument 'but he screwed up' as a valid rebuttal. this is being advertised as a rehabilitative, not punitive solution

Your position is a tough position to take. There are a number of well meaning people who want to insure that a potential offender does not have an opportunity to fail again.

I am a big believer in the personal freedoms that are the hallmark of our country AND in personal responsibility, accountability, and maturity.

Ben Franklin stated it best over 200 years ago: "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."


I respect your post and am posting reps.

[Bison bison]

The article that started all this is no longer available, but I'm almost certain there was an option that didn't require you to show up at the courthouse if it was impractical. There was a daily fee involved($5?), but the option existed.

Edit: here it is:

$5 a day. I can almost buy a case of Natty Light for $5!!!

[Bisonguy]

$5 a day. I can almost buy a case of Natty Light for $5!!!

But why would you want to??

[Herd Mentality]

Actually...you had to ALSO pay $5/day "to pay for the program".

[56BISON73]

Just watched a news segment from MN that some are upset about the rise in binge drinking. Now my idea of binge drinking is going out and getting totally pants down crawly knee hammered. But the powers that be define it as going out and having 5 or more drinks at any one time. Now I could understand if it was may be 5 drinks AT ONE TIME. BUT 5 drinks through the evening????? PL

[TransAmBison]

Just watched a news segment from MN that some are upset about the rise in binge drinking. Now my idea of binge drinking is going out and getting totally pants down crawly knee hammered. But the powers that be define it as going out and having 5 or more drinks at any one time. Now I could understand if it was may be 5 drinks AT ONE TIME. BUT 5 drinks through the evening????? PL
So 5 drinks in an evening doesn't get the rest of you "totally pants down crawling knee hammered"?????:D

[Bison bison]

Just watched a news segment from MN that some are upset about the rise in binge drinking. Now my idea of binge drinking is going out and getting totally pants down crawly knee hammered. But the powers that be define it as going out and having 5 or more drinks at any one time. Now I could understand if it was may be 5 drinks AT ONE TIME. BUT 5 drinks through the evening????? PL

I thought it was 5 drinks or more at one sitting.

Unless I'm drinking hard liquour, I usually need get up after at least every three/four beers.

[Bison bison]

But why would you want to??

hence the use of the word 'can'.

[bisonmike2]

Just watched a news segment from MN that some are upset about the rise in binge drinking. Now my idea of binge drinking is going out and getting totally pants down crawly knee hammered. But the powers that be define it as going out and having 5 or more drinks at any one time. Now I could understand if it was may be 5 drinks AT ONE TIME. BUT 5 drinks through the evening????? PL

There's actually a survey you can take that will tell you if you are a binge drinker and need help. Here's a sample. As you can see it's pretty standard.


Q. Have you ever woken up after a night out and found mysterious atm reciepts from the night before in your pocket?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately

Q. Have you ever had a headache the day after drinking the night before?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately


Q. Have you ever went to a liquor store to buy just one item and found yourself buying more than what you came for?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately

Q. Have you ever been to a liquor store?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately


Q. Have you have been to a bar and ordered more than 1 drink at a time?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately

Q. Have you ever been to a bar and watched your friends get drunk only to leave early b/c you had a test or something else important the next day but you felft bad b/c you really wanted to hang out with them and get wasted too?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately


Q. Have you ever been to the Mini-Mart past 2:00 am?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately

Q. Have you ever been to the Mini-Mart past 2:00 am and eaten a mart dog or nasty nachos?
Yes - your an alcoholic, seek help immediately and also contact poison control
No - your in denial and are an alcoholic, seek help immediately

[Ferd]

... stuff deleted ...
Requiring twice daily verification that you are not drinking creates a presumption that you're physically incapable of staying off the sauce.



... stuff deleted ...



example: Say you're facing a first DUI and the judge really wants to make sure you stay sober. He can sentence you to 30 days in the pokey and say he's being nice by giving you the opportunity to remain free, so long as you stop by for a breathalyzer twice a day. In a place like North Dakota, where a person may have to travel a great distance to stay in the good graces of the Court, this can take the form of a setup very easily. A well-intentioned person can end up going down for a month just because he ran out of friends, relatives, etc. to drive him to his twice daily breathalyzer test. Setup - I say it's a bad thing to set someone up for failure. Bad. Setup. Bad.

*i won't accept the argument 'but he screwed up' as a valid rebuttal. this is being advertised as a rehabilitative, not punitive solution

I generally agree with you about excessive government involvement in our lives, but a drunk driver's control, or lack thereof, can significantly affect me and my family.

