I live in Ohio and recently there was a man that had 11 DUI convictions that killed two teenage college kids and injured the third. Of course, he was almost 3 or 4 (can't remember exactly) times the legal limit. His license of course was suspended, but his girlfriend gave him the keys to her truck. He has been charged as well as her.

Anyway, today I was listening to a talk radio show that is based in Ohio and they were talking about it. Someone had suggested that when dealing with DUI, they shouldn't be taking away driving priovledges. Driving isn't the problem, it is drinking that is the problem. Just as you are considered an adult and the age of 18, but they don't think you are responsible enough to drink at that age, so it is 21. Well, by having a DUI, you are showing that you are not responsible enough to drink. So... why not make them get a special drivers license or ID that is either a special color or has a logo or something on it and make it a law that everyone has to show their id to purchase alcohol. When carded, they would see the logo or color and they would not be able to purchase the beer or what ever....I think that is the basic jist of what they were talking about.

I was running erronds so I was in and out of the car and didn't get to hear allot of the callers, so I didn't get to hear everyones opinion of it and why it possibly wouldn't work, but I just kept thinking to myself that it was an excellent idea. Now, they weren't talking about doing it after the 1st DUI, but setting the number at 2 or maybe 3. And they didn't come up with a time as to how long it wold be in effect or any of that. It isn't like this is a bill that is somewhere trying to get passed or anything. It was just a talk radio show talking about the local story and how our system isn't working if someone with 11 DUI's is still out of the streets and driving.

So tell me, am I nuts or is the not a great idea? Start telling me why it won't work? I can't get my brain to come up with anything!!

By Vicki on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 08:15 pm:

oops...sorry about the typos and mistakes. I was going to correct them and hit the wrong button. Oh well, you can figure it out. LOL

By Reds9298 on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 09:40 pm:

I think that is a GREAT idea!!!! I've never heard of that idea before but I love it. My sister's young SIL was recently killed by a drunk driver who had 6 previous DUI's and was still driving a dump truck. (Which he stole from the company and murdered her with during his intoxication I might add.)

Maybe someone will point out something I'm missing here, but overall I love the idea. So you would have to show your license at bars and liquor stores and anywhere alcohol is sold, correct?
Great idea.

By Luv2fly on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:10 pm:

However, you could (and probably would) still drink in any private home. Your wife buys the booze and you drink it at home.

I agree that something else needs to be done though. Apparently DUI's are not enough.

By Ginny~moderator on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:13 pm:

Well, it seems to me his girlfriend, who enabled him by letting him drive her car, could just as easily enable him by buying him booze. NJ now has a law that the 3rd DUI buys you a mandatory jail term of 180 days. The NJ Supreme Court just learned that some counties are allowing work-release or GPS locator ankle bracelets instead of the full 180 days and is tearing a strip of the sheriffs that allow that.

Personally, I think jail terms for multiple DUIs are totally appropriate. Maybe the coded license would work, but there is still the problem of others buying booze for the person, and serious enforcement when sellers don't examine licenses before selling.

Some states, PA is one, can require installation of a breathalyzer device so the car won't start until the person blows into it and won't start if it measures more than a certain alcohol content. There are ways around it, of course.

I do think jail is the only thing that might have an effect.

I hope your state has penalties for someone who knowingly allows a person whose license was suspended to drive their car.

By Vicki on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 06:55 am:

That was talked about one of the times I was in the car. Like I said, I was in and out of the car and I am sure I missed allot.

No one had specifics, but the host and a few of the callers were saying that it is a small percentage of people that drive others cars. The majority of them are driving their own cars. And yes, they could have someone buy booze for them, but you have to admit that if a person of legal age is asking you to buy them some, you were automatically know that they lost their rights and you wouldn't buy it for them. If you knowingly buy it for them, than you would be liable also. Just as you are now for allowing a person with a suspended licenses drive your car.

Dh and I were talking about this last night. He mentioned the same thing about what if one spouse has lost their privledges but not the other? Can you then have booze in your house. Hmmm... there is one bump in the road I hadn't thought of.

And yes Reds, every person would have to show their id everytime you bought booze.

If anyone is in Ohio the station was WTAM 1100 and I think his program is from 9am-noon. I don't know how long he has been in this time slot, but they FINALLY got rid of Springer on the radio and this guy is there now. I have listened to him 3 times now and really like him. Not political, but it seems he wants to talk about our states issues and problems and ways to fix them. It really is a refreshing change from the past few people to fill that spot!!

