-
Barrett763 03/16/2011 11:03:00 PM
Nice article, except you forgot the biggest travesty of all. The "B card" restriction. The state can mandate you not drink for the rest of your life even when not driving. Even if the worst thing you did while "impaired" was run a stop sign at a four way with no other cars.
-
Steve Mpls 09/12/2010 10:24:00 PM
Most folks don't realize that in Minnesota you can get a DWI without even being in your car and without your keys in the ignition. All it takes is for cops to suspect you have been driving or might intend to drive. Think about that the next time you & your buddies are knocking back some beers in in the parking lot outside your apartment. The charges are just as hard to beat as if you were caught driving down the highway. Believe me I've been there.
-
Multiple DUI Guy 08/30/2010 3:06:00 AM
97 of the 141 alcohol related deaths in MN last year were the drunks themselves and some of the other 44 where passengers in vehicles being drove by drunks (MNDPS, 2009). So its safe to say that less than 40 innocent persons/yr die as the result of drunk drivers; still IMO a great tragedy, but MADD/DPS/NHTSA doesn't present the data like this. I have multiple DUIs and am not an advocate for drunken driving. Also, I should point out that I am an anomaly to Dr Simon's statistic of 100 incidences before getting caught: the last 2x I drove while drinking I was charged with DUI. So, that statistic may have a large variance making it meaningless. I am sober now and would never get behind the wheel with the toll DUI laws have had on my life. I think that because it is such a common occurrence in our culture that there should be more consideration given to the people that commit this offense, not everyone is a chronic alcoholic in need of AA, in my case it was poor decision making but yet I have been mandated by the state to sit in a room with alcoholics for the last 5 years.
-
Matt 08/08/2010 2:15:00 PM
I love your article. DWI crimes should be serious offenses. However, the DWI has become a curtain to hide behind for the biggest money racketeering program state governments can enforce. Everyone acts like its a stigma but how many people do they know that have one? I guess the rise of the police state is slowly taking its hold. Wont be long before they have random checkpoints for ipods, cellphones, and doughnuts in the car. If they really didnt want people to drink and drive why not require cars to be sold with the ignition interlock system they require dwi offenders to have?
-
tax payer 06/19/2010 1:44:00 AM
Informed consent law is not a fair law, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Refusal, you get a DWI any way, whats so fair about that? If your intoxicated, how do they figure you can understand what they want you to consent to? Comprehension? Most people that are drinking lose part of thier abilities to reason and understand complex rules. Even when sober some people cant see WHAT thier kids are doing wrong right in front of them....
-
Bob 06/16/2010 9:21:00 PM
IF the issue is about safety, then MADD/Law Enforcement should be leading the parade, demanding that breathylyzers be standard (or at least optional) equipment on all vehicles. Consider another "safety" issue - speeding. The limits are clearly posted, the driver is given a reasonably accurate device to comply with the law, and enforcement is also carried out using a reasonably accurate device. Contrast that with alcohol enforcement - 1) The limits ARE NOT clearly posted, 2) The driver IS NOT given any device to comply with the law, but 3) The enforcement is carried out with an extremely accurate device (out to thousandths of a percent!). What is the well-intentioned driver to do? If you go over by one thousandth of a percent and are caught, your life will be turned upside down in all sorts of unpleasant ways, but you have no REASONABLE way to comply with this "IMPORTANT SAFETY LAW". Even more unacceptable is the fact that the MN sheriffs have a list of "approved" devices - BUT NONE ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURCHASE! That's right, only law enforcement AND CORPORATIONS can purchase these approved devices! Is this "issue" really about safety, or just screwing with people's lives?
-
Nathaniel 06/16/2010 8:24:00 PM
A lot of comments sound like a broken record of 'it's all about the money.' It isn't. It isn't about the money. Fines are high because they are designed to not earn revenue to Police, or Gov't, but to a) detract people from drinking and driving and b) merely cover the costs it takes to enforce the law.
-
Daniel Olson 06/15/2010 12:07:00 AM
Do Minnesota’s DUI laws work? Considering 1 in 7 drivers has one, and you can still go to practically any bar in the state at closing time and watch a mass of stumbling people drive away a parking lot full of vehicles: I would say no, they do not work. MADD can rant all they want about how horrible and deadly drunk driving is, and be right, but until people have other transportation options the carnage will continue. We know how prohibition went the last time we tried it, so assuming alcohol will stay legal there needs to be transportation options other than driving in your own car. In other words, you can threaten people with a harsh legal system, appeal to their morals, or try to shame them for carelessly risking the lives of others, but if there is no other viable option to get home other than drive – how can you expect to change their behavior? In the cities, better public transportation needs to fill a larger role providing trips for drinkers as well as the 40% of Minnesotans without driver’s licenses. Some rural areas of the state are completely devoid of public transportation, cab service, or any other way besides the car. In this situation perhaps the drinking establishments need to think creatively how they could help their customers stay out of jail.
