Washington joins the DUI license plate craze

Since when is an ex-drunk driver a hazard to anyone?

What happens if someone just F'ed up once? Are they to be ridiculed the rest of their lives (or in this instance a full year later)?

Are we going to put bright yellow tags on Air Force One? Dubya has had his run ins with DUI you know.



Are you really that caught up in security that we have to label everyone now?

For one . Your always an alcoholic . I wish they would just get off there a@#$ and ban the stuff. Theres no good reason to keep it around . Its the most worthless drug ever invented. (less the anti-bacterial properties)
I wouldn't mind if they made them get tattoos on there forehead that read "I'm a stupid drunk" 1 time is too many .

If it were possible i would rally to get these people charged with attempted murder 1st offense. They know the risk . They must WANT to kill somebody.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR]

How can you seriously say it's "simpler"? An electronic device (which ideally needs to be calibrated and all) wired into a car, or rather cars of different makes and all that? No sir, a simple plate will do nicely, thanks.

terrible idea i think.
it would make them a target for cops....a reason to pull them over and mess with them. also, as many have said, what about when it is a family member driving the car?
the cop gonna pull them over and brace them too?

get a blower installed in the car and make the offender pay for it....none of this license crap

Ahem. Drunk Drivers are almost always repeat offenders, and one conviction just means they were only caught once, out of what was probably many, many times. After all, if you don't get caught, why stop?



Yes.



If he were flying it, sure. I don't believe the law requires cabs transporting drunk drivers to have a yellow plate.

To be honest, Griff, sounds like you have either never had anyone near and dear to you killed by a drunk driver, you probably see nothing wrong with drunk driving, and perhaps even regularly drive drunk yourself.

All it takes is to have someone you love killed by someone who continued to drive despite previous DUIs, someone who, as far as they were concerned, weren't hurting anyone right up until the moment they ran a light and smashed into my friend. I mean, after all, nobody had been hurt up until that moment, and he hadn't wrecked anything but his own car beforehand, so it's not like Uncle Sam had any reason to impose his will on this man. Hell, he probably shouldn't have even gotten a ticket for the previous DUI's, right?

Maybe, instead of punishing DUIs, we should just proclaim them Proud Road Mavericks, bravely blazing their own path, dare-devilling their way through freedom. Indulging in their god-given right to get so fitshaced they don't even notice they hit anything until the cop pulls them over and points out the 50-yard streak of red paste on the road behind them.

Would you like that, Griff? Would you like us to coddle these poor inebriated souls, and recognize them as unfortunate, ostracized victims of a society too harsh to accept that they have a different way of doing things? Would that make you feel better?

To hell with that. People who CHOOSE to drive under the influence have CHOSEN to MURDER someone in cold blood. Maybe they don't succeed, but they damn sure made that CHOICE, and as far as I'm concerned, ONLY getting a yellow license plate is far too lenient.

reply to post by oLDWoRLDDiSoRDeR

---

This is coming from some one who was raised in a home and had an alcoholic father his whole life, I've been abused as a result of it, and in a car accident as a result of it, I'm 22 now and have never touched the stuff in any form, due to my experiences, Though I don't agree with the abuse of it for highly personal, not political, reasons, Its no ones right in a free society to dictate to others through law what they can and cannot do, own, say, or believe, freedom is a risky thing and you don't have to like it but freedom is freedom, if you want it you better protect it even if you don't like what someone does with it...

The only limit on freedom is one uses that freedom to harm others, and should they do this they should be punished accordingly, but no majority should ever have there freedoms usurped for the the crimes and or wrong doings of the few.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by C0le]

reply to post by evil gnome

---

If you have to drive much in Seattle you might want those "special" plates so other drivers give you more room!

Yes. I have.

BTW, I was hit by a drunk driver. I fractured my skull, broke my collar bone and have permanant hearing loss in my left ear.



I most certainly do.



I don't own a car.



Wow. We've gone from talking about labeling people to me loving drunk driving and drunk drivers? Pretty big leep. No?

hell! I get pulled over just for being brown......


People with drinking problems are going to drink and drive no matter what....They dont care. thats why they do it. A Yellow plate will not stop an addict.

reply to post by Griff

---

Don't ya love how those who have little if no experience know everything, while those of us who have far greater and personal insight and first hand experience into these things know nothing?

Having sat on a grand jury recently, and also been ticketed in the past, I am under the impression that it's hard for cops to "mess" with innocents without risking their careers.

Has any other state actually passed one of these bills? I wonder if there is any data or studies to show the effectiveness of these programs.

Oh no. A proven convict who has no proven social responsiblity getting harassed!

Dear god! The humanity! Oh the humanity!

So, a person who happens to be .08 blood alcohol content is a convict? Maybe you need to realize that a DUI isn't a federal offense.




BTW. .08 for some people is ONE beer.

I wonder how many of you who support this have drank ONE beer and oops, have to go for an emergency drive?


[edit on 2/13/2008 by Griff]

I look at it like this.

A drunk driver has not only completely disregarded the lives of anyone else on the road between his start location and destination, but has done so after impairing their timing, coordination, and judgment, so that they are even more likely to take a life. They put that key in the ignition knowing full well that they are driving a potentially lethal weapon that they cannot fully control, into a situation where they are surrounded by innocent people. That shows such a blatantly dangerous voluntary disregard for the lives of others that it is borderline psychotic. It has also completely removed the option of choice from anyone surrounding their vehicle.