By Crystal915 on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:44 pm:

I think that taking away drinking priviledges won't work. Someone else can always buy alcohol for them. Also, everyone is up in arms about the current raids in Texas that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is doing. They are arresting drunks in bars, because in order to be a bartender in TX you have to be certified. (I am certified, it's illegal to serve someone who shows signs of intoxication). Bartenders in more states need to be more responsible. Here in KS they will let you drink yourself into a stupor, and keep serving you more. If you do that in TX, and the customer gets in an accident, you can be sued. Now I've had close friends killed by a repeat offender when we were in HS, and I've got a couple family members who had 1 offense, and realize they made a very stupid mistake and never will again. I think for a repeat DUI there needs to be a hefty jail sentence, and 3 strikes you're out. Perhaps something like FLs gun laws, if you are caught with a gun it's X years, if you point it at someone it's XX, if you shoot someone it's 20-life I think. And California's felony laws, repeat offenders should NEVER be allowed to make the mistakes 11 freaking times!!

By Vicki on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 01:20 pm:

Crystal, why are they arresting the drunks in the bar? I would be up in arms about that too. They aren't breaking the law, the bartenders are if it is illegal to serve someone who shows sings of intoxication.

By Kernkate on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 02:20 pm:

I was curious to about them arresting in bars, Crystal said, "They are arresting drunks in bars, because in order to be a bartender in TX you have to be certified." Is it because they are coming into the bars where the bartenders aren't certified and serving the drink and thats how they are getting the drunks?
Getting back to the post, for someone who has had DUI and having to show there license, I think that many times that will be ignored by people/employees who are suppose to be asking for ID and not. I have seen it many times in bars when they should be asking for ID's to drink and the employees do not. JMO. I know as Ginny has mentioned about the installation of a breathalyzer or the ankle bracelet which has seemed to work in PA for some.
I have been bartending for 15 years I am certified, which is not required in PA and I often question the right penalty for drunk drivers.
Jail time and License Suspension is the right choices JMO. Also I think that anyone who has a DUI conviction should have to attend ARD classes.
As I said I have been bartending for many years and I think in must states it is illegal to serve a visibly intoxicated person. We have big signs where I bartend stating this. I myself am not afraid to cut anyone off who I fell has had their fill or will not serve anyone that comes into the bar and appears to have had to much.
Many drunk drivers are arrested not only coming from bars but also coming from friends homes and parties. Why if you could tell you friend is drunk would you ever let them drive? I could never understand that.
I feel between the alcohol and drug problems there has to be stiffer penalties enforced.

By Reds9298 on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 04:41 pm:

I just think saying people will still drink doesn't fly. People without licenses drive ALL the time...whether the car is stolen or jsut borrowed from a friend. By showing your ID when you purchase alcohol, at least MORE people are accountable for "checking on you" so-to-speak, IMO. Yes people will still buy alcohol for/give it to those with DUI convictions, but I still think it would be less this way.

I agree with you Kathy that I've never been able to understand why people let other people drive drunk when they're in control of the keys. I've been in huge arguments with some drunks in my family, where I had the keys, and they never drove home. Too bad. They can hate me forever for all I care. I'm never handing them over.

I also agree that stiffer penalties is necessary. A close member of my family was arrested for a DUI (drives drunk all the time) a few years ago. He paid to get out of it (I don't remember what it's called) but since it was his first (known) offense, he paid the money and went to three classes on alcohol. Whooppee. It takes ONE accident to change so many lives. I'm not saying he should have been put in jail for years and years, but something more than what he was able to do IMO. Maybe there will be a second time and then someone will be killed or injured. It just makes me sick thinking about it.

In Indianapolis, police are walking the bars on a regular basis. I was at a Bachelorette party once where my friend had her head laying on the table (she was obliterated) and the officer came over and said "get out or I'm taking you in". Needless to say we left. He also asked us about our designated driver situation, which we had one. I was also turned away by a bartender once at another bachelorette party where *I* was obliterated. I think that's the law in IN as well. (Again, another instance where we had a designated driver.)
I've never understood why getting a DD is so hard for people to do. Stagger to the bar and say "Call me a cab" or sleep on the street for God's sake. At least you won't be threatening the life of someone else.
I'm getting a little off topic...a sensitive topic for me!

