- Drugs are an important part of the question if you include alcohol as a drug. Take any dimension of the problem you like, except for source country violence. All illegal drugs combined are to alcohol as the Mediterranean is to the Pacific. We have our whole navy in the Mediterranean. And that’s true both of the drug policy machinery and those who are fighting the drug war, and of the drug reform movement, which, it seems to me, neglects the problem with the one drug we’ve legalized. Any sentence about drug policy that doesn’t end with “raise alcohol taxes” is an incoherent sentence.
No, no, no, no, a thousand times no.
1) I have a friend with a DUI. From Michigan. First and only offense. And because she has to comply with Michigan's DUI laws (more specifically, one terrible county) while living in LA, she gets to put up with Michigan's punishments while living in LA. Which means she has to ride a bus twice a day to go blow in a tube. Which she has to pay $40 for. Which she's had to do for 9 months. Which has made her completely incapable of working because she has to burn 4 hours a day riding buses to go blow at the courthouse. Meanwhile, some fly-by-night operation is making $2800 a month off her and she can't work. 24-7 programs are bullshit.
2) My dad's girlfriend has a son. He has to blow once a day. The only place he can blow is a 40-mile drive and he can't drive because he's got a DUI (never mind the fact that he has a seizure disorder and was never actually tested). So not only does he skunk two hours of his day, he skunks two hours of his wife's day so NEITHER of them can work. 24-7 programs are bullshit.
3) There is no such thing as casual heroin use and casual marijuana use is a lot less common than casual alcohol use. Drawing parallels between "beer" and "heroin" illustrates that you have no fucking business working with public policy.
4) Powdered cocaine costs more than crack cocaine and people still snort powder. Price increases mean fuckall - some people will pay more for shit just because the price increase implies quality increase. Fuck - if it costs me $4 a quarter to grow weed but you're leveeing $40 a quarter in taxes, I'm going to price that shit at $80 a quarter and spend $10 a quarter making it more potent. The economics work out better for me to make my shit harder and more pure than the guy charging $44 a quarter because once the barrier to entry has been raised that much you might as well start dealing with real economics.
Fuck this guy.
NO, no, yes, yes, and some other thoughts. 1) I have little pity for your friend who has to live with the consequences of her actions 2) I have little pity for your friend who has to live with the consequences of his actions 3) agreed 4) funny
I agree with the headline that dealing with the alcohol problems in this country should have effect on the crime rates in this country - but I think this guy's solutions are too "systems" and government based. Alcohol abuse is a complicated issue with more personal/social/familial facets than just government regulation/taxation.
- 1) I have little pity for your friend who has to live with the consequences of her actions
2) I have little pity for your friend who has to live with the consequences of his actions
There's a significant difference between a punishment that disincentivizes DUIs and a punishment that becomes a crippling force on the person's life. There are more appropriate measures for countering drunk driving, and those mentioned above are not among them.
Yes. I have a family member that had his license suspended for a DUI. He couldn't drive to work as a contractor legally (and a bus wasn't an option, and he couldn't bring his tools if it were), so he had to drive without a license. He was then pulled over for driving a beat-up van to a job in a very nice neighborhood, and BAM, more debt and more legal problems. It's a law that is hell-bent on punishment, and that's all.
You must understand that most people approach this situation by first thinking, there is no reason anyone should ever drink and drive, and not drinking and driving is an easy way to avoid any trouble with this law.
Personally, I think that's a bad argument and poor logical justification, but playing devil's advocate, that's how the other side sees it.
Sure. But let's really look at it through the dispassionate viewpoint of "MADD are fucking crazy."
- Drunk driving is bad. But is a .15 bad? That used to be okay; when I grew up in New Mexico, if you were under a .20 (!) you were free and clear to drive all you wanted. How 'bout a .10? That used to be okay in lots of states. How 'bout a .08? That's what it became nationwide in 2005. How 'bout a .05? That's what MADD Canada wants it to be. Are we there yet? How 'bout .02, which MADD has lobbied several states to make the penalty level for minors? So let's get this straight: you're allowed to have a blood alcohol level 4 times higher as an adult than as a kid because, uhm, you're a more responsible driver? Or maybe it's just about being punitive and reactionary in order to get votes, kind of how the penalties for crack cocaine are 20 times higher than the penalties for powdered cocaine?
- So drunk driving is bad. how 'bout distracted driving? Is driving while texting bad? Yeah, driving while texting is bad. Is it worse than drunk driving? Well, driving over the legal limit adds 4 feet to your braking distance but according to NHTSA, texting adds 70 feet. So the penalty for texting while driving in Michigan is what? Manacles and hot irons? No, it's a hundred bucks.
