Anything to cut back on drunken driving is good...one thing here stood out to me as well

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/15329816.htm

Quote :

"Anyone purchasing a keg of beer must obtain a permit from the vendor. Authorities will then be able to trace the beer purchases."

obtaining a permit for buying a keg? interesting

8/22/2006 11:17:51 AM

this has been in the works for awhile, the intention was to limit access to kegs by minors and have said kegs traceable to discourage overs purchasing for unders.

other than that it is a minor inconvenience

8/22/2006 11:22:43 AM

I thought I heard they put something like this in place before. But I dont think its a permit like you have to apply for it or anything, you just have to fill out a little form when you buy the keg, not that big of a deal

8/22/2006 11:23:05 AM

yeah this has been discussed in length here already - but i can't find the thread(s)

8/22/2006 11:26:51 AM

oh ok...well it wasnt passed until yesterday

8/22/2006 11:27:57 AM

This bill pisses me off. Combat DWI by passing laws that affect people who commit DWI, not everybody. This bill also makes underage comsumption illegal, which has nothing to do with DWI. It just turns good parents into criminals and subjects minors to breathalizers (when they aren't driving).

Also, the .08 bac thing is dangerous. How the hell are you suposed to know your BAC before you drive? Also, the accuracy of the equipment used is suspect and not subject to independent testing. Is there any peer reviewed evidence that a .08 BAC causes dangerous impairment in all drivers (ie more than being old, inexperienced, dumb, talking on a cell phone)?

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 11:32 AM. Reason : ?]

8/22/2006 11:29:28 AM

it pretty much just takes a judge's case by case discretion away.

8/22/2006 11:32:01 AM

Quote :

"This bill also makes underage comsumption illegal, which has nothing to do with DWI. It just turns good parents into criminals and subjects minors to breathalizers (when they aren't driving)."

it's a good idea but a bad implementation - i agree with that

but to be mad because it subjects minors to breathalizers is just stupid, regardless of whether they are driving or not - underage consumption should be illegal (not that i agree with being underage being under the age of 21 though)

8/22/2006 11:32:03 AM

i dislike mandatory sentencing of most kinds. sometimes circumstances make these punishments very harsh. BUT the problem with giving judges lattitude is that not all judges are responsible with that lattitude and end up letting a lot of people loose who shouldn't be.

perhaps allowing for an extremely reduced sentence for a first offense and a BAC under 0.10 or something would be appropriate. i don't know.

8/22/2006 11:33:02 AM

underage consumption already was illegal

but most people realize that at a minimum, some people will drink underage, and as long as they dont drink too much or get behind the wheel afterwards, it could be a lot worse...prohibition isnt realistic

8/22/2006 11:33:48 AM

Well he just wrapped up his next election, that's for sure

8/22/2006 11:34:37 AM

So if you give your child a sip of champagne on New Years, that's a crime? The best way to teach your children about alcohol is at home. Curiousity can't be curbed by a law. Either they can taste a swallow of their Dad's beer, or they can drink at a party and be pressured into binge drinking.

8/22/2006 11:34:58 AM

Quote :

"underage consumption already was illegal"

No it wasn't, only purchase and possession.

8/22/2006 11:35:28 AM

Quote :

"BUT the problem with giving judges lattitude is that not all judges are responsible with that lattitude"

That doesn't hold water. They are elected officials.

8/22/2006 11:36:35 AM

^^hmm...didnt know that...i thought i had heard of people who were underage and pulled over and had alcohol in their system...aside from the dwi equivalent of underage, i thought they also got hit with some type of underage consumption independent of driving

8/22/2006 11:41:50 AM

I also don't like this bill because tieing DWI to a .08 BAC has no connection with criminal behavior.

8/22/2006 11:42:34 AM

I've heard arguements that having any BAC constituted possession, but that's a police officers' convoluted way of thinking.

8/22/2006 11:44:19 AM

Quote :

"I also don't like this bill because tieing DWI to a .08 BAC has no connection with criminal behavior."

a DWI has been tied to a .08 BAC for a long time now....way before this bill was even thought of - complain about that if it's what makes you angry....

8/22/2006 11:45:06 AM

Quote :

"No it wasn't, only purchase and possession."