By Crystal915 on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 05:21 pm:

It is against the law in Texas... you are not permitted to get intoxicated past a certain point. That's why the bartenders have to be certified, we can't serve them if they show signs of intoxication. The reasoning behind it is they get drunk in the bar, then leave and end up driving drunk, or walking and getting hurt, etc. If someone shows visible signs of intox you are supposed to cut them off, offer them food and non-alcoholic drinks, and call them a cab if they need one. This prevents a lot of drunk driving and accidents. Basically, it's the same way you can get drunk in most places, then leave the bar, once you leave the bar you can be arrested for drunk in public. Well, in TX, the bars are still considered drunk in public. Here in KS, the military police are down in the college town every weekend, picking up soldiers who walk out into the streets drunk. Basically, the TX law is to ensure you can drink, and enjoy yourself, but not get sloppy drunk, and harm yourself or others.

By Crystal915 on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 05:24 pm:

And Kathy, to answer your question, no I just phrased that wrong. They are arresting those who are drunk, if the bartender is not certified the bar will be shut down. All bottles of liquor in TX bars have a TABC stamp on them, and must be accounted for (we had to scratch the number off before recycling them, the TABC keeps track of all alcohol served). So, I'm sure there have been a few bartenders and servers arrested in the sting as well (I just read about it in the news) because they are breaking the law by serving a visibly intoxicated person.

By Vicki on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 07:04 pm:

I agree that someone could still buy beer for people, but if there were very stiff penelties for it, I bet that would make people think twice about doing it. I know I wouldn't get myself in trouble so someone could drink!! I don't know... I still think it is a great idea!!

By Hlgmom on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 07:43 pm:

I think it is a great idea as part of the solution- I don't think that alone would be completely effective- just as the current laws are not completely effective. If this was coupled with some fines and jailtime for repeat offenders I think it would be a step in the right direction.
If they kill someone it should be murder etc, etc

By Reds9298 on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 08:41 pm:

Yes I agree Heather.

By Cocoabutter on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:16 pm:

It's probably not a good idea since, after all, not having a license didn't stop him from driving, now did it? So, what would a different kind of license have to do with him drinking or not?

About 2 years ago there was a similar incident here where a kid was ticketed and had his license suspended TWICE for DUI BEFORE he ever turned 21!!!! He had actually been given his license back 2 months before he drove his car into a ditch killing him and 2 of his friends, and putting a 3rd in the hospital.

By Bobbie~moderatr on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:55 pm:

They could order them to take Disulfiram, which causes a nasty side effect if you consume alcohol. Disulfiram plus even small amounts of alcohol produces flushing, throbbing in head and neck, throbbing headache, respiratory difficulty, nausea, copious vomiting, sweating, thirst, chest pain, palpitation, dyspnea, hyperventilation, tachycardia, hypotension, syncope, marked uneasiness, weakness, vertigo, blurred vision, and confusion.

Or they could order them to take Naltrexone, which blocks the parts of your brain that “feel” pleasure when you use alcohol and narcotics. When these areas of the brain are blocked, you feel less need to drink alcohol, and you can stop drinking more easily. But Naltrexone doesn't make you physically ill if you do drink and might not have as strong a response to make them quit..

They could keep their license but to keep it they must take drug and alcohol counseling to see the damage they have caused others, submit to unscheduled urinalysis/blood screens and make them take one of those two pills or others they have on the market through a distribution center (go in in the morning and take your pills while supervised) or they can go to jail... No urinalysis, off to jail.. No show for medication, off to jail.. No time limit for the medication, because they would stop taking it and re offend.

One more thing they could do.. Actually put them in jail for what they tell them they will be getting. The truth in sentencing no longer exist. They sentence you to 2 years, you serve 4 months.. They sentence you to 15 years you might serve 5..

I have only bought alcohol one time in my entire life (I will be 35 in July, so I am way past the age of legal consumption).. But I have drank quite a bit.. Someone else always buys it.. So to say a special license, that wouldn't work, especially if they are getting drunk out side of a bar setting were alcohol is carried in.

BUT those pills might just do the trick...

By Colette on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 09:17 am:

I doubt a special license would work. People can always find alcohol if they need it. I would not be in favor of the government forcing any kind of Rx on people. I would be totally in favor of mandatory jail time. No suspended sentence, no home arrest. Put them in jail, mandatory one year for 1st offense and it would probably make a difference. If they do it again, put them in longer.