- Okay, so how 'bout driving while tired? 'cuz that's pretty bad too, right? Why yes, yes it is. Being awake for 20 hours straight makes you drive like your BAC is .05. So what's the penalty for driving while tired? Oh, that's right. there isn't one.
- How 'bout cold medicine?
- how 'bout driving angry?
- How 'bout driving while changing the goddamn radio station?
- How 'bout driving while chatting with your buddy in the next seat over?
They're all bad. They're all detrimental to highway safety. But they're all a bitch to test for. Blood Alcohol Content? That one's easy. So that one's draconian. Know the biggest objection raised to legalizing marijuana in California? The cops can't test for stoned driving. Or a whole bunch of other shit - but we've already established the pattern that it's extremely lucrative to ruin someone's life for having two beers while nobody has suggested that $6,000 in legal fees is appropriate for texting while driving.
And let's be brutally frank - it doesn't even take a breathalyzer. My aforementioned acquaintance, who is not someone I like, refused a breathalyzer. Probably because it was 10 in the morning and he's a surly mutherfucker. But since the cop was white and this guy looks Navajo (he's actually half Hispanic, half pacific islander), the highway patrolman failed him on a field sobriety test without even asking him out of the car. So that whole family lost a car to impound (my dad had to buy them another one) and now it's his wife's problem to drive him to Santa Fe every day.
Should the dude have been driving? Fuck no. If you can't keep the car on the road, keep it off the road. My sister's best friend lost her mom on the same road the dude was busted on - not to alcohol, but to falling asleep at the wheel. But whereas the insurance settlement would have been void had she been found to be drunk, the fact that she was totally asleep when she died meant her daughter got her college paid for.
Chick is still dead.
So yeah. I know what "most people approach this situation by first thinking" but here on this here "thoughtful web" it fucking bears a second thought. And a third one. And maybe a fourth one. And at that point, one hopes one doesn't feel the need to shit in someone else's cheerios just so they can feel self-righteous.
Yeah. Sure. I used to drive stoned every once in a while, and I've met people who judged me pretty heavily for that if they found out. Mostly people who had zero input into the situation. Personally, (and this is what anyone will tell you, in my experience) I was always on hyper-alert when I knew had drugs in my system.
But stop swearing at me.
And by being on "hyper alert" you were less likely to be pulled over, right?
My whole point is your penalty is being "judged pretty heavily." The penalties for drunk driving are life-destroying for entire families. The flippant answer is "yes, but the consequences of drunk driving are life-destroying for entire families" and I've seen that side of the coin too - we won't get into it. HOWEVER the number of drunk drivers facing life-destroying penalties far outnumber the number of families facing life-destroying penalties. Worse, we've created a system where the tiniest infraction is now judged by large swaths of society to be every bit the crime of mowing through a church full of nuns while swilling single malt.
Sorry for swearing at you. I come here because I can hold the place to a higher standard than "most people" most of the time and it galls me when Hubski lets me down.
- And by being on "hyper alert" you were less likely to be pulled over, right?
I have to say -- I think there are a lot of places where punishment doesn't align with crime in this country. And were I to spearhead reform, I wouldn't start with DUIs, for two reasons. Firstly because, it is an actual crime to an extent that certain other illegal things just aren't. Second and more importantly, because talking about rational punishments for drunk drivers tends to get you blacklisted. It's a third rail sort of issue thanks to MADD.
Now you're arguing pragmatically rather than logically, though. You're saying "we shouldn't deal with this because it's too hard" not "we shouldn't deal with this because it's not as unjust as other things.
Thanks to this I know a little too much for my own good about crime and punishment. I don't know where I'd start. It's definitely a place for pragmatism, no doubt. I think if you focus too intently on the practicalities of the matter, though, you'll be so swamped you won't remember the morality that got you there in the first place.
And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
- And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
That's not so tough. You can say "you're fighting for vengeance, not for change, or else you'd focus on the hardcore." Then you say "your message has gotten so twisted towards temperance that your founder left twenty years ago." Then you say "how much energy have you spent on rehabilitation vs. punishment?" and then you point out "and what has that shift towards punishment done demographically, anyway?"
When you start out with the assertion that one side is not required to be rational, you'd best be doing something other than debate. Pathos only goes so far.
In the UK we have introduced laws for mobile phones and drugs, while you could also be taken to court for dangerous driving under any of the other scenarios. However, as you mention it is much more difficult to measure if someone is 'too tired' or 'too angry' to drive (unless caught on the dashboard camera doing something stupid), so I expect the actual number convicted is tiny. Also, you would still receive an immediate ban for alcohol as opposed to three/six penalty points for the other offences. However, if you go to court and explain the importance of your license to your life, the judge will likely give you an alternative form of punishment. I think we take a sensible approach to road laws as a general.
