Zero Tolerance

[Ixion]

From today's Harold, regarding the driver who killed the two bikers

Gordon Armstrong's first conviction for drink driving was in 1986, the next in 1997. He was convicted again in 2000 and 2004. * In 2000, he was indefinitely disqualified from driving, meaning he could not renew his licence until he completed a mandatory disqualification period and drug and alcohol counselling.
* Although he finished the counselling, he did not renew his licence once the disqualification ended, and had driven without a licence since.

So, in 2000 , as a recidivist drunk driver he was "indefinately" disqualified (though indefinately does not seem to mean indefinately). Yet in 2004 , with that history, we was convicted again. And received what punishment?




Surely this points to the real problem. People like Gordon Armstrong. Not someone who's had a glass of wine with dinner.

And is anyone going to seriously contend that Armstrong would have been deterred by a zero limit? Or that on all his previous occasions he might have genuinely thought he was under the limit ? "Oh, I didn't mind driving disqualified. And I've no worries about racking up a string of drunk drive convictions. But gee, now they've got a zero limit I'd better stop. Cos before, I really thought every time that I was under the limit" . Tui.

[ceebie13]

...No it's not as you imply that I have an alcohol problem....

Sorry mate, but I repeat...no inference or implication intended. I used the word "couldst" (instead of "doth") quite deliberately so as to not point the finger in any way at anyone contributing to this thread. As road users we're all in the same boat. We live in a democracy where legislation is defined and whether we like that legislation or not we live with it.

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

[Squeak the Rat]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

That I am happy to do with an example:

Every Friday evening at work we have drinks. Everyone from management, office workers and warehouse staff get together and socialise.
We host this very responsibly. A senior manager is always present keeping a quiet eye on things. Light beer and soft drink is on offer. No one drives after more than two drinks, or if they are showing signs of intoxication.

The simple fact is that people use alcohol to relax. If we didn't allow staff to have a beer then they would simply go home. Whether people are dependant on alcohol is not relevant - the fact is that this friday get together would not continue.

This advantages that I believe the friday drinks provides include:

• good teambuilding
• a relaxing and fun end to the week
• stress relief - people go home to their families happy rather than stressed and grumpy
• staff feel valued
• issues are resolved face to face in a friendly environment rather than escalating via email
• it's good for the company, issues are resolved, staff are happy, and a happy worker is a good worker

So the employees gain, the company gains. The families gain as hopefully their loved ones hopefully enjoy work a bit more. (And to counter an argument, if they continue drinking at home then they would have done this regardless of work drinks).

The downside - there is a small increase in the risk of an accident. But as some one else commented , one beer is probably less likely to cause an accident than driving fatigued or a number of other factors. I'm a worse driver after 4x12 hour days than after one beer.

Is the small risk worth the large gain to our staff and company? Yes. And if it improves our companies performance, is this not good for the economy, and NZ as a whole? Yes. (imho).

[MSTRS:Me]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

Admittedly it is not necessary to have a glass of wine or a pint with a meal when out, but it is definitely something that the majority enjoy. Heavy-handed legislation would make criminals of these people or deny them a harmless pleasure. One standard measure of alcohol in any form is not the problem.

[placidfemme]

After reading all the debate on the topic, I've realised that I mis-judged the original question.

As mentioned by those above, I don't think making drinking (say a drink or two with dinner etc) should be illegal. I think the limits we have at the moment are good. But the punishments and enforcement of the current system need to be re-viewed and adjusted.

As with the guy who killed those 3 bikers this weekend. There was no "real" punishment for his previous actions... it didn't stop him from drinking, it did stop him from dirving, it didn't stop him from killing 3 innocent people, himself and injuring 3 innocent kids, not to mention the damage he has done to the bikers family/friends as well as his own family and friends.

Stopping people from drinking and driving (note... not driving drunk... there is a difference) won't stop the problem, it'll just create criminals out of everyday people that know thier own personal limits.

You have to remember to keep seperate the everyday person and the continuous drunk.

I originally voted "yes" to the Zero tolerance limit, but after much thought and taking into consideration everything said in this thread, I'm joining the "no" group now.

[ceebie13]

It sounds idyllic...can I come work at your place?

...The simple fact is that people use alcohol to relax.

...and so do I. But after work, at the office with colleagues, i could relax with an orange juice if need be. Wouldn't be the same though I hear you say.

[MSTRS:Me]

.... i could relax with an orange juice if need be. Wouldn't be the same though I hear you say.

Wouldn't you prefer to have the choice? Rather than some faceless law telling you "No"?

[Ixion]

Just tell me why (whether it works or not as a deterant) we should not make it illegal to drive with any alcohol whatsoever in our blood.

Firstly, because you are wanting to curtail the freedom of others. And those who do so should always be viewed with suspicion. Especially when they admit that they themselves will not be affected. And doubly so when they can not point to any objective reason for such a loss of freedom. The "you drunks are inpinging on my freedom etc" argument will not run. This is not a discussion about drunks, or drunk driving. It is a discussion about a social civility. Nobody is arguing that anyone who is pissed should be driving. So, I suggest that you have established no justification for such restrictions.

