Proposed Laws Would Bar Drunk Drivers From Buying Alcohol

For the second time in two years, New Mexico State Representative Brian Egolf has proposed a bill to prohibit convicted drunk drivers from purchasing alcohol. The bill—which was defeated in the state’s senate in 2013—would require DUI offenders who are under orders to use an ignition interlock to carry a special driver’s license or identity card noting they are not allowed to buy booze.

According to the most recent statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), alcohol-related crashes account for 30% of all traffic deaths in New Mexico. Currently all convicted DUI offenders in the state must install an ignition interlock in their car. However, the law has roughly a 50% compliance rate. Because so many evade their interlock requirement, Egolf feels prohibiting alcohol sales to people convicted of intoxicated driving would make the roads safer. Egolf recognizes his bill isn’t perfect but he is giving it a second try in hopes of arming the state with another tool to prevent drunk driving.

To the east, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would not only prohibit convicted drunk drivers from drinking, but would also make it a felony to “knowingly” sell or give alcohol to a person court-ordered to abstain from drinking. Like the proposed New Mexico measure, Oklahoma would issue special IDs marked “alcohol restricted” to alert clerks and servers that the person is not allowed to drink. The felony penalty for those who sell or provide alcohol would make the law one of the toughest drunk driving measures in the county.

Supporters of these bills claim banning alcohol consumption and purchases are appropriate sanctions for drunk drivers. Many courts already prohibit DUI offenders from consuming alcohol for a period of time and these bills would make that practice more widespread. Furthermore, the bills would get more of the community involved in preventing drunk driving by making businesses that sell alcohol part of the solution.

However, opponents question how effective the laws would really be. DUI offenders could enlist a friend or family member to purchase alcohol for them, and many retailers and restaurants do not card patrons who appear to be over 21. In addition, there are concerns about the anticipated costs to design a new license type and to enforce the laws. Washington State considered a similar bill in 2013, but after reviewing the financial projections decided that it wasn’t workable.

Do you think these bills will help reduce DUIs and alcohol-involved crashes or should states focus their efforts elsewhere?

Continue Reading...

Proposed Law would Ban DUI Offenders from Buying Alcohol

Ban the instrumentality used during the commission of a crime and that will stop the crime, at least that’s the thought.

Sen. Patrick Anderson (R) of Oklahoma has introduced a new bill which would allow a court to ban people convicted of driving under the influence from purchasing alcohol for a probationary period of time. Those convicted of driving under the influence would be required to carry a license that indicates they are “alcohol restricted.”

Similarly, those who purchase alcohol for someone who is “alcohol restricted” is would be subject to felony charges. Individuals who “knowingly sell, deliver or furnish alcoholic beverages to a person who has been order to abstain” could face a fine of up to $1,000 or one year in prison.  

Oh, where to begin listing the problems with this proposed law?

First, does a state with one of the highest incarceration rates really want to send someone to jail or prison for something as trivial as buying and selling alcohol? What’s more, Oklahoma is currently undergoing a budget deficit for local law enforcement agencies. I think most people would agree that maybe Oklahoma should allocate its resources to fighting bigger battles than this.

Whether you agree or not, alcohol addiction is a disease. Those suffering from alcohol addiction will find a way to obtain alcohol. Banning alcohol will not reduce drunk driving deaths. Remember, it’s not the alcohol that causes alcohol-related collisions. It’s the decision to drive while drunk.

However, the biggest concern this proposed law raises is enforcement. How in the world does Oklahoma intend on enforcing this law?

This law would force every party host to ask every guest if they have been convicted of drunk driving before offering them a beer or a glass of wine. It would force priests to ask every parishioner if they have been convicted of drunk driving before they offer communion. A wife could not purchase wine “for the family” at the grocery store if her husband is “alcohol restricted.”

Anderson’s bill comes months after Oklahoma passed another law aimed at curbing its relatively high drunk driving death rate. Oklahoma legislature recently passed a law making it easier for prosecutors to confiscate the vehicle of a person charged with driving under the influence once the case is in court.