- while you could also be taken to court for dangerous driving under any of the other scenarios.
In the US, it's "reckless driving" which is a moving violation as opposed to "driving under the influence" which MADD has turned into a misdemeanor at best and a felony at worst. "Reckless driving" makes your insurance cost more. "DUI" gives you a criminal record.
| his usual brusque manner is in full force.|
uh... this blew up in my face. Apparently by stating I have "little pity" for some one was interpreted as: I hope they die and rot in a shallow grave, unremembered by any living soul.
This of course is not the case. I've already reached out to kleinbl00 privately, but I should say for the record, I'm not judging anyone or damning anyone for their behavior. I have some pity for them because in these cases, the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.
- But that's a bit too nuanced for you.
As far as nuance goes, no, I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but as originally stated, I don't agree with the author that higher taxes, increased punishments, or more governement involvement is the answer. Rather, solving our crime problem is much more nuanced, requiring efforts in the personal/social/familial elements of our lives. Thanks for the personal attack though.
And more importantly, there's a difference between "punishment" and "rehabilitation." My friend with the DUI from Michigan served 72 hours in jail. All the rest of this shit is part of her "rehabilitation." Like the breathalyzer that she can't do at her house. Like the twice weekly AA meetings she must attend, to the total annoyance of AA, because she's not even vaguely an alcoholic. Like the letters she had to get fifteen friends write (and notarize) talking about how we never see her touch that demon liquor and how she's totally a changed person now that she's been in lockstep with the good ole state of Michigan. Like the $225 an hour she gets to pay that lawyer to read our letters, proof-read them, and then send back for changes so the whole cycle can begin again.
The "punishment" was 72 hours in jail. All the rest of this bullshit? That's to keep our streets safer. Right?
Right.
That's aweful. I always been confused by DUI laws. One guy I know had his license suspended and had to attend classes just for carrying an open beer (For someone else) in public while underage, while not driving.
Another has gotten two DUIs for driving high and to my knowledge, has not gone through nearly the same shit.
The truly galling thing is she can't drive. She has no license. She gave it up so that she'd have less time under "probation." So there's no reason for Michigan (or any other state) to care what her blood alcohol level is - she's not operating a motor vehicle.
But she still has to blow in a tube twice a day.
Michigan doesn't care whether she's driving a vehicle drunk. They know that if she does that's a whole 'nuther crime. They care whether she's drinking at all. And, as I mentioned, in order to consider her "rehabilitated" (which is what she needs to be, in order for Michigan to release her license number so that she can get a license in another state, EVER) she has to get fifteen friends to testify under penalty of perjury that she's not just not drinking and driving, but that she's a teetotaler.
First offense.
Had she caused "property damage" while under the influence, her first offense would be a FELONY DUI and she'd be eligible for up to five years in prison... and she'd never be allowed to vote again. And every time she filled out a job application, she'd have to check that box that says "yes" next to "have you ever been convicted of a felony."
And you know, now that I think of it? Remember that time you told me to fuck off because I tried to say something nice and you didn't have the first fucking clue how to read anything but what you wanted to hear?
Just so you know, telling me that you think my friend's life and livelihood deserves to be completely fucking destroyed for one mistake is the kind of shit that will make me never ever ever fucking talk to you again.
You don't know what you're talking about. In your defense, I didn't give you enough to really give you a sense of anything but in your condemnation, you jumped right the fuck into the gap. The person in (1) is someone you would like. The person in (2) pulled a fucking knife on my father in his own kitchen and has served time for armed robbery and I'd gladly see him dead, but the fact of the matter is the "punishment" of making him blow every day 40 miles away and dragging his wife into it so that neither of them can work (particularly when sensible alternatives have existed for decades doesn't benefit society, doesn't benefit the legal system, and only serves to benefit the cronies that keep these operations running.
But that's a bit too nuanced for you. Apparently "fuck drunk drivers" is as far as you can see. Maybe your mom was killed by one. Maybe your entire fucking family was wiped out. I don't know and I don't care. Neither of the people being discussed have the first fucking thing to do with you.
So back the fuck off.
You have little pity because you think the punishment fits the crime. For blowing a .09 at 4am, having never been charged with any crime before, she's out $27,000 and nine months' work.
But then, you're from michigan, which I've sworn never to visit because of bullshit like this.
Part of the problem is sentence activism from judges. They give these assholes so much autonomy that it becomes a crapshoot. For example one of my best friends had mandatory drug and alcohol tests for 18 months for having one gram of pot on him when he was a passenger in a car that got searched. Meanwhile if you draw a different judge or are a few miles down the road in the next county, you might get off scot free. It's a terrible system, partly due to the fact that we have a moderately liberal majority and an arch conservative minority. But all that said, I don't think it should keep you from visiting if you get a chance. The shore of lake Michigan is one if the most beautiful places in the country.
