That is alittle drunk

If Gallardo was sober and transporting a trunk full of marijuana or narcotics, he'd be on his way to 15 years in prison. But because it's a DWI and we as a country have basically decided to yawn at this, he's going to keep on living his life, getting a slap on the wrist. 

I'm honestly not saying this because he pitches for the Brewers because I'd feel the same way if it's Adam Wainwright or any other Cardinal. I just find it abhorrent how our laws do nothing to severely punish drunk drivers. 

APIAD wrote:

There are plenty of laws to punish drunk drivers.  It isnt the laws, it is the prosecution that lack of.  Part of the problem on that is because it is easier to prove a  more serious crime then it is to prove drunk driving.  There are so many hoops to jump through and even a good cases can go wrong.  This causes the system from top to bottom to look the other way. want better dui laws then we need less rights for suspected dui drivers, imo.

I'll definitely defer to you on this. I think part of the issue is cultural, too. I am not against anyone having a beer or two. Heck, I don't begrudge anyone who wants to get drunk as long as they do it safely and it doesn't become a problem for themselves or their family. But I don't think we apply the same weight to alcohol as we do to marijuana or even cigarettes, especially when kids are involved. 



 

For the record illinois suspends a person dl for being charged with dui.  U domt have to be convicted.  It has to do with implied consent and done administratively through the sec of state office.  If u havent had a dui or similar charge in the past 5 years it is a 6 month suspension if u submitt to testing.  One year if u do not.  If u have had a conviction in the last 5 years it is 1 year if u submitt and 3 if u do not.  That is decent punishment but often times the prosecution reinstates their dl as part of a plea.  That is how people get so many dui charges and still have a vaild dl.  if u get caught driving during u sespension it is a felony and car can be seized.  That also rarely happens.  

The problem u have with enforcement on duis is it is a 2hr ordeal and very tedious.  it is simple.  Most people can see a drunk and know they shouldnt drive.  To prove it in court is a very different story.  

tkihshbt wrote:

APIAD wrote:

are you from a rural area?

Very much so.

me to.  Idk if drinking is more of a small town culture thing or if it is everywhere.  It is hard to get from the bar to home when home is 10 miles away.
 

forsberg_us wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

If Gallardo was sober and transporting a trunk full of marijuana or narcotics, he'd be on his way to 15 years in prison. But because it's a DWI and we as a country have basically decided to yawn at this, he's going to keep on living his life, getting a slap on the wrist. 

I'm honestly not saying this because he pitches for the Brewers because I'd feel the same way if it's Adam Wainwright or any other Cardinal. I just find it abhorrent how our laws do nothing to severely punish drunk drivers. 

Not to be flip about it, but you're much more likely to find a judge or legislator driving home after a couple of belts than you are with a trunk full of cocaine.

Agreed, but I think the way we prosecute non-violent drug offenders is way out of whack, especially when compared to the way we treat drunk drivers.

Lives are indeed ruined, but I take the libertarian stance when it comes to drugs. Not that I think narcotics should be legalized, but that we should treat it as a health issue rather than a criminal one. As someone who has grown up with several former drug abusers, it's just my opinion that rehab works far better than prison. 

tkihshbt wrote:

APIAD wrote:

There are plenty of laws to punish drunk drivers.  It isnt the laws, it is the prosecution that lack of.  Part of the problem on that is because it is easier to prove a  more serious crime then it is to prove drunk driving.  There are so many hoops to jump through and even a good cases can go wrong.  This causes the system from top to bottom to look the other way. want better dui laws then we need less rights for suspected dui drivers, imo.

I'll definitely defer to you on this. I think part of the issue is cultural, too. I am not against anyone having a beer or two. Heck, I don't begrudge anyone who wants to get drunk as long as they do it safely and it doesn't become a problem for themselves or their family. But I don't think we apply the same weight to alcohol as we do to marijuana or even cigarettes, especially when kids are involved. 



 

I turned 49 last month, and as recently as my generation we got very very drunk and drove ourselves home.  Most of the time nothing happened.  Once in a while an asshole would do something horrible.  So, I think you are right, TK, in guessing a cultural motive for laxity.  Like pot in the 70's, people just kind of yawn.  MADD helped to change things as regards DD, but there is lots of inertai to overcome.
 

Good for you.  The advice I give my teen-ager:

1. try to avoid teen-age use of alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine, and if you do, you will most likely spend your adult life in control of your usage of those.

2. try to avoid dying in a car wreck, with the major variable you want to control being: don't get into a car if a teen-age boy is driving, particularly if it's a group of friends in one or more cars.

3. try to avoid getting a sexually transmitted disease or having an unplanned pregnancy.

Get to young adulthood unaddicated to the most commonly abused drugs, alive, and without an incurable STD or unexected baby, and I will consider the parenting gave you a "quality start" (fully aware that's an ERA of 4.5).  Throw in a self-funded college education without acquiring any debt and I might have a place to live when I get old, ( . . . that is unless she's cottoned on to what kind of person I am by that time).