So, yes, I have NO problem whatsoever with someone who's been caught drinking and driving being issued "yellow plates" for a year. And I have no problem with those people being the targets of police scrutiny when they drive. Frankly, if someone has voluntarily chosen to murder others, which is the choice a drunk driver makes, then having that yellow plate is perhaps the ONLY warning their potential victims might ever get.

That gives people a chance, at least, to become more alert, more cautious, and more wary of someone merging into their lane, or tailgating them, or occasionally drifting over the line up ahead. People should be doing that anyway, but that yellow plate might make the difference between whether you assume that person just screwed up for a second, or might actually be DUI.

And if you feel this is some form of facist oppression, or "pink triangle" labelling, as was implied earlier in the thread, then I remind you that drunk driving is a CHOICE, not a CIRCUMSTANCE. You are BORN of a certain race or nationality. You are RAISED of a certain religion.

But the CHOICE to drive drunk is one that is made on a case by case basis, upon the moral and ethical compass of the individual. CHOOSING to drive drunk is choosing to end the life of any innocents you cause to die along the way, and that, to me, makes it quite unique among the many ways one may break their Social Contract. They have effectively REMOVED EVERYONE ELSE'S CHOICE around them.

We have certain freedoms, called license, that we are inherently born with. For instance, in the wild, without society, I have the freedom to kill, commit theft, and far, far worse. Within society, I trade freedoms like those in for the security of knowing that everyone else in society has traded those freedoms away as well. Thus, I know that I can walk down the street and not be killed, my house will not be robbed, my wife will not be raped, my son will not be eaten, etc, except by those whom have decided to break their Social Contract, and thusly will be persued to the fullest extent of the law.

Even then, I am not allowed an eye for an eye. If a mugger kills my wife when trying to steal her purse, I may not put a bullet to his brain. I am limited to due process, fair trial, and the judgment of a legal system that we have elected to put in place, so that there is civil justice on a system-wide basis, instead of the individual license of vigilante justice.

In the wild, one may drive drunk to their heart's content, along with murder, theft, pillage, and rapine. Outside the bounds of society, not under its laws, you are governed only by your inner sense of right, wrong, and conscience. Within society, however, you are government by laws and consequence, and when you CHOOSE to break them, you are subject to their punishment.

When you drive drunk, you have broken your social contract by choice, and must either accept the punishment of society. You have accepted the benefit of society while refusing to accept the responsibility that goes with it. You are, in effect, a danger to society, and one who cannot be trusted in the immediate future to hold to the social contract. Hence the yellow plate.

However, over time, with rehabilitation and good behavior, one might prove they are responsible enough to be trusted to hold to their social contract. Hence the one-year limit, instead of the lifelong sentence. I hope that clarifies my views. It's not about "labelling" someone, it's about social contract, the choice to break it, and the removal of choice and life from those around you when you choose to drive drunk.

reply to post by thelibra

---

Thanks for clarifying. I can see your point more clearly now. You do have a point with the one year limit.

I would like to add though that I feel a first time offenders should not be labled in this manner. As they are not the ones who habitually drive drunk.

So, I can agree to disagree on this matter.

How on Earth do you know that they won't again, or have never habitually driven drunk?

I see, you are operating on a selfish level, comparing this situation to one where the person knows that it would be their first offense. There is a flaw in this, as there is no way to prove the negative. The driver can not prove that they have never driven drunk before. The only proof is that they have operated a potentially deadly weapon inside of a community, and have potentially, and willingly risked endangering others. This fact must make the drivers credibility about his prior driving habits completely nil.

For the benefit and safety of society, we must assume that they've merely been caught the first time.

And that brings me to the point of chips that monitors your biosigns/alcohol levels/etc/whatever. You know, the all invasive chip.

If we had a chip such as that, there could be recorded proof on some all pervasive database that it was their first offense - which would in turn give the first time offender the "privacy" that you are talking about. They would have the "freedom" to drive around without the yellow tag.

It works both ways.

reply to post by evil gnome

---

Hi Evil,

Just wanted to mention that if the impared driving people want to do the most good they should get after the "driving while using their cellphone" drivers. In the recent past I have seen:

_a gal blow a stoplight while talking on her cellphone...

-a guy do the same thing..

-another gal skid through a 360 on ice beside me with very large eyes on the cellphone completely out of control!

My guess is that cellphone use while driving is the greater of the problems.. Tks!

They did a thing on Mythbusters, cell phone vs drunk driving. While they weren't completely hammered they did do better then cell phone driving.

Funny story, drive by a woman pulled over by an officer. Still talking into her cellphone, maybe not realizing you are not allowed to talk on a cell while driving. probably why she was pulled over.

Anyways, I haven't touched the stuff in years. Beer belly isn't that attractive and the cost, geesh. Half gallon of orange juice or 2 cans of beer? What lasts longer and tastes better?

Also, Griff, if someone drives drunk, they are a murderer in the wait. Would you rather wait for Ted Bundy to kill 5-6 more people or arrest him and stop him before he kills anyone? That is what driving drunk is. It is as though Ted Bundy has told the police he is going to kill people. The yellow plate helps tell women not to go near him because he will kill them.

Or heck, put a sticker on Hitler telling the people he will lead to the Genocide of the Jews and WWII. Wait, that would embarrass him wouldn't it? Oh well, sorry Jews, Gypsys, soldiers, we don't want to embarrass Hitler with a sticker.

reply to post by HHH Is King

---

Hi H,

So you're saying that Mythbusters did a study and found that (unless you are severely intoxicated) driving while cell phoning is more dangerous than driving intoxicated?

Makes sense to me... based on what I see on the way to work!