Gregoire's promotion and hype didnt come through for her. Looks like Irie doesn't have to move!

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8ULTMU01.html

That's too bad.

Immm suuree gladd those dinnt pass.

Nooww ist safe to driev hoome.

Just kidding. Nothing worse that a drunk driver.

However, random checkpoints aren't necessarily the answer, in my opinion.

I didnt think she had a chance in hell getting this pushed through in this state the way she was going about it.

Taking drunks off the road needs to be a priority and there are still other ways to increase DUI arrests. Every agency should have a DUI squad with enough officers to actually make a difference and DUI penalties shouldn't be such a joke. Most departments have DUI squads so that they can appear to care, but they staff them with such ridiculously low numbers, they can't even make a dent in the violations that are occuring nightly.

Haha. I've spent enough time downtown Olympia when the Leg is in session to know how those guys are. The real fun was when Lowry was Governor. It was crazy back then. He hit on my friend's girlfriend at our table. He was plowed. Locke was a stiff so "The Scene" died a bit, but now it's coming back. The Lobbyist parties this year are spilling out into the streets. Gregoire knows how to party, she just keeps it quiet.

They know better than to pass a bill that might end their lucrative political careers.

I didnt vote for Gregoire but I had the opportunity to speak with her a little bit while she played video games with my son at Lake Quinault Lodge 2 yrs ago. I found her to be pro Law Enforcement and I agreed with most of what she said. Maybe she was playing politician and was saying what she thought I wanted to hear...Who knows.

Chris is getting a little comfy being our gov. and is taking on the tude' she can do whatever she wants.

The engine fee is still on the table and we pay one of the highest gas taxes in the nation...pure genius

Now she's pushing for past DUI offenders to have super bright yellow plates...

Only strict punishment will help get more drunks off the road. Look at some of the European countries. Basically zero tolerance. When you're out with people drinking someone always stays sober or you get a cab. Everytime. Out punishments are a joke.

My cousing has 9 or so DUI's. It wasn't until after his 7th that he spent the year in jail. He's had two more since then and has spent very little time in prison. I have no idea how he gets away with it because I simply don't talk to him. At a family function a few weeks ago I called the Edmonds police on him but he left before they showed. Now I have an aunt (his mom) who will never talk to me again but so be it. I have no respect for her because she's enabled him every step of the way. I could not care less if he kills himself. But, having him drive away from another family function bombed out of his mind and possibly killing some innocent person wasn't going to sit to well with me.

My family thinks I'm joking when I offer to take him crabbing with me. I'm not. Can you say crab bait?

Keep Drunks off the road! They needed those check points set up, near where a density of Bars are located, in order to teach people a different behavior. That whould target the many DUI weekender's with addictive behavior. Privacy should only be an issue, if the searches are executed while you in your car, and on private property. Those driver's that are stopped on a public road, should be subject to a DUI check, in order to insure public safety. Allowing drunk driver behind the wheel, is like allowing a sh!t head to set up a firing range on our freeways and road,... only, the bullets used by these drunks, are 2 ton automobiles. Just hope that I am never in the cross hairs.

Who says the drunks have a "right" to drive after they are convicted. I wrote in with a guaranteed solution to the problem a few years ago but it was rejected because of the leaches we call defense lawyers. The biggest problem we have with drunk drivers is ,in my opinion,the system we have that gives these bozos the right to be set free by some pos lawyer . I honestly believe that the civil liberties union has done more to damage society than to help society. I use the analogy that drunk driving is like drugs. We will always have the problem as long as the lawyers find it to be such a cash cow. Then we come to the insurance companys and the list goes on. There is no need to put these drunk drivers in jail to be able to keep them off the roads and still allow them to work and support their families. The only ones that this would not work with is the ones that make their living driving. I would explain it but it would do no good as long as we have lawyers. Just know it would not harm the offender in any way nore be permanent.

The problem is big and deep. Biggest problems-

-Not allowing neighborhood taverns to open in residential areas.
-Complete lack of reliable or in many cases ANY public transit outside of urban areas.
-Poor planning placing residential areas outside of walking distance from commercial areas.

It has nothing to do with penalties & fines, if you don't think so ask anyone who's had a DUI lately. They average over $10,000 after all is said and done.