Secondly, for all the reasons already covered. Here for instance

Thirdly because there is good reason to think that some at least of those who put forward the proposal (and some of them here) are not making a good faith proposal. Their real agenda , as it has been for over 100 years, is prohibition. They know that an outright proposal to ban alcohol will never fly (though I recall they came close a while ago). So , they think to achieve their purpose by stealth and degrees.

Fourthly. Because fixing what isn't broken is never wisdom.

Fifthly . Because it is impractical unless still more restrictions be accepted , which go beyond "do not drive after drinking" to "do not drink at all". Which brings us back to thirdly.

[Grahameeboy]

Wouldn't you prefer to have the choice? Rather than some faceless law telling you "No"?

You still have the choice, like speeding you have the choice but get caught speeding and you suffer the consequences.

Maybe we need a faceless law to make our choices for us because we are often like children and do not act responsibly.

[SPman]

We already have too many faceless laws, telling us what we can and can't do.
The more laws and restrictions you put on people, the more they will act according to how they perceive themselves being treated. Treat them like imbeciles and the mass will act like imbeciles. There are too many laws around that use a sledgehammer on the entire community, to try and control the actions of a few. If the law wants respect, it has to treat the society it is intended for, with respect, not be an agent for overbearing governmental control, which is what it is fast becoming in this country and more so in others.
As Benjamin Franklin said in 1775 "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

[Grahameeboy]

We already have too many faceless laws, telling us what we can and can't do.
The more laws and restrictions you put on people, the more they will act according to how they perceive themselves being treated. Treat them like imbeciles and the mass will act like imbeciles. There are too many laws around that use a sledgehammer on the entire community, to try and control the actions of a few. If the law wants respect, it has to treat the society it is intended for, with respect, not be an agent for overbearing governmental control, which is what it is fast becoming in this country and more so in others.

So you want smiley faces on Laws?

I do know what you mean but hey on my death bed I am not going to think about laws and restriction on my life which when added up are a small part of life in the whole scheme of things.

It is the few we complain about and there are more than just a few imbeciles..................my pet subject but a simple illustration but people in NZ are the worst offenders for parking in Mobility Card Only car park space...by a long stretch....so my guess is that there are more than just a few that break the so cold overbearing Laws.

We have to earn respect and perhaps we have to stand back and realise that we have not quite earned it yet.........

I know I will ruffle a few feathers but that is fine..............

[Ixion]

......my pet subject but a simple illustration but people in NZ are the worst offenders for parking in Mobility Card Only car park space...by a long stretch....so my guess is that there are more than just a few that break the so cold overbearing Laws.

..

To take your analogy and expand it.. People park in disabled spaces. It vexes me , too, though at a less personal level.

Now extending that analogy. If ALL parking spaces were made disabled spaces: and a holder of a Mobility card could call up and get any vehicle towed because they wanted to park in that space. "Oh what a wonderful idea" you exclaim.

But what do you think the effect would be after this had happened a few times? Is it not probable that there would be a massive backlash of resentment and anger against the disabed ? I can hear the lunch room buzz "Yeah, the missus had her car towed yesterday. Another of them bastard cripples. She had all the shopping and three kids, half those bloody so called cripples don't look any more disabled than me, if they can't function in society like proper people they shouldn't be allowed out rant rant rant ".

Would that really be a good thing then ?

So likewise with any law that steps beyond society's acceptance. Either it must be draconically enforced (difficult with either zero tolerance or disabled parking); or the backlash will do more harm than the law does good.

[Grahameeboy]

To take your analogy and expand it.. People park in disabled spaces. It vexes me , too, though at a less personal level.

Now extending that analogy. If ALL parking spaces were made disabled spaces: and a holder of a Mobility card could call up and get any vehicle towed because they wanted to park in that space. "Oh what a wonderful idea" you exclaim.

Not sure that is a good analogy..........not all people are disabled but we are all potential drink drivers.

But what do you think the effect would be after this had happened a few times? Is it not probable that there would be a massive backlash of resentment and anger against the disabed ? I can hear the lunch room buzz "Yeah, the missus had her car towed yesterday. Another of them bastard cripples. She had all the shopping and three kids, half those bloody so called cripples don't look any more disabled than me, if they can't function in society like proper people they shouldn't be allowed out rant rant rant ".

Seems from the people I confront in disabled bays that there is a lot of resentment and disrespect for disabled people.....you would be amazed.

Would that really be a good thing then ?

So likewise with any law that steps beyond society's acceptance. Either it must be draconically enforced (difficult with either zero tolerance or disabled parking); or the backlash will do more harm than the law does good.


Mmmm...so society has zero tolerance to drinking and driving but to try and deal with it, it is beyond society to accept a zero tolerance attempt to deal with it?

Backlashe...well if it don't work you have the elections to voice your view.

..........................

[Squeak the Rat]

Not sure that is a good analogy..........not all people are disabled but we are all potential drink drivers.

It was a very good analogy. The poor part was in you're attempt to dismiss it. The truth is:

Not all people are disabled, and not all people are drink drivers.

Likewise, all people have the potential to be disabled, and all people have the potential to be drink drivers.

[Grahameeboy]

It was a very good analogy. The poor part was in you're attempt to dismiss it. The truth is:

Not all people are disabled, and not all people are drink drivers.

Likewise, all people have the potential to be disabled, and all people have the potential to be drink drivers.

Matter of opinion..that is cool.

Well the potential to be a drink driver is much higher than the potential to be disabled.......