By Tink on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:54 am:

I'm not sure a coded license by itself would work but I do think that anything that makes it more difficult for a repeat drunk driver to get alcohol or drive a vehicle should be considered. Maybe a combination of the difficulty they would have buying alcohol plus the suspension of their driving privileges and the possibility of serving a substantial amount of jailtime would be enough to keep some of these people off the streets. I also wonder how many drunk drivers are coming from a bar or liquor store and how many of them are coming from a private home or party where alcohol would still be available to them. If a substantial amount of drunk drivers are coming from bars, restuarants and liquor stores, it would be worthwhile, even if that doesn't cover all the ways that they can get access to alcohol. I have a suspicion (and no proof) that many DUIs are due to having one too many with dinner or thinking you were sober enough to drive home from a bar when you are above the legal limit. If this could keep that many people off the streets, it should be more seriously considered.

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 01:31 pm:

No matter what kind of penalties or restrictions you put out, other than jail time, and lots of it, there will always be a way to get around it.

By Vicki on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 03:01 pm:

But isn't part of the problem over crowded jails? Is there even places to put all these DUI convicted people? Don't get me wrong, I am all for it, but if there isn't a place for them to go immediately, then what?

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 03:19 pm:

Well, that's a whole new debate for another day... jails ARE overcrowded, and major changes need to be made to the system.

By Vicki on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 05:11 pm:

But that is my point Crystal, in a perfect world we would lock up the repeat DUI offenders for a loonngg time. BUT, that can't happen with the current situation with the jails. So, I think looking for alternative punishment for DUI offenders is better than just going along with what is happening now which is basically nothing!

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 05:54 pm:

There are not any viable options... restrict them from driving, they do it anyway, ban them from drinking, they still will, tell them to take a medication, it violates their civil rights, etc.

By Tink on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 07:04 pm:

My point was that maybe if enough charges are racked up (alcohol without the proper coded ID, DUI, driving without a valid license), it will be enough of a punishment to persuade some drivers not to take the chance of getting caught. And if jailtime isn't feasible (and I don't think it is), what about fines? If those are high enough and follow-through like garnishing wages, etc.were put into effect, maybe it would be enough of a deterrent. I really don't know if there is anything that will stop someone from driving drunk, if the possibility of killing someone isn't enough, but if we make it as difficult as possible, at least we're doing something to try and stop it. There's always a way to get around the law but if the punishment is great enough, maybe some potential drunk drivers would be stopped. Crys, if jailtime isn't possible and people are always going to drive while intoxicated, isn't it better to try and come up with enough consequences that someone will change their mind than to just sit back and accept that it's going to happen?

By Vicki on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 07:12 pm:

I totally agree Tink! Doing something is better than just throwing your hands up and doing nothing at all! I also don't think jail time is a good answer because they all know it could be years until they have to serve their sentence because of over crowding! I guess I would rather have child molesters and rapists and murderers filling the cells we have and try to find some other solutions for the drunk drivers. Nothing is going to be perfect, but I agree that we should make it as hard as possible!

By Emily7 on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 08:48 pm:

An alchoholic is an alchoholic & nothing is going to deter them until they are ready to admit they have a problem & get help. My fil has no access to a car (anymore, thankfully) & stays home all day, but he still has ways to get his drink of choice when he wants it. If my mil didn't hide the keys he would drink & drive. He has had his license taken away, has been put in jail, paid fines, been in minor accidents & has lost jobs...still he drinks. My bil will also drink & drive, but they don't see that there is anything wrong with that. I have heard people say that they drive better drunk, yeah I am sure that is really the case.

I agree that doing something is better than doing nothing, but I think that something has to seriously get the attention of the offender. Maybe a billboard with their face on it, something that will embarrass them more than their name in the paper.

By Crystal915 on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:17 pm:

Cori, I agree with you, but I'm talking logistics here. There are already devices you can install on vehicles that don't start them until the driver blows under the limit... there are huge fines and jail sentences, there are required AA meetings and stuff like that, all kinds of different penalties depending on where you live, but these people who offend over and over are going to continue to find ways around the penalties. The lady who killed my friends was a 3 time previous offender, and was drunk in the middle of the afternoon. 4 girls died and the sole survivor was in the ICU, had his spleen out, and has to live with the memory of watching 4 of his best friends die in front of his face. That woman got a de facto life sentance (60 years, she was 30 at the time) but those girls are still dead.

By Ginny~moderator on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 09:43 am:

Yes, our jails are overcrowded. But, sadly, jail is the only thing that will stop some people from drinking and driving. We've all read stories of people with multiple offenses, license suspensions, fines, etc., etc. And they still drink and drive with no license and no insurance. And these people kill people, maim them, cause property damage, and risk their own lives.