People are going to drink no matter what. Prohibition taught us that. If you put the bait 10 miles away people will do what they feel they need to in order to get it, But when it comes to some guy wanting to open a neighborhood Pub on a corner, you get a bunch of blue nosed old women screeching like harpies at the next city council meeting.

$10,000? I have observed sentencing of dozens of DUI convictions and I've never seen penalties close to $10,000. You must be including the cost of their lawyer. That's their choice to not use a Public Defender. Examples of recent penalties that I have seen; 365 days in jail with 364 suspended, $1000 fine, alcohol treatment class, and MADD class. Where's the lession?

Thats all costs combined, when you tally treatment, fines, fees, Insurance rates, legal, etc.

I agree with you and so does the US Supreme Court. The problem is that the Washington State Supreme Court and 9th Circuit are far more restrictive to law enforcement when it comes to 4th Amendment issues. I have to laugh when people comment on their civil liberties being taken away in this state. They would be shocked if they saw how things are done across the country.

As far as things being done across the country. A friend's son got nailed for DUI in Michigan (maybe Minnesota). No big deal there. $750 fine and that's it. No suspension, no jail (actually not sure about this, maybe 24 hours), no classes. He was stunned when he called back there to settle his son's account.

So I think it's dependant on location. Where folks think cops will take care of them might be the heaviest? Nothing against cops, but those dreamers who rely on the justice system to make all things right are beyond pathetic.

Been clean and sober 21 years here this month. Cops and threats didn't make the difference for me. go figure.

Fact check time.

I have no idea if she supports the idea or not but I'm not sure its fair to say she is "pushing" it. The sponsor of the bill is Republican Senator Mike Carrell. Tell him what you think:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/memberemail/MailForm.aspx?Chamber=S&District=28

Non-violent drug offenders.

Good answer, Dan...that would free up about half the jail space right there...but see my post on the "ACLU and pot" thread.

Fish on...

Todd

I still feel that alcohol endorsements on our licenses or ID cards could help. One DUI, pull the endorsement for a period. Penalties for selling or giving alcohol to a person without proper endorsement. Easy to implement with little cost. At the time of conviction, judge takes the ID and suspect required to get new license without endorsement. Courts could also revoke for alcohol enduced crimes, such as bar fights, or abuse cases where alcohol was determined to play a role. They could also take them away for people who have been hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. These provisions could limit access to chronic street alcoholics and may get some of them to clean up or move on. There is no excuse for a guy with 5 DUI's being able to legally buy alcohol. None..

Good answer Dan

I heard on a discovery show a month or so ago that many prision have 80% of the people in them for non violent drug offenses.

Do you get time for Prostitution? Let the HO GO

There's also no reason for that individual to even have a car or get anywhere near the drivers seat of one...

Interesting idea krijack..

Or meth labs...
Or crack houses...



I shudder to think what my town would be like if the "street drunks" couldn't get drunk...

From my past involvement with Traffic Safety, in states that use sobriety check points, the increased certainty of getting caught was a major factor in a reduction of DUI offenses. I think the over intrusive police state arguements are valid. It is tough to police a democratic society. I favor them simply because they pull drunks off the street and at least no one dies that night.

The comment about other countries is right on. I know from travelling in Europe they are very careful about driving. I have been out with groups of friends and one person always stays sober.

Aunty,
Just because some people will find a way to do something anyways, doesn't mean we should just allow them or make it easy for them. At least we could make it harder. Besides, if it is illegal, I would suspect more of them would do it at home, making them less likely to drive. The guy I stopped from driving home last year was pass out drunk. He was also a 50+ business man, dressed nicely, driving a very nice car. I doubt that if he couldn't get alcohol on the way home he would pull over and get some crack or heroin. The cops told me he had 5 convictions and that they had 20+ calls to 911 in the last hour on him. I really felt bad for him as he kept saying, "I got a problem. Let me drive home and I will be ok tommorrow." Unfortunately he was too drunk to do it or even remember the way.
I also had a sweet old couple late 70's stop by my office one day. They just wanted to ask me a business question. The man apologized, and admitted, "i might forget about this talk because I had a little too much to drink at lunch. A little, you could smell them from 20 ft. After our quick conversation he walked out and got into a brand new cadellac and drove off. Had another guy in his 60's invite me over to his house to see if we could do business. As we walked around his house, he pointed out a boarded up window and laughed, "I got a little drunk last month and shoot out the windows. Went to jail for that one."
Had another guy on a job site explain to me how he just got out of jail for killing someone while drunk. He was actually mad about it. "it's not like I went out drinking with the intent to kill someone, it was an accident."
All of these people, but the last one, were older, established middle to higher income people. I really am not comfortable with them being able to walk into a store and buy alcohol and see no problem if they were forced to either take a break or be stopped from ever having alcohol. If you can't drink responsible, you shouldn't be drinking, period.

