Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 2, 2006, to require the Secretary of State to keep records related to drunk driving offences for a person's entire life. The bill is tie barred to House Bill 6009, which makes a third drunk driving offence anytime during a person's life a felony, potentially subject to up to five years in prison

The vote was 38 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 733 at Senate Journal 89)

Click here to view bill details.

This is getting close to entrapment. They issue a license to allow drinking in bars, and are making it easier to get an alcohol license. They drop the alcohol level to a ridiculously low .08. They know that 9 out of 10 drivers leaving any bar at closing are over the limit, then punish the few unlucky ones that get stopped, while being aware that all the rest are driving drunk. The penalties are now to the point that a person can be destroyed financially, and lose their job, because they can't drive. Many are forced to drive without a license, and the penalties increase.

"This is getting close to entrapment." You've got to be kidding. "They know that 9 out of 10 drivers leaving any bar at closing are over the limit, then punish the few unlucky ones that get stopped, while being aware that all the rest are driving drunk." You make the choice to drink and get behind the wheel. How about some personal responsibility? If you choose to drink, let someone else drive. It's a simple and easy task -- I do it. When I drink, I don't drive. When I'm driving, I don't drink. "The penalties are now to the point that a person can be destroyed financially, and lose their job, because they can't drive." Again, this goes back to personal responsibility. Don't expect me to feel sorry for you because you chose to drink and chose to drive and then got caught. The negative consequences of DUI are completely preventable. "Many are forced to drive without a license, and the penalties increase." Nope, again your choice. There were many months when I had no car and I never missed a day of work. Take the bus, ride a bike, walk or bum a ride from a friend. I've done all of the above when I needed to.

If the limit was at .1 or .12 then what you are saying would make sense. The fact that the average drunk crashes at about .25 and the vast majority of those are single car, drove into a ditch type crashes shows that the state is just using this as a cash cow. If you believe in " personal responsibility" then why are good folks having their lives ruined before they ever hurt anyone or anything. Personal responsibility would dictate that you leave everyone alone until they do something and then they are responsible. This is the only law that punishes you for what MIGHT happen. Think about that one. Let's start locking up kids for possesion of a base ball bat since there have been lots of killings with bats.

...I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt anyone. Wow, then I can shoot off a few rounds in public as long as I don't hit anyone. I can drive 100 mph on residential streets as long as I don't hit anything. I can drive around bombed out of my mind as long as I don't hurt anyone. Use a little common sense. There are just some things you do or don't do because they are for the common good. Or are you forgetting that with every right comes a corresponding responsibility? Examples: I have the right to have a gun and to shoot it off. I have the responsibility to do so in a safe manner that does not endanger anyone. I have the right to drink but the responsibility not to put anyone at risk by driving.

it would appear that in this state, you DO NOT have the right to drink. the law enforcement agencies can use draconian measures, even violating your fourth amendment rights, to assure that you don't. you don't need to be in an accident, just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. if you are 'on the road' at two thirty in the morning, you are fair game. especially on a weekend. i USED to work afternoons, and i USED to work overtime, but i (after being pulled over twice without being given a ticket within three weeks, neither time was i drinking.) gave up that job and i now work overnights without the overtime. i can't afford to get a drunk driving citation, so i don't drink at all anymore. at least they can't just fabricate THAT. our freedoms and liberties are being taken away because the "threat" of drunk driving is being used as a "bogeyman" against us. i understand the importance of enforcement of laws, but i also understand the importance of BEING LEFT ALONE if i do not break the law.

is not to HURT ANYBODY. not to "avoid putting anybody at risk". every time you get into your car, drunk or not, you put everybody else on the road "at risk". distracted drivers, those operating cell phones, playing with radio controls, talking to friends, or scolding their children cause FAR MORE accidents than drunk drivers every year. yet you WILL NOT be pulled over for talking on a cell phone, or 'driving distracted'. in SOME states, if you are talking on a cell phone when involved in an accident, you get a wreckless driving citation, whether the accident is your fault or not. most "drunk driving" accidents occur at .20 or higher, not .08. ALL cell phone users are dangerous, whether or not they use "hands free" options. more lives could be saved by "shut up and drive" campaigns than could be saved by "don't drink and drive". if you are going to be responsible, be TOTALLY responsible.

.

That at .1 bac I can drive better than any soccer mom on a cell phone. The problem is that they are using this for REVENUE GENERATION and destroying lives in the process. No one wants to let the "bombed out of my mind" guy drive. We just don't want the I had a few beers guy go to jail and live through the draconian crap they put you through. By the way, over 3000 good, decent folks commited suicide after being thrown in jail for the first time in their lives for having a few drinks. Nannys like you are the problem, not the social drinker.

