Atlasian National DUI Bill (Amendment at Vote)

[MasterJedi]

Atlasian National DUI Bill

1.) It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on public roads with a BAC of greater than 0.05%. Violations of this will result in a $2000 fine.

2.) Regions shall be permitted to legislate stricter alcohol limits and penalties, including loss of license and greater fines.

3.) Persons convicted of DUI under regional laws shall not owe a federal fine if the monetary penalty in their particular region is greater than the federal penalty. If the regional penalty is lower than $2,000, then the difference between $2,000 and the regional penalty shall be owed to Atlasia.
Spon: Sen. Franzl

[Rowan]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

I support this bill. I've long thought our DUI laws were too lax and this bill strikes a nice balance between regional v. federal authority. Very well done Franzl.

[MaxQue]

Well, I don't support this bill. I won't support a limit who is so low. 0.08% is better. They have that in Quebec, without problems. (Well, they have a problem, but the problem is the too low penalties)

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

So the point is to be pointless. Okay. Fyi no region would ever do that and hopefully someone sensible strikes the provision by amendment.

[Ebowed]

0.08 is fine as the current limit.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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?

[Ebowed]

It's really a pretty elegant solution to the problems of 1) double punishment and 2) lax regional laws.

Do we have any reason to believe that present law regarding the subject is insufficient in addressing the problem?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

[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.

[Fritz]

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) 

[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.

[Rowan]

I think 0.08% is fine, .05% is too low.

[MaxQue]

So, I propose an amendment since I will never vote for that now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

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

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Franzl]

Nay, 0.08% is far too high.

[MaxQue]

Aye. Sorry, Franzl.

[Rowan]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Nay
Egh, .08 is too high.