DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:47 pm

rabble wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:However I would first point out that [pretty true made up statistic] 99% of legally drunk drivers never hit anybody or anything.

Actually no. It's about 50%.

LOL, talking more in terms of, 'on any given night, what percentage of legally intoxicated drivers actually collide with cars, objects or people?'

A: [pretty true fake statistic] 0% to 1%.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby rabble » Sat Aug 03, 2013 9:41 am

Bludgeon wrote:
rabble wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:However I would first point out that [pretty true made up statistic] 99% of legally drunk drivers never hit anybody or anything.

Actually no. It's about 50%.

LOL, talking more in terms of, 'on any given night, what percentage of legally intoxicated drivers actually collide with cars, objects or people?'

A: [pretty true fake statistic] 0% to 1%.

You're really good at making stuff up.

Corollary: You almost never drink. How the hell would you know?

Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4423
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Ducatista » Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:02 pm

Bludgeon wrote:LOL, talking more in terms of, 'on any given night, what percentage of legally intoxicated drivers actually collide with cars, objects or people?'

LOL, this topic is funny!

Alcohol affects judgment, and the shift from a legit "I'm fine" to an overly confident "Pft, I'm fine" can happen pretty quickly.

I think .08 may be intended to keep conscientious drivers at a safer distance from the unimpaired/impaired line.

Does it work? I don't know... my behavior didn't change when the limit did, but I've always been super-paranoid about driving after drinking.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:27 pm

Not that I mind either way but I'm sort of like floored that on this page and in this town nobody has felt the inclination to respond to the topic of marijuana as grounds for putting a DUI on your record that will be there forever. Something I never heard of before I guess it hit the books around 2010, like I said I think that's outrageous.

...All the hippies/progs/students/lefties et all cool with that? Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 346.63 (1)(a)-(am)

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5873
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Stebben84 » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:47 pm

It's much easier to fake not being high then it is to fake being drunk. Unless of course you're so high that you're a blathering lump of shit and in that case you shouldn't be driving.

I'm not too concerned about those laws.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby rabble » Mon Aug 05, 2013 8:59 pm

Stebben84 wrote:I'm not too concerned about those laws.

They've been in place for going on four years now. I missed all the articles on the hordes of perfectly innocent stoners who have been hauled in and got blotches on their permanent records.

npler
Forum Addict
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby npler » Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:11 am

Bludgeon wrote:Milgram's focus was on obedience but I've always drawn from it a number of parallels. I find it to be illustrative of the potentials of human nature. When I hear on NPR this morning that lawmakers are again going to meet at the capitol building to gin up more hysteria about the DUI laws in Wisconsin, I think of the Milgram Experiment.


It seems like anything having to do with drugs and alcohol, sex, and rock & roll is like that. It could be anything from puritanism to sadism to just plain cussedness or probably a combination of all of them.

gozer
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: everywhere
Contact:

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby gozer » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:55 am

rabble wrote:
snoqueen wrote:As far as drunk driving laws go, we're definitely using a sledgehammer to squash ants. The laws need to target the most egregious offenders and repeat offenders, not cast such a wide net. The goal is public safety, not just putting on a big show. If we keep on making dumber and dumber laws, we'll eventually lose the public support we've taken such care to build up.

Unless you can provide numbers to show that the repeat offenders are causing all the deaths, I have to disagree. The reason the public doesn't like the laws is because the public thinks we ought to be able to drive drunk and we should only punish the people who aren't careful enough when they're driving drunk.

I don't share that opinion and I'm in favor of the European zero tolerance laws.

And I note that zero tolerance is a way of life here too, except for alcohol.


indeed it is -- when one hears of zero tolerance about something from any authority, it indicates they either don't know what they are doing or . . . well, i guess that's probably always the reason.

which is a different thing than absolute sobriety, which is the requirement in some european countries and for certain cases like new drivers, commercial drivers &c in others. 0·5‰ by volume or 45 mg/dl with lower or zero for the aforementioned or other cases like driving a vehicle over 4500 kg is more common, and the indicated legal consequences tend to be quite serious but one needs to go further south and east before they become truly draconian . . .

