Atlasian National DUI Bill (Amendment at Vote)

[Franzl]

Is a region allowed to have a looser limit as well?

yes, see Section 3. Although if you like, that can be worded more clearly in section 2.

[Franzl]

Is a region allowed to have a looser limit as well?

yes, see Section 3. Although if you like, that can be worded more clearly in section 2.

No offense but that just seems stupid. Why would a region create a lower penalty if the money would simply go to the federal government instead? That only HURTS the region, and they have to pay the same amount anyways. I see that provision as pointless.

That's the whole point.

[Franzl]

Hamilton, I think you're misunderstanding Sen. Franzl. What this bill would do, if I'm reading it correctly, is ensure that, no matter regional law, someone convinced of DUI shall pay at least a $2000 fine. If the region doesn't want any of that money, they set their regional fine at $0 and the person convicted of DUI will pay all $2000 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $2000, then the person pays $2000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $10,000, then the person pays $10,000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. It's really a pretty elegant solution to the problems of 1) double punishment and 2) lax regional laws.

Ok, but your post didn't really clarify if I really do have a misconception- does the original fine ($2000) go to the regions or the federal government. If so, why would the regions give away that money for absolutely no reason.

Where the fine goes is entirely dependent on regional law. If the region sets their DUI fine at $0, then the $2000 goes to the feds; if they set it at $1000, then $1000 goes to the region and $1000 to the federal government; if they set it at $2000 or higher, all money goes to the region.

As to your second question, I don't know. Perhaps they believe that regions shouldn't be finding people for DUIs for that much money? Perhaps they'd rather institute a community service or jail time punishment?

I understand the idea behind it, but regions would be STUPID to send away the money to the fed. Why set a regional fine for $1000 if the violator will still pay the same amount anyways and the money would just go somewhere besides the region?

Yeah Lief explained my intentions entirely correctly. The point is exactly what you said, it's unlikely that a region will be dumb enough to intentionally kiss $2000 good bye, and they will therefore likely legislate an equal or greater fine to make sure they get the money.

My point is to ensure that a harsh penalty for DUI is created, while still allowing regions to collect if they so wish.

I'm open to talking about the exact size of the fine, of course.

[Franzl]

0.05 is draconian, the average person would be at that level after only two beers.  You might as well set the limit at 0.00.

This message brought to you by D.A.M.M. (Drunks Against Mad Mothers) 

Do people really need to drink more than 2 beers if they're going to drive? 0.08% is the highest I know of in the Western world.

[Franzl]

I reject the amendment. Let's vote on it.

[Franzl]

Nay, 0.08% is far too high.

[Franzl]

You guys do realize that a 0.5 BAC would mean that most people could only have one drink before driving? That seems awfully draconian.

Should we expect a veto, then?

Undecided.

I would appreciate a more definitive statement, if possible. If a veto were the result of going to 0.05%, then I'd vote for this amendment after all.

[Franzl]

a.) Fritz, we need your vote!

b.) Mr. President?

[Franzl]

I'm interested in what you have to say

[Franzl]

Thank you Badger, I hadn't considered the legal issues you present, and they are valid concerns.

I don't think the fine itself is too high personally, but I suppose that's up for debate

[Franzl]

Nay, as I believe Badger has good arguments against passing this.

[Franzl]

OK, thanks to Bacon King for halting the vote:

I'd like to offer this alternative to the original bill as a replacement:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

Just a question....since it's my own amendment, and nobody objected in the last 24 hours, can't I just accept it myself as friendly, so that we move to a final vote on the new bill?

[Franzl]

Just a question....since it's my own amendment, and nobody objected in the last 24 hours, can't I just accept it myself as friendly, so that we move to a final vote on the new bill?

We can do that but I'd like to hold a vote to determine what the Senate actually wants since no one commented. If you'd just like it to still be accepted without a vote let me know and we can move to the final vote instead.

It's alright, I'll take my chances and risk a final vote.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Umm....I'm surprised this is still on the floor!

[Franzl]

Aye ftr.