thatguy wrote:The reason for my question is I have been asked by my Representive for my opinion(s) on some of the bills and I am finding it harder than I thought to obtain information...
Well, for what it's worth, were *I* asked for my opinion on such matters, I would be a very unpopular guy -- I tend to take a slightly different view on intoxication and the definitions thereof. Warning: This is likely to be one of my long drawn out (possibly boring) soapbox posts. I hope it invokes thought, and I understand there will be very little agreement with me :)
I have a serious problem with ALL of our intoxication laws. Not because I'm "PRO DRUNKENNESS," per se, but because the actual effects of what we call "intoxication" are behavioral, and NOT conditional--that is to say it's not THAT you're drunk, its that you've affected me with your drunkenness.
Drunk drivers don't cause automobile accidents--not in the pure form...reckless behavior and failure to control their cars cause accidents. The net result is that innocent people are injured and killed...but intoxication isn't the direct cause--the criminal act of reckless endangerment is the cause. Where the DUI clauses cause me heartburn is that it's a crime with a stiffer punishment to plow into a stopped car at a red light while you're drunk than it is to plow into the same car at a red light because you're dozing off at the wheel, or eating a big-mac, or dropped a cigarette on your seat, or fiddling with the radio. In a fatality accident, one is "intoxication manslaughter" and one is merely an accident. Yes, there are laws that may be applied for both, but add the aroma of booze, and it's a different class of charge.
I would propose that we forget about the intoxication portion, and focus on the negative behavior, recklessness, willful disregard of others, etc. involved in EITHER aspect, and put some teeth into our reckless driving/failure to maintain control/and other applicable direct effects of these behaviors. By doing so, we don't need laws about cell phone use, drinking and driving, or carrying/handling weapons under the influence (be it of alcohol or simple distraction/lack of self-control).
In short, I'm all about punishing (HARD) the behaviors resulting from intoxication, rather than the intoxication itself.
The other option, of which I don't really approve, but is indeed *just* and *enforceable on an even scale* is ZERO TOLERANCE. We already use this standard for drivers holding commercial drivers licenses and commercial pilots--a standard in which any DETECTABLE TRACE gets the operator shut down. Tennessee's carry laws reflect this, if you're carrying a gun, it is codified that you may not drink ANY alcohol. Short, simple, to the point. Not my favorite standard, but there's no grey area, nothing to debate. Oh--and along with their zero tolerance law--you can carry your gun in a bar--one we would define as a "51% location."
Don't get me wrong -- I'm 100% against driving while intoxicated, and 100% against carrying in public while intoxicated -- but I'm also 100% against grey areas and the necessity for a judgement call "in the field."
As a matter of consistency, our intoxication clauses around CHL should mirror our clauses around DWI--I support the definitions as a matter of code. Our DWI clauses should reflect either punishing actual behaviors (if you're not acting recklessly and endangering anyone, leave it be, and if you are, string you up) OR they reflect ZERO TOLERANCE within a certain definition (12 hours bottle to throttle?), as our commercial driving laws already do. My diatribe above is really more of a big-picture thought.
I'll go ahead and don the flame suit, but I want to hear others' thoughts along those lines...I'm still working on the implications of this line of thinking.
Well put...I too am not advocating drinking and carrying a gun but I don't care for unclear standards and the way the law is written "intoxication" can mean whatever THAT police officer decides.