Couldn't you classify consumption as possession of alcohol in the stomach

8/22/2006 11:45:31 AM

Quote :

"but to be mad because it subjects minors to breathalizers is just stupid, regardless of whether they are driving or not - underage consumption should be illegal (not that i agree with being underage being under the age of 21 though) "

I think that the general US attitudes toward Alcohol creates a stigma such that it makes the overall problem worse. Instead of advocating responsible use @ earlier ages, it's demonized to the point that kids go overboard and don't know how to handle it when its made available (either legally or illegally)........I can see absolutely nothing wrong with a 15 or 16 year old having a glass of wine with his family @ dinner, but according to "our" views this makes one a bad parent.

8/22/2006 11:47:18 AM

Quote :

"Also, the .08 bac thing is dangerous. How the hell are you suposed to know your BAC before you drive? "

Hey, how about this great idea -- don't drive after drinking!!!

8/22/2006 11:53:19 AM

Quote :

"a DWI has been tied to a .08 BAC for a long time now....way before this bill was even thought of - complain about that if it's what makes you angry...."

Not in the same way it is now. Judges knew (and the law was worded) in a way that made the .08 bac a contributing factor not an aboslute factor. A .08 bac is evidence that you might be impaired, but not conclusive evidence. The significance of your BAC depended on a lot of things.

8/22/2006 11:56:06 AM

Quote :

"Hey, how about this great idea -- don't drive after drinking!!!"

Why not?

8/22/2006 11:57:27 AM

I agree with the whole parents thing. My mom is from Germany and thinks that as long as I'm not driving anywhere, I am allowed to drink alcohol, more frequently since about 14-15. She buys whatever I want, and doesn't mind if my friends come over and drink, as long as we have a DD and aren't driving home. I haven't been afraid to call her once at 2AM to come pick my sorry ass up. I grew up drinking wine with dinner everynight - it has always been available if I wanted it. Sometimes I think a lot of trouble would be avoided if we had laws like in Canada - 18 to buy beer/wine/malt liquor and 21 to buy hard liquor - but this roots back to that whole argument "If it wasn't illegal, people wouldn't want to try it".

I have heard about this keg thing before too, but that the form was rather lengthy - that a serial number was on the keg and you filled out a decent amount of info on the form so that if a party was busted up, it could be traced back to you.

8/22/2006 12:01:42 PM

Quote :

"Not in the same way it is now. Judges knew (and the law was worded) in a way that made the .08 bac a contributing factor not an aboslute factor. A .08 bac is evidence that you might be impaired, but not conclusive evidence. The significance of your BAC depended on a lot of things."

ah ok - i misread what you were saying - i agree that 0.08 isn't enough for a conviction with the available methods right now

8/22/2006 12:01:54 PM

Quote :

"She buys whatever I want, and doesn't mind if my friends come over and drink"

So she provides alcohol for your friends? Parents can make decisions for their own kids, but I' don't support parents buying alcohol for other kids.

8/22/2006 12:06:00 PM

When I was still in high school, they had to have their parents call her first and check. Now that they're over 18, it doesn't really matter that much, but she still inquires on occasion.

8/22/2006 12:06:49 PM

i think the whole concept of a breathalizer and the .08 is stupid. any doctor or researcher will tell you that alcohol affects people differently. to some, .08 is hammered and to others, its nothing. the only sobriety tests that should be conducted and admissible in court are the field sobriety tests that actually determine if your motor skills are impaired. that, not your BAC, determines if you should be driving.

8/22/2006 12:14:03 PM

these sobriety tests, ideally would be filmed as well. i would hate to see all drunk driving cases to be one word against another. because the cop will generally win that one.

8/22/2006 12:16:21 PM

^^that's one thing the new law is makes invalid

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2006 12:17:53 PM

i was responding to ^^^

8/22/2006 12:18:44 PM

People getting busted under 21 previously were getting busted for one of two things.

A) Purchasing or possesing: You got booze in the car and your under 21 or the ALE guys find you buying it, your busted. You got one at a restaurant that your drinking off of, thats possesion.

B) Driving after consuming under the age of 21: After the age of 21 you can consume up to the .08 BAC limit, and then your doing a DUI. If you under 21, driving, and get busted after drinking some Nyquil, technically your consuming alcohol and behind the wheel. Even if there isn't any in the car, you could be arrested for Driving after Consumption under the age of 21.