According to the nonprofit investigative journalism group “Oklahoma Watch,” drunk driving deaths in the state increased 10 percent between 1994 and 1012. However, during the same period, the figure dropped 20 percent nationwide.

The Oklahoma State Senate will begin discussing Anderson’s proposed legislation in February. Let’s just hope they realize the ramifications of such an ill-advised law. If it doesn’t, however, maybe the Oklahoma State Senate should also consider banning the purchase of cell phones for anyone caught texting and driving.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 26th, 2015 at 12:14 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

Super PACs Now Buying Judges, Too

We all know the impact the Super PACs are having on who will be representing us in our state and national governments.  Most senators, congressmen, governors, etc., are now pretty much bought-and-paid-for by Big Money’s deep pockets.  This is largely thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision which found that financial limits cannot be placed on them.  Apparently, the Court feels that corporations are "people", too, and therefor have a constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech.  In other words, corporations and fat donors dumping tons of money on political candidates are protected by the Bill of Rights!  

This, of course, opened the floodgates:  Big Money is now busily exercising their newly-discovered "free speech" by  buying up judges, too….

Super PACs, Donors Turn Sights on Judicial Branch

Orlando, FL.  Mar 29 – Just before sunset on a recent evening, scores of lawyers in dark suits and polished loafers streamed into the swanky 18th-floor ballroom of a downtown high-rise here. They sipped chardonnay and nursed Heinekens, munched on cheese cubes and made small talk.

The invitation to the event had asked for a “suggested contribution” of $500 to each of three candidates, who were now mingling sheepishly among the crowd. They were no ordinary politicians. In fact, they weren’t politicians at all, but rather Florida Supreme Court justices. Each has been in office since the 1990s, each retained by voters overwhelmingly in previous elections, and each now reluctantly campaigning — for the first time.

 While deep-pocketed super PACs and ultra-wealthy donors have attracted plenty of attention in the presidential contest this year, they are also making waves further down the political food chain. The mere possibility that a rich benefactor or interest group with endless amounts of money could swoop in, write massive checks and remake an entire court for ideological reasons has prompted judges here in Florida and elsewhere to prepare for battles they never expected to fight.

The three justices sipping water and shaking hands in the ballroom decided months ago that they needed to campaign early and hard. They saw two of their colleagues targeted in 2010 after the court refused to allow a ballot measure opposing a key provision in President Obama’s health-care plan. They knew the organizers of that effort, angry about what they call “judicial activism,” had promised to step up their campaign and had formed a political organization that by law can raise unlimited money.

The judges were less than excited about having to ask people for money.

“It is almost embarrassing to be doing it,” Justice Fred Lewis said…

Those challenging the judges say their actions offer a way to inform the public and hold the judiciary accountable. The judges say they welcome accountability but want to protect the independence of the bench.

Like judges elsewhere, those in Florida remain rattled by what happened two years ago in Iowa, where three state Supreme Court justices who had upheld a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage lost their jobs after a vitriolic million-dollar campaign to unseat them — money coming almost entirely from outside the state. In the preceding decade, not a single dollar had reportedly been spent on Iowa’s high court elections…

Judicial elections have long drawn the interest of wealthy benefactors, business and labor groups, and trial lawyers, but watchdog groups say they are particularly troubled by a new trend: The universe of big donors has grown smaller and more concentrated.

In a 2010 study that examined 29 judicial races, the watchdog group Justice at Stake found that the top five spenders averaged $473,000 apiece, while all other donors averaged $850. In addition, loopholes in disclosure laws gave those big donors ways to spend money “in substantial secrecy,” the report found.

“Outside forces are becoming a bigger deal,” said Roy Schotland, a Georgetown University law professor and expert on judicial elections. “We’re seeing more takeover of the races from the outside.”

Schotland said state judicial races are increasingly becoming “floating auctions,” in which special-interest groups focus money and manpower in states where they can upend judges they don’t like. “The justices are like sitting ducks,” he said…

I wonder what the going price is for a judge?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 10th, 2012 at 9:18 am and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...