-
East Coast Doug 06/14/2010 5:07:00 AM
It's all about money. The state makes money, MADD makes money.
Senator Volstead from MN introduced the Volstead act (1929?) that made alcohol illegal.
-
Tom Washington 06/13/2010 1:39:00 AM
To deal effectively with the problem of drunk drivers a major focus should be on eliminating the "alcohol abuse mentality" which is at the heart of the problem---which is evident in the following: 1) How many expressions bragging about alcohol abuse do you and your friends use: Man, I was (smashed, ripped, wasted, skunked, etc.)?; 2) Do you play alcoholic "games"? (beer pong, doing "shots", 21 shots for a 21st birthday, etc.; 3) For females: Do you tolerate a man ever getting drunk while on a date with you---or one who would enoourage you to participate in alcohol games? If so, you are being self-victimizing. I was brought up by guys who were real men who would never under any circumstance show a woman that kind of disrespect. Showing a woman a good time, enjoying her company on a date, and being in a mental and physical condition to safeguard her happiness and well-being were values which they would never allow alcohol to compromise.
We have more than enough males in society. What is needed are more men who have the courage to set positive standards about how they use alcohol.
tom Washington, PhD.
-
RCG 06/12/2010 9:19:00 PM
I probably drove drunk over 100 times before finally getting caught in 2007, and was only pulled over because of an air freshener hanging in my mirror. But I felt the penalties were severe enough to prompt me to never do it again. I bought a little pocket breathalyzer and won't get behind the wheel if I'm anywhere close to .08. The laws seem to be working in my opinion, but only after the first offense.
-
Puck 06/12/2010 1:03:00 AM
Ok, so the "average" person has driven about 200 times while intoxicated before they are caught (on very loose estimates). OK, "Anglea" has been caught 4 times. If she were "average" thats 800. This buttercup is by no means average. This person does not get it and it seems to me as though she doesn't care either. She doesn't care about the risks she is taking when getting behind the wheel and what that may do to another family. Its not Minnesota coming down on here. Its "Angela" thinking that she is better than the greater good of the State and the people in it. What is that cop supposed to do when she basically says to the cop,"Yea, I'm drunk in my car with my friends in a parking lot of a bar, but we're gunna wait for a cab." On what planet do you think any police officer (or anyone in their right mind) would believe such a thing? If people can't take responsibility for their own actions aka "Anglea," then we've given that authority to the police officers of our community to do that in place of them. She clearly has shown that she can't control her addiction and make the right choices. The problem that Minnesota has is the repeat offender. The guy who killed Malik Sealy of the Minnesota T-pups...numerous DWIs driving with out a license. The Star-Tribune had a number of different articles this past spring all relating to DWI's in MN and that was a common factor: REPEAT OFFENDERS. THOSE WHO LACK THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL THEMSELVES AND HAVE DISREGARD FOR THE LIVES OF OTHERS. "Angela" is a repeat offender. The only way to make sure she doesn't kill any of your family members, neighbors and friends, is to lock her up. Remember, she's probably driven close to 1000 times while drunk. One could argue that is 1000 attempts of attempted murder.
-
ck2 06/11/2010 11:19:00 PM
Nick, Nick, Nick. I really hope you aren’t trying to make us feel sorry for “Angela.” She should be embarrassed because how is she going to feel if she kills someone while she is behind the wheel? 4 DWIs in less than 5 years is a reason to be embarrassed and it should also be telling herself and the courts that she has a problem. Currently on probation, “Angela” is not supposed to be partaking in the drinking of alcohol but I see her at local bars drinking. In fact, she just had a probation violation. People are saying this is a witchhunt. There are laws, laws that are there to protect other people as well as ourselves. I am sure you would want that law there if "Angela" hit and killed your significant other next time she is out drunk driving this weekend for the 5th time.
-
Zorro Mcgee 06/11/2010 6:35:00 PM
So your problem is with the "physical control" portion of the law. Your argument about what damage she caused by waiting for a cab is specious. She was intoxicated behind the wheel of a car with the keys in the ignition-by definition this is illegal. The average person driving intoxicated has driven 200 times with outbeing caught but still endangering eveyone on the road with them. She made the decision to drink and she made the decision to get behind the wheel. If our laws are so twisted beyond rational meaning then please explain the rest of the civilized world having much more severe laws. Are all the other counteries irrational also? Or is it perhaps that people just do not want imapaired drivers on the road?
-
Zorro Mcgee 06/11/2010 1:49:00 AM
" We have taken things to far" Who do you mean "WE". And since our laws are some of the most lenient in the civilized world, how do you make a case for "going to far" And why would you attack the state with less restrictive laws and not go after those states that are the most restrictive?
-
Landon Ascheman 06/11/2010 12:07:00 AM
As a DUI attorney I was very impressed with this article. This is one of those topics that few people want to address from the standpoint of "Angela." We have taken things to far, and as it stands we will continue to do so. Few people want to stand up to this social stigma. One note, the ignition interlock system still hinders the poor over the rich, unless we believe the fee should be waived in the interest of equality.