This result only comes into play for your second DUI. At that point you've already proven you can't/won't control it! How many chances should you get?

You don't have to accept my points. I just want to keep drunk drivers off the roads. Current laws aren't working. Furthermore, punishment should be greater than it is for those caught driving under suspension for a DUI conviction.

[56BISON73]

So 5 drinks in an evening doesn't get the rest of you "totally pants down crawling knee hammered"?????:D

When I was drinking it sure didnt. It was the 15 after that that was the problem. :D PL

[Gully]

I generally agree with you about excessive government involvement in our lives, but a drunk driver's control, or lack thereof, can significantly affect me and my family.

This result only comes into play for your second DUI. At that point you've already proven you can't/won't control it! How many chances should you get?

You don't have to accept my points. I just want to keep drunk drivers off the roads. Current laws aren't working. Furthermore, punishment should be greater than it is for those caught driving under suspension for a DUI conviction.

If the current laws aren't working why should we assume that more laws would help? Maybe the answer isn't always more laws and bigger government.

[sambini]

When I was drinking it sure didnt. It was the 15 after that that was the problem. :D PL
15 to 20 at Sports Bar PL for me....

[sambini]

Now I am the designated driver and would be glad to drive.

[onbison09]

This is absolutly stupid. Say you were on a bender 10 years ago, had too much to drink, got a DIU. What if you swore to never drink again and haven't for 10 years???

[Ferd]

This is absolutly stupid. Say you were on a bender 10 years ago, had too much to drink, got a DIU. What if you swore to never drink again and haven't for 10 years???

Then this won't affect you.

BTW, I believe there was a limit between offenses.

Here is a link that describes the program:

http://www.ag.nd.gov/documents/12-19-07.pdf

[UTH]

I generally agree with you about excessive government involvement in our lives, but a drunk driver's control, or lack thereof, can significantly affect me and my family.

This result only comes into play for your second DUI. At that point you've already proven you can't/won't control it! How many chances should you get?

You don't have to accept my points. I just want to keep drunk drivers off the roads. Current laws aren't working. Furthermore, punishment should be greater than it is for those caught driving under suspension for a DUI conviction.

I admit the 'first DUI' is a bad example, but only because that offense specifically isn't covered by this program. I was simply too lazy to go back and make sure that every little detail was absolutely correct. You got me there - congratulations to you! :nod:

I still don't see a simple 'reoffender status' changing factors to the point that people should fall into this program... I accept your point that "you've already proven you can't/won't control it!" and consider it your blanket opinion. I will offer you my own blanket opinion that setting people up for failure is bad policy.

You don't believe that current laws are working. That is your valid, and likely correct, opinion. However, you say that you "just want to keep drunk drivers off the roads" and say it is treated the same as Driving Under Suspension. You might want to consider how they really compare...

I like your style with underlining the word, convicted, but I don't understand its significance... Driving under suspension is a Class B Misdemeanor, which makes it a crime, for which a conviction is necessary in order to make it punishable. Furthermore, it takes a lot of leadfooting or a DUI to get your license suspended (i just want to keep dangerous fast drivers off the road):D. You can consider the threat of a DUS another little gift from the State for your DUI conviction, but I digress. Here's a little breakdown of sentencing between these two crimes...

Driving Under Suspension:
B Misdemeanor each for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd within 5 consecutive years.

Each subsequent DUS in those 5 years will be an A Misdemeanor.

Driving Under the Influence:
First and Second in 5 years is a B Misdemeanor.

Third in 5 years is an A Misdemeanor.

Fourth in 7 years is an A Misdemeanor.

Fifth or subsequent in 7 years is a class C felony!!! darn, that's, like, a bad crime, or something.

Repeat offenders within any 5 year period get license plates confiscated during the period of suspension.

Minimum penalties after conviction of DUI also include:
First - $200 fine, addiction evaluation.
Second - 5 days or 30 days community service, $500 fine, addiction evaluation.
Third - you get the point...

Now, please explain how a conviction for DUS is the same as that for a DUI.

[UTH]

This is absolutly stupid. Say you were on a bender 10 years ago, had too much to drink, got a DIU. What if you swore to never drink again and haven't for 10 years???

So much for Christmas with grandma over in Seattle, Bucko, unless of course, you can get permission from that well-intended nanny state.

here you go...
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff311/indio_rojas/Pacifier.jpg