...want to be on the road with either of you. You are both equally dangerous. The problem is with people who want to do what they want to do without regard to how it impacts their fellow citizens. Neither the guy who has had a few drinks or the person who thinks their phone call is more important than paying attention to their driving is acting with any regard to the people on the road with them.

user is responsible for SIX TIMES more deaths and injuries than the "drunk driver" is. the city i live in doesn't even ask for your driver's license anymore until after you've been 'breathalyzed'. let's talk about SELECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT.

If you haven't been drinking refuse to blow. It's actually alot of fun watching Barney Fife try to figure out what to do when one of the subjects stands up for himself. Same goes for " can I search your car" Just Say No Thank You. If he had a reason he would get a warrant and not ask.

I don't need you or the Imperial State Government as a Nanny. Maybe if you got out and had a few drinks every once in a while you would have more friends and not be such a control freak. You flung your freedoms in trade for safety and received not safety but slavery. What kind of deal is that? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will protect us from our protectors?

I agree with drunk driving laws for the most part.I just think this law is pushing the line a little to far.I mean a guy leaving the pub after a couple beers gets pulled over for having a tail light out and KABOOM! his driving record is destroyed for life.The idea that having a few beers could land you in prison even though your driving skills may be perfectly fine is insane.I seen on the news where a guy was involved in beating a man to death with a ball bat and only got 90 days in jail and 3 years probation I guess that is acceptable but by God don't you dare drink a beer at the pub our politicians are A** backwards with the way they approach the law.The truth of matter is if I had as much money as MADD they probably would listen to me too! I mean they legislate based on who contributes the most to their campaign or fly them on best trips or whatever other nonsense a group can think of to woo them.I wish a politician for once would govern with common sense and compassion.I mean pass a law that actually serves our public interest and keeps common sense in the picture,for instance why not say anyone that gets caught for drunk driving with a bac of .15 or higher must have it remain on their record for life or three at that level or higher is a felony.That would seem reasonable it would be targeted at drunks the ones that are a threat.

All those entities are in kahoots with another. Only the insurance companies can absolve their liabilities a little a time for one reason only! To enhance the bonuses of regional vice presidents! MONEY thats all they care about. Not you! Graduated Drivers licenses? Come on? they dont care about teen agers-only money. Its a good publicity stunt that people nievely except. MADD might actually care-the insurance companies don't 9 million drivers times $400 dollars per policy in Michigan. Agents keep 50% the other goes to corporate and they write fancy exclustions and contingencies to keep regional vice presidents rich

expand 4th amendment protections to include NOT being pulled over simply because we are on the road at a certain time of the day? how about we make the police officers work for a living? how about we challenge a few of these travesties in higher federal courts?

"MADD might actually care-" The lady that started this behemoth bailed out and now works for the restaurant and bar assn. She says that they want total prohibition, nothing less. There are alot of folks at that "nonprofit" madd that make alot of money. These people are worse that the drunk drivers they pretend to want to get rid of. Truth is that the problem is tiny in respect to the time and effort that goes into it. It's all about the MONEY!!! madd-ness quotes: "Once you've consumed your first drink, you've lost that ability to make a sound judgment." -Penny Wagner, Chapter President - MADD MADD founder Candy Lightner broke ties with the group in the 1980s. In 2002, she told the Washington Times: "[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." While a lot of attention is paid to the serious problems of repeat offenders, we don’t want to overlook the casual drinker.” — Karolyn Nunnallee, former president of MADD, USA Today, December 1998 “‘I thought the emphasis on .08 laws was not where the emphasis should have been placed,’ Candace Lightner [founder and former president of MADD] said. ‘The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers. Lowering the blood-alcohol concentration was not a solution to the alcohol problem.’” — Los Angeles Times, December 2002 The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule -- H.L. Mencken

but will never work. It's too politically incorrect to argue that the draconian drunk driver penalties are wrong. How about everytime you are on the road this Christmas season and have not had any libations that we all drive about 10 under or vary between the speed limit and 10 under. This will keep Barney Fife and his minions so busy that they will not want to pull anyone over. Just be real polite and when he asks why you are driving slow tell him that from all the publicity on the tube and radio that you thought there was a drunk driving epidemic and were just trying to watch out for them. make sure you take your time finding your papers and keep the storm trooper tied up for as long as possible. Merry Christmas.