Thank you-
www.AschemanSmith.com
-
Zorromcgee 06/10/2010 2:26:00 AM
"Most of the countries with lower BAC requirements for a DWI also have a more advanced train/public transportation system than what we have in MN. No need for residents there to drive drunk."
Does not explain Austrailia,brazil,russia,ect. Please explain that not one country has a higher allowable BAC than we do. And most have more severe penalties> So you reasoning is that we are an underdeveloped country so we should let people drive drunk?
-
huh 06/10/2010 1:07:00 AM
Most of the countries with lower BAC requirements for a DWI also have a more advanced train/public transportation system than what we have in MN. No need for residents there to drive drunk.
-
Zorromcgee 06/10/2010 12:06:00 AM
So does MADD's reach extend to every other country on earth?
http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/BAC.pdf
no country has a higher aloowable BAC than MN and most hace a much lower with more severe penaties. is this part of MADD's work? Or is it just that the rest of the civilized world sees it as a crime to drive impaired
-
paul 06/09/2010 10:26:00 PM
As Luke points out... MADD is really the new Temperance League.
I remember back in high school a basic message. Don't be stupid, just keep yourself to one drink an hour (in the .10 days of the 80s.) But thanks to MADD it's almost become a "don't even think of looking at that bottle" sort of campaign.
I fear MADD has lost it's way, and now doesn't want to admit the fight is over, or has to change and become more tolerant. People drink, help them not to be stupid, not tax and fine them more.
-
InTheKNow 06/09/2010 10:22:00 PM
I have a few lawyer friends and they often talk about MN DWI laws. There is a mass conspiracy/collusion going on within law enforcement ranks, officers are actually coached and trained on how to fill out police reports for DWI cases. It doesn't take much research to verify, pull 5000 random DWI reports and they will read like they were written by cheating highschool kids copying a report from cliff notes. I am talking about 90%+ exact content.
Also, did you know MADD has people that sit in court rooms every single day and that they review every single DWI ruling to assure judges are not wavering from MADD's standards for punishment. Also, they employ an army of lawyers and lobbyists so if someone does find a loophole or gets a lesser punishment it is addressed in the next legislative session and the laws are modified. Check it out, DWI laws are literally modified every single year.
This is not justice, this is a witchhunt.
-
Zorromcgee 06/09/2010 9:55:00 PM
MN has some of the most lax DWI laws on earth. Most other states have much more strict laws. And most other countries have BAC as low as .02 and many are at .05 with much more severe penalties. Is MADD an international conspiracy? The DWI laws are really not intrusive-just don't drink and drive. And for a 200 lb male to reach .08 it takes 5 beers in an hour. Kind of hard to see this as a witch hunt when it is easy to avoid one.
-
Lisa 06/09/2010 9:47:00 PM
I think your article is well written. However.the case against drunk driving and driving while impaired was based on a witch hunt started by vindictive heartbroken families looking for revenge. Statistics were gathered by testing victims as well as the perpetraters of even the smallest fender benders who may or may not have been any more impaired then an individual on cough medicine, cold medicine or driving on too little sleep after long hours of work.Convicting a driver who has not caused an accident or violated a traffic law for the crimes of individuals who have is the equivalent to convicting an armed robber for murder. This is a money maker. It is a witch hunt and it's gotten out of hand.
-
william 06/09/2010 8:17:00 PM
Another reason to fear our government
-
Nick Pinto 06/09/2010 8:07:00 PM
Bob, the one-in-seven statistic is from the Office of Traffic Safety at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. To be clear, it's one in seven licensed Minnesota drivers, not the whole population.
-
Bob Collins 06/09/2010 8:00:00 PM
What are you basing your "1 in 7 Minnesotans have a DUI" statistic on?
-
Luke 06/09/2010 7:43:00 PM
"It's something we can effect, bit by bit, through education," says Jean Mulvey, the executive director of MADD in Minnesota. "Look at what happened with cigarettes. These things can change."
MADD is not waging a war against drunk driving, they are waging a war against drinking in general.
Make no mistake, their end goal is to impose their morals on the population.
Like many other lobbying groups, it is in their best interest to cater to the extreme members, to rally the fanatics and keep the donations coming.
If they set reasonable goals, rather than extreme ones, organizations like MADD would eventually achieve those goals, and would therefore have no more reason to exist.
They are more interested in maintaining power, rather than instituting common sense policies that would help reduce the actual number of drunk drivers.
In closing, fuck MADD.
-
Sparky 06/09/2010 2:44:00 AM
As with soooo much in this state, follow the money. Find out WHO runs all of the DUI taskforces, lobbing groups, etc, etc and look at their salaries. These folks make a pretty penny to gen up great power points, appear at church groups and community meetings, flash a few tragic photos of car crashes, and drum up support for ever more laws and oh, by the way, could you PLEASE write us a check to fund our Good Works.