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:22 am

I'd be very interested to see if any of the pro-sledgehammer crowd have a rational opinion on some of the legal minutiae entailed by the bulldozer we are currently parading around in the disguise of fair, strategic, effective DUI laws.

It's a simplistic knee jerk reaction to callously forward the idea that 'drinking and driving is bad' so any extreme, reactive measure must be 'good'.

Let's focus on second offense laws: "A second DUI in Wisconsin with a blood alcohol level under .08 is considered a misdemeanor. Four or more OWI/DUI offenses with a BAC of .02 or more is considered a felony in Wisconsin. The state will seize your car after a fourth offense."

Administrative Penalties
  • A second DUI/OWI conviction in Wisconsin will cause a 12 to 18 month license revocation.
Criminal Penalties
A person convicted of a second DUI/OWE may face:
  • Fines ranging from $350.00 to $1,100, plus court costs. There is also a surge fine of $355.00. Penalty guidelines vary by county.
  • Probation
  • Minimum five days to maximum six months jail time
  • Mandatory attendance of an alcohol treatment program
  • Installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) for 12 to 18 months

I realize that if your only tool is a sledgehammer you tend to see every problem as as a cinder block, but I'm asking the sledgehammer gang to use their sledgehammer brains. Clear your mind of the stereotypical image of the extremely inebriated 0.283% BAC problem alcoholic swerving all over the road, drooling barely able to stay awake "drunk driver".

Picture a person who barely drinks at all, maybe once or twice every three months. A person who is not legally drunk - a person with a 0.01% BAC. However this person had one solitary DUI maybe ten, twenty-five, thirty years ago. Therefore when a police officer in the sticks of small town, no-other-revenue-in-the-county Wisconsin just happens to pull this person over for the only ticket they've had the chance to administer in three days, having every financial incentive to demand the frivolous breathalyzer test, the cop must arrest this person right then and there.

Thenceforward this otherwise productive member of society:
is in JAIL, loses their license for a year, pays a combined $1,500 fine, has to pay $300 for an alcohol assessment, pay for and take time out of their lives and their work to go to an alcohol 'treatment' program. Also, they could end up in jail for SIX MONTHS during this time, pay the state to install a breathalyzer machine into their own car (technology known to be faulty), AND be on PROBATION.

Show me that your rationale is more than just an authority fetish: do what you want with the drunken boozer with the 0.283% BAC. But is this what you call a just sentence to the individual with a zero point zero one, legal blood alcahol level?
Last edited by Bludgeon on Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:22 am

The legal limit is 0.08%, as ridiculous as that is. With no statute of limitations, it's a gross mischaracterization to classify every driver on the road with a 0.01% BAC as a "problem drinker", as long as there's a prior offense. These array of penalties the sledgehammer gang is wont to dole out so free and easily are a destructive force with serious consequences to decent peoples' lives. You want nurses who work 50 hours a week to be on probation because of one 0.01% BAC level? You want a single mom who works at Copps and makes $7.75 an hour to take $150 install pluss $90 a month out of her budget to have an ignition interlock device installed into her car because of a 0.01% BAC level? We should throw her in the can for a few weeks too, for which she will probably be fired and have no job at all. For a 0.01% BAC level. This is the right thing to do, right? How about the 27 year old minority waiter at "Old Country Buffet" just trying to straighten out his life and get the cops off his back, trying to keep a roof over his head working at a job he's probably not very comfortable in anyway, but has to try hard to keep? Another three years of probation ought to do him good, right? He's already late on his rent, but there's no reason to expect he can't come up with $300 for the alcohol assessment and $300 for the treatment program, right? A 0.01% BAC level is more than enough justification for him to have to fork out $1230 a year to install and use a breathalyzer machine in his only means of transportation, correct?

Someone justify this 0.01% to me, in the sense that you think it ought not to be amended.

ouroborus4
Forum Addict
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:01 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby ouroborus4 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:50 am

Second offense and third offense are still 0.08. Only at 4th offense does the bar drop to 0.02.: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/owi-penchrt.pdf While you can get a DUI (including the first DUI) with any blood alcohol content if the officer deems you impaired, the threshhold for building a case is usally .08. However, once you are charged with a DUI, the process and penalties, including license suspension, begin before you are found guilty of your infraction and before you have your day in court.