What is really sad is the many people who enable them. People see their drinking/drunk friends get into cars and don't try to stop them or call the police on them. People continue to give drinks in their homes to people they know have had several drinks; and then don't stop them from leaving, knowing they will drive. Family members, friends and co-employees know someone is driving with a suspended license and don't report them. In Vicki's opening post, she tells us that the guy's girlfriend, who knew he was drunk and knew he had a suspended license, gave him the keys to her truck. Of course, she's being sued by the families of the people he killed, but I'll bet you anything that she carried the minimum insurance and has no other assets. I am glad that she is being charged.

I think until we as a nation take the matter of drinking and driving seriously, nothing much is going to happen. Far too many people think it's OK to have a couple of drinks after work and then drive home. Far too many people don't want to offend their friends or get into an argument by saying - you've been drinking, so I'll drive you home. And hardly anyone will call the police when they know that someone who has been drinking gets into a car.

And Crystal, I'm sure it doesn't apply to you, there are a lot of bartenders out there who are in states that will cite bartenders and bars where someone "obviously" affected by drinks is served - and these bartenders will say, oh, he didn't act like he was affected, like he was drunk. And even if a bartender knows someone is "over the limit", it is very rare for the bartender to insist the customer not drive, or call the police if the customer gets into his/her car. Too often the bar doesn't want to offend a customer and worries more about an unhappy customer than what might happen if that drunk customer drives.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, NJ has a law requiring automatic jail time after the third DUI conviction. But even the sheriffs of some counties in NJ don't take it seriously and let these people out with GPS trackers ... like a GPS tracker is going to tell you if the person had a couple of drinks before driving, while s/he is being tracked. The NJ Supreme Court has learned of this and is cracking down on those sheriffs.

If the jails are too crowded (and yes, they are), then take over some of the military bases being closed, and house the DUIs there. By and large they are not "violent" offenders (murderers, rapists, assault convictions, etc.), and probably don't need the level of security a "regular" prison needs. But there has to be some way to get it home to people like this that they absolutely cannot both drink and drive.

Where it starts is with each person who understand the risks of drinking and driving and takes this issue seriously starting to say to their friends, "I think you've had too much to drink and I won't let you drive. I'll drive you home or call a taxi or make you a bed on the couch, but I won't let you drive. If you won't let me provide you with an alternative to driving, I will call the police and tell them you have been drinking and I can't stop you from driving." And be willing to risk the arguments with your friend or family member

What people refuse to understand is that while they believe that their coordination (i.e., driving skills) is still good after a drink or two, what has happened is that the drinks have affected their critical judgment.

I personally will not drive if I have had more than two drinks in a two hour period, and never drive until at least an hour after my last drink. It means I drink a lot of punch or water or soda at parties, but I am very aware of how much even one drink affects my attitude and coordination, and I will never risk it. I don't go by how I feel, because I know if I've had a drink, my judgment about how I feel is not reliable.

My firm always has alcohol at the various staff events it sponsors - and it always arranges for alternate drivers or taxis for anyone at the party who requests it or, if in the judgment of the people in charge, needs it. This is a given. Of course, I work for a law firm, and they fully understand the legal consequences as well as the human consequences if they allow someone who has had too much alcohol to drive. I wish more companies and people felt that way.

Can you tell I have strong feelings about this issue.

By Crystal915 on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 02:28 pm:

I think we should ALL have feelings on this. There is a guy in my husband's unit who HATES us, because he showed up at a gathering at my house drunk, would not give up his keys, and I called the MPs when he got in his car. Sorry, buddy, but I'm not willing to risk innocent lives because you won't be responsible. Ginny, as for the bartenders, I would much rather make a customer angry by refusing to serve them or forcing them to take a cab then know that I let them leave and they killed someone. More people servers need to be responsible for their actions, and I for one think Texas is doing the RIGHT thing by being tougher on servers AND customers.

By Kym on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 01:37 pm:

Crystal I agree 100% with your above statment! The sober people are the ones that will have to take responsibility, a drunk is a drunk and are not in any way repsonsible while drunk. I just saw that TX has stiffened up again on fining/arresting public intoxication.

I can't say jail time will do good, it's not an infinite stay (in most cases) and an alcholic will re offend because IMO our jails are to lax on this type of criminal, hard time is really not all that hard. But that's another topic as well