I have had a number of friends that have gotten DUI's in Michigan at a young age. They end up having to go to expensive classes, losing their ability to drive to work and having to pay outrageous fines. It marred their life and did nothing to curb their drinking, and honestly some of them really didn't drink that much to begin with. It made them criminals for being common.
I have also had friends be killed by a drunk driver. Driving "drunk" should be illegal, no doubt about it but I have known good, responsible people that simply became a revenue stream for the state because they were barely over the "limit".
I think the point kb is making is that the law has nothing to do with protecting citizens and everything to do with punishing them punitively through life-ruining, poorly constructed and antiquated methods.
I don't have enough info regarding the situations to ascribe pity or a lack thereof but if they are similar to some of the situations I've witnessed, pity is justified.
- Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
You'll be glad to know that your comment did get me to open a bible :)
I'm not sure that an increased alcohol tax will curb excessive drinking. Maybe, but I don't think that a direct comparison with cigarettes works.
- We need to keep them from drinking, which is what the 24/7 program does. We could also require everyone to be carded. Maybe you still get carded, but I don’t. But imagine everyone got carded, and if I had a DUI, I had a driving license showing I wasn’t allowed to buy a drink.
This is a pretty bad idea, IMHO. It will probably just launch a market of blackmarket sellers.
Also, I'd like to see some statistics between alcohol consumption per capita and crime. To me this smacks of treating a symptom and not a cause.
I'd like to learn more about this approach. Presently I'm not particularly convinced - here in Ireland, you can only buy alcohol between 11:00 and 22:00, most pubs close before midnight (unless they have a late licence, in which case they can serve until 02:30, but few places have them), and alcohol is very expensive in comparison to a lot of other European countries. And the drinking doesn't seem to have decreased as far as I can tell, but then that's anecdotal.
I question this also. Does this mean that the people were breathalyzed and found definitively to have been drinking, or is this anecdotal? I can imagine someone getting arrested and then stating that they had been drinking to deflect some of the blame.
Don't forget the rest of what you started to quote:
- Of the class of people who go to prison, a lot of them are drunk a lot of the time. So that doesn't mean that they wouldn't have done it if they had not been drunk. It’s just that being drunk and committing burglary are both parts of their lifestyle. Still, alcohol shortens time horizons, and people with shorter time horizons are more criminally active because they’re less scared of the punishment.
It's disturbing how . . . certain he sounds about this. As if there is a definitive "class of people who go to prison." No, I don't trust this guy at all. He's got Big Brother written all over him.
- Taxation is just about the perfect way to control alcohol use. It’s not complete, because you need controls for the real problem drinkers. But if we tripled the alcohol tax it would reduce homicide by 6 percent.
However, the definition of "problem drinker" is something like 5 drinks a day. That's a mighty low number where I come from.
- So, you can’t do this solely with taxation. You need some regulation with the tax. But tripling the tax would add something like $17 billion a year in new revenue.
Oh right, that's what he's after. Plus, you've got to love this:
- Not that I’d be caught dead drinking a blended Scotch.
Pfft. Preference is one thing, being a dickhead is another.
Haha, I'm sure that was a joke. There's nothing wrong with Johnnie Walker (and shame on the WP for spelling it "Johnny"). I have a bottle of gold at my house, and its spectacular, even as a blend.
But to another point, there absolutely is a class of people who go to jail: young black men, especially from low income families.
They should look to Canada to see what effect their taxes have had on crime. Their alcohol taxes are through the roof (for example, Labatt Blue, a Canadian imported beer, costs $21/case in MI, and about $40 in Ontario!). This seems like an easy test case to study whether higher taxes curb crime.
Yeah, I don't know. Canada isn't as polite and nice as Americans tend to think it is, but there could be many reasons for lower crime rates. Population size could be a factor, for one.
In regard to young black men, given the typical usage of "class" in political contexts is referring to young black men as "the class of people who go to jail" constructive to his advocacy of the issue? If he's talking about the poor in general, why not address issues that tend to lead people to drinking to begin with? It seems easier than taking on alcohol lobbyists.
- I regard that as the first principle of drug policy. Price matters a lot to people who use a lot, and so it’s a very good way to regulate consumption.
Rather than any form of education or social support.
- “If the difference in price between Black and ordinary scotch matters to you, you’re drinking too much.”
No, if the difference in price between black and ordinary scotch matters to you, you are not wealthy enough to have stopped caring. Any tax increase would hit the poorest hardest while having less impact on the more affluent. It also reinforces the belief that alcohol abuse is a condition suffered by the lower class.