That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and we saw how well that went.

Maybe we need "Get High Houses" where the occupants can come in and get as high as they please....free. Paid for by the general population. The participants cannot leave, however, until sober. The dead can be wheel barrowed out to a dump site morgue as necessary to create more room inside the High House.

Kind of an "everybody wins" scenario. No drunks in public, no tweekers stealing to supply themselves, no more dealers, and best of all, no court time and money spent defending, convicting, and dealing with the uncontrollable.

OR....just let WDFW manage them...they'll be all gone in a short time.

Slab, the remark about WDFW would be too funny if it weren't so true.

Some of these replies seem to have a "theres nothing we can do about it so why try " attitude. Every time I see where a habitual drunk driver gets another slap on the wrist it makes me wonder who they will kill before the laws are changed to put them away for good. Raise my taxes to build a jail just to put them in. Make the law say that they must forfeit any vehicle they are driving no matter who the owner is,unless they can prove it was stolen,then add that charge to the list.Use this prison for DUI offenders only and set up an assembly plant for them to help pay for the cost of operation.
For those who complain about the loss of jobs by this competition,let them read about NAFTA to see the corporations are doing this already under the heading of "out sourcing".
Like so many of our laws,this one would be shot down by the bleeding heart liberals that worry about the families and the impact on them.I care more about the families of the innocent person killed by this drunk driver than the family of the drunk. I would be willing to bet that the family could and should have turned in the drunk on many occasions prior to the fatality. This makes them accessories in my mind.


In Aunty's post it stated that...Recently realesad Federal data has prompted a beverage industry group to declare checkpoints ineffective... sounds like the fox saying that they shouldn't be able to lock up the hen house. Why should the opinion of the people who have the most to lose if,heaven forbid, people actually quit drinking. Just like the studies by the commercial fishermen that say the best use of the resource is thru netting.

Good points, but if we were to put 1/10th of the resources into this problem as we do to protect the interests of big business in other parts of the world, we might come up with a solution. The "wars" in Iraq and Afganistan are costing us our national way of life as we know it and we are letting it happen just so someone can't say we are unamerican by not supporting the idiot I did not help select.
This is but one example of what is wrong with the current picture of America. I hope someday we get enough good people in power to finally say enough is enough and quit being the world police. Is anyone stupid enough to think that because we went after these 2 bad guys that we are safer here? They can't even keep the illegals out of the country and they aren't as devious as our real sworn enemys.
Sorry for the deviation from topic.

So true. If you drink the hard stuff (I don't usually) you can ONLY buy it FROM the state. They should have some complicity.

That has always been 2 of my pet peeves for the state to regulate both for the revenue and abandon the ones who become adicted. We "allow" the tax to go higher on both by rationallizing it by saying "I don't drink or smoke enough to make a difference". The more money we give to government, the more they need to survive.They believe in the power of numbers. The higher the number of employees the less chance of the higher-ups being laid off. I know it is a very simplistic way to analyse it but you get the meaning. All governments are like fires, a small controled one can be very good and efficient to have, but too many times they grow out of control and continue to require more "fuel" .I should start a thread on my (our) pet peeves with the government.

I like that term. I'm sure I will steal it and use it in my rants:).

One way the Gov. could have more money for law enforcement is to take some out of the social programs that gives the poor lazy dirtbag sitting at home breeding smoking their dope all day a way to keep their way of life going. Make them get jobs and get off their collective backsides and then the money could be used for a more useful cause. There would then be more money for big government to collect from payrolls which can then be used to grow bigger and move into our homes to tell us how, what, and when we can do what they think we want or need.