I actually agree with you in principle, and the DUI laws are ridiculous and completely inflexible. This doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. There are problem and repetitive drinkers out there who would benefit from classes and interventions, but have built a system where we are ruining low-risk drinkers' lives, and implementing a heavy-handed approach for everybody who makes a mistake. And before anybody pulls the emotional card about a loved one being hurt/killed, I understand that as a dear friend was killed by a drunk driver with a high BAC as they ran a red light at high speeds. I still don't begrudge responsible drinkers and understand that people want to have a good time and need transportation to do so. If we want to reduce drunk driving, lets build a 24 hour cheap, fast and reliable public transportation system that is regional in scope.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Oct 03, 2013 12:57 pm

ouroborus4 wrote:Second offense and third offense are still 0.08. Only at 4th offense does the bar drop to 0.02.: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/owi-penchrt.pdf While you can get a DUI (including the first DUI) with any blood alcohol content if the officer deems you impaired, the threshhold for building a case is usally .08. However, once you are charged with a DUI, the process and penalties, including license suspension, begin before you are found guilty of your infraction and before you have your day in court.

I actually agree with you in principle, and the DUI laws are ridiculous and completely inflexible. This doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. There are problem and repetitive drinkers out there who would benefit from classes and interventions, but have built a system where we are ruining low-risk drinkers' lives, and implementing a heavy-handed approach for everybody who makes a mistake. And before anybody pulls the emotional card about a loved one being hurt/killed, I understand that as a dear friend was killed by a drunk driver with a high BAC as they ran a red light at high speeds. I still don't begrudge responsible drinkers and understand that people want to have a good time and need transportation to do so. If we want to reduce drunk driving, lets build a 24 hour cheap, fast and reliable public transportation system that is regional in scope.


Not that we're disagreeing on principal but as I read it, " A second DUI in Wisconsin with a blood alcohol level under .08 is considered a misdemeanor." [with very significant penalties] What you say about 0.02% and 4th offenses is also true, it's just two separate laws that authorize police to exact legal penalties against you all while being under the legal limit.

So you could be not drunk, and still get a DUI, once they've had you for the one.

It's funny and basically sad to watch people who want stronger DUI laws taking this 'as long as it's not happening to me' approach to the gestapos and gulags.

They claim to be pro-legalization, but want to look the other way about weed-DUI laws being enacted in their back yard. For their own comfort they will just assume their neighbors are too impaired to drive, rather than admit the predatory tendencies of their enforcers. You could get two weed DUI's and legally be forced to install a breathalyzer in your car for the annual cost of $1400 - when you weren't even drinking! Nothing says "this weed is excellent" like having to work a straight job where you just have extra thousands of dollars laying around.

They claim to be against 'disproportionate' numbers of blacks being arrested and held in jail 'for drug crimes', but they don't mind pretending this 'drug crime' doesn't exist. However if a black person is jailed because of these laws, "that's profiling", while on the other side of the coin they could give a fuck less how many non-blacks are disproportionately, adversely affected by these laws.

They claim to be concerned about the number of people injured "by" drunk drivers (blame is just assumed no matter what the driving behavior of the sober person). And we call that justice. So - it's all about saving lives right? But they're not the slightest bit curious about what the percentage comparisons even are for drunk and sober drivers, who kills more people? Sober people kill more people. So what's the point?

Predatory judicial behavior is the point. You gotta pay the troll toll. It's all, always been about revenue - nothing like a sin tax, to cannibalize a community.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5873
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:04 pm

Bludgeon wrote:gestapos and gulags.


And using terms like this make you sound like a fucking moron. As soon as you make these comparisons, anything you said is thrown into the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:08 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:gestapos and gulags.


And using terms like this make you sound like a fucking moron. As soon as you make these comparisons, anything you said is thrown into the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

Tempting as it is to get personal in return, suffice to say there's a lot of relevant information that get's thrown into the toilet, when the filter is your weary little mind.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5873
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: DUI Laws and the Milgram Experiment.

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:11 pm

When a group of people get thrown into a gas chamber for drunk driving, then I'll start to take what you write seriously.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests