Crapo arrested on DUI

[minionofmidas]

You need to bite that bullet to retain a logical position.

It's a matter of opinion if drunk driving should be illegal or not.

Well, not really - unless you take Tweed entirely literally - but then my claim quoted above isn't entirely true either.

A ban on cars certainly "logically" follows from any position that says anything that endangers other people should be illegal. It is never an entirely sufficient argument to point to the number of victims of conduct x. You always need to weigh all the factors - and as it happens it does make sense in that context to ban drunk driving but not driving per se (though I'd like to see it made easier to permanently and irretrievably revoke someone's driving permit, whether their repeated infractions are alcohol-related or not.)

[© tweed]

many more people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'deterrence' is a false flag myth designed to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex.

So what if people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol? That doesn't mean drunk driving should be legal. I'm guessing you are the type that drives drunk.

can you demonstrate that the explosion of the criminalization of drunk driving has done what you want it to do?  what is it that you want it to do?  pay off the lawyers and social workers and insurance executive and corrections officers?

[patrick1]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

I know a lot of people who got bagged for a dewey.  However, I also know a family who lost their baby girl by a blacked out driving going the wrong way. Driving drunk is a dangerous and all too often deadly activity. You can argue the limits and prescriptions but condoning it is just foolish.

[Boris]

Alcohol has one of the worst rebound effects of any drug, so the criminalization of drunk driving provides an inherent impetus for those who live in suburbia and don't want to spend the next day in a do-nothing hangover state to DD, limit one's consumption to a couple of beers, drive everyone home safely, and be productive the next day.

Driving under the influence of marijuana should be a more nuanced law. I would implement the bullsh**t .08 equivalent WA has in major cities as well as suburban municipalities during morning and evening rush hour (say 7-9 AM and 4-6 PM). This protects both the driver and others - it's not a pleasant feeling to be driving excessively high in environments with a lot of traffic and pedestrians, but there's really no discernible difference between driving high or sober on empty suburban or rural streets.

[Badger]

Leaving aside the absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing drunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

[AkSaber]

Don't Mormons have major predilections against touching alcohol, for any reason?

[Zioneer]

Don't Mormons have major predilections against touching alcohol, for any reason?

Yep.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing frunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

Bishop isn't nearly as exalted rank in the LDS as it is most other churches with bishops.  It corresponds to what other churches would call a pastor or parish priest.

[Zioneer]

The absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing frunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

Bishop isn't nearly as exalted rank in the LDS as it is most other churches with bishops.  It corresponds to what other churches would call a pastor or parish priest.

Correct, though it's also a volunteer, 3-7 year thing. So calling him a bishop as if that's his current position is inaccurate. Though, like the title of "Senator", it stays with you for life, at least among the congregation that you served as bishop for. I do have a thread on Mormonism in the religion section if you've got any more questions.

[SPC]

many more people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'deterrence' is a false flag myth designed to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex.

So what if people get killed in accidents that have nothing to do with alcohol? That doesn't mean drunk driving should be legal. I'm guessing you are the type that drives drunk.

What level of statistically-increased danger is acceptable to criminalize? Should it be illegal to change the station on the radio since that increases the chances of an accident occuring?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing frunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

Bishop isn't nearly as exalted rank in the LDS as it is most other churches with bishops.  It corresponds to what other churches would call a pastor or parish priest.

Correct, though it's also a volunteer, 3-7 year thing. So calling him a bishop as if that's his current position is inaccurate. Though, like the title of "Senator", it stays with you for life, at least among the congregation that you served as bishop for. I do have a thread on Mormonism in the religion section if you've got any more questions.

Since my interest is limited to how it might affect Crapo, I'll stick with it here.  How likely is it that Crapo would lose any LDS positions he currently holds over something like this?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

He should go to jail for a fairly long time. Unfortunately, drunk driving laws in this country are a joke.

So are the gun laws.

[Simfan34]

I, for one, don't really think we should throw DUI offenders in jail. I thought you people thought that our prisons were already overcrowded and turned minor offenders into hardened criminals anyway?

[Zioneer]

The absolutely brain-dead and ill-informed arguments for legalizing frunk driving Crapo won't suffer serious political fallout here. He's heavily popular, making the right mea culpas, and has 4 years before facing re-election (3.5 to a primary, I guess). Yeah, the fact he's an LDS bishop in a state with a large Mormon population (especially among GOP primary voters, i'd guess) adds a wrinkle. But if Vitter can survive with nary a scratch, so will Crapo.

Bishop isn't nearly as exalted rank in the LDS as it is most other churches with bishops.  It corresponds to what other churches would call a pastor or parish priest.

Correct, though it's also a volunteer, 3-7 year thing. So calling him a bishop as if that's his current position is inaccurate. Though, like the title of "Senator", it stays with you for life, at least among the congregation that you served as bishop for. I do have a thread on Mormonism in the religion section if you've got any more questions.

Since my interest is limited to how it might affect Crapo, I'll stick with it here.  How likely is it that Crapo would lose any LDS positions he currently holds over something like this?

From everything I've read, it doesn't seem like he holds any major position at the moment beyond the one's he's already had and served his time in (if he was a appointed to a high enough position to matter at this point, he would have had to resign his political office first), so he probably won't lose any positions over this.

Now, he may be subject to a "bishop's interview", basically a confessional/evaluational of your spiritual well-being by a currently serving bishop. And if the church officials where he lives are honest, he'll be subject to further disciplinary action. Probably no excommunication in any case. LDS political officials don't tend to get publicly excommunicated because it would embarrass the church. Even when Harry Reid defied the LDS leadership and said he supports gay marriage, he still wasn't excommunicated.

Of course, I could be wrong. These days, since there's greater scrutiny of the Church, a lot of traditional policies are changing.

[Torie]

How long has Crapo been drinking on the sly?  Given his situation (so much to lose to get the modest for him illicit buzz), that to me suggests a serious issue with alcohol. His face looks a bit puffy which fits in with that speculation.

[© tweed]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

[© tweed]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

[Badger]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

<facepalm>

[Badger]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

[Torie]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

In my .11 DUI episode (plea bargained down after 18 months to a wet reckless, because I insisted that there was a possible lack of probable cause to stop me in the first instance defense), for a first time offense, I got 14 hours in jail, could not drive for a month, then six months of only to work and back and to DUI classes, 10 Saturdays at DUI classes plus a MADD session, can't drive with any alcohol in me for 3 years, and have about $15,000 over time in higher insurance premiums. Is that penalty harsh enough in your opinion Badger?

[Badger]

Tweed, drunk driving deaths have dropped a lot
http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF-Rates.gif

that's fine, but we still must balance a. the human costs of criminalization with the perceived human benefits and b. further assess causality: the harsher penalities may not be driving down the rate and recidivism, it could be the public health campaign, something else, etc.

It is unquestionably both public education combined with deterring penalties that have driven the number of drunk driving deaths and maimings down in recent years--DRAMATICALLY. It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

In my .11 DUI episode (plea bargained down after 18 months to a wet reckless, because I insisted that their was a possible lack of probable cause to stop me in the first instance defense), for a first time offense, I got 14 hours in jail, could not drive for a month, then six months of only to work and back and to DUI classes, 10 Saturdays at DUI classes plus a MADD session, can't drive with any alcohol in me for 3 years, and have about $15,000 over time in higher insurance premiums. Is that penalty harsh enough in your opinion Badger?

Hell no! Public flogging through the streets you miscreant!!

Seriously, Torie, what you received was plenty. My outrage is at libertards and the shamelessly irresponsible in this thread and elsewhere who suggest decriminalizing impaired driving.

[© tweed]

Current DUI/DWI penalties are fine.

you support coerced 12-step participation for non-addicts and non-alcoholics?

<facepalm>

excuse me?  this goes on all the time.  drug criminalization and drunk driving criminalization have become a scam-slush fund for the 'treatment' industry and insurance companies.  people caught driving over the legal limit or in possession of any amount of an illegal drug are diverted to treatment, where they are taught that they are powerless over their addiction (although many of them do not meet the criteria for drug/alcohol dependence to begin with), and that they have an interminable and incurable disease.  the treatment-industrial complex has grown by hundredfolds over the past few decades thanks to ignorant attitudes such as yours.

[© tweed]

It would seem by any reasonable measure that the criminalization of grossly irresponsible behavior of getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle moving dozens of miles an hour while under the influence, measured against the lives and limbs saved SHOULD be a no brainer.

people who are extremely fatigued drive at a level of impairment comparable to those driving on several drinks, should this behavior be criminalized?

[DrScholl]

What level of statistically-increased danger is acceptable to criminalize? Should it be illegal to change the station on the radio since that increases the chances of an accident occurring?

Statistics don't have anything to with it, you don't need numbers to tell you that impaired driving should be illegal. It's not the same thing as changing the station on the radio.

[© tweed]

What level of statistically-increased danger is acceptable to criminalize? Should it be illegal to change the station on the radio since that increases the chances of an accident occurring?

Statistics don't have anything to with it, you don't need numbers to tell you that impaired driving should be illegal. It's not the same thing as changing the station on the radio.

so rather than being concerned about its concrete effect, you are concerned about some magical and unnamed quality it has that requires it to be prohibited.