Now if you get pulled and are the DD and are stone sober, your fine. But anybody in the car that is drinking has to have IDs and prove they are over 21 or they can get a ticket as well. I kinda lean towards bullshit on this. That means that if down the road if my kids are 18-19 and I give them a beer at home and then we run down the road to get a movie, I can be under the .08 and be fine, but they, who aren't even behind the fucking wheel, can get a misdemeanor charge. Thats fucked up and I don't like that parents aren't allowed to make decisions about their kids anymore. I bet this will mean people under the age will likely drive more, because now being responsible just piles everybody into one car. If 4 people are driving, they all get drunk and leave a party, chances are good they may only get like 1 of the 4. You carpool and they pull the DD, you all get tickets. Thats fucked.

8/22/2006 12:43:56 PM

There is a reason why they have been able to overturn DWI convictions where the field sobriety test showed at 0.08 or higher - they are not accurate.

While breathalyzers (sp?) measure the alcohol content in the blood, they can be inaccurate if you use it immediately after taking a drink due to alcohol still being on your breath. Thats why the only readings that counted was 30 minutes later at the police station.

This means that you can be at the bar, have a single shot, and blow a 0.10 but your BAC is not 0.10. Sometimes these "tough" laws are just incorrect and only seem tough.

As for the possession of alcohol in your system by people under the age of 21 - I don't think a law exists yet to require anyone to take a breathalyzer. The only time you "have" to take one is if you are behind the wheel, and even then, if you refuse, I believe you only lose your license for a year. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not to promote drunk driving or underage consumption...

8/22/2006 12:57:51 PM

Quote :

"I don't think a law exists yet to require anyone to take a breathalyzer. The only time you "have" to take one is if you are behind the wheel, and even then, if you refuse, I believe you only lose your license for a year. Correct me if I'm wrong."

http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5307798

Quote :

"An officer can take out warrants for blood if suspected drunk drivers refuse breathalyzer tests. District Attorney Ben David says the number one deadly weapon in the fifth district is a car operated by an impaired driver. And this new program gives law enforcement the tools the need to go after them. For years officers have been able take out warrants for blood samples, but their hands were tied without having a way to get the tests. The new alcohol blood warrant program provides- on-call phlebotomists to give the tests. If someone refuses a test he or she automatically gets their license revoked for 13 months. A local attorney tells us oftentimes repeat offenders know that penalty may not be as bad as what a DWI would carry. Troopers say the blood tests will be valuable evidence in the courtroom. They expect refusal rates to go down once people hear they will likely get their BAC levels tested regardless of their refusal. This program is already seeing success in Cherokee and Duplin Counties. DA Ben David says the program in Pender and New Hanover Counties is only getting started, but he expects the refusal rates to go down 50 percent. "

8/22/2006 1:27:40 PM

A few weeks ago I bought my first keg since being up here in NY. Interestingly enough, I had to fill out a permit to transport the beer (I guess kinda like buying an asston of liquor in NC). However, I had to return this form with the keg later or else was charged $75 for that piece of paper alone.

Yikes!

8/22/2006 1:31:26 PM

we have some of the stupidest laws in this state/country. I can not beleive that if a cop thinks you have been drinking and are under 21 they can give you a brethalyzer and right you a ticket. i've heard a lot of crap about stopping under age drinking to stop drinking and driving. that is bullshit.

8/22/2006 1:59:41 PM

Quote :

"right you a ticket"

not to mention everything else you said is crap

8/22/2006 2:23:28 PM

Quote :

"I think that the general US attitudes toward Alcohol creates a stigma such that it makes the overall problem worse. Instead of advocating responsible use @ earlier ages, it's demonized to the point that kids go overboard and don't know how to handle it when its made available (either legally or illegally)........I can see absolutely nothing wrong with a 15 or 16 year old having a glass of wine with his family @ dinner, but according to "our" views this makes one a bad parent."

8/22/2006 3:11:58 PM

when will the gov't learn

you aren't going to stop underage college kids from drinking.

hell these days you arent even going to stop underage high school kids from drinking

the more you say no no no the more it is going to entice them to see what all the fuss is about.

as Natalie metioned in her above posts....in a lot of other countries it is common for parents to introduce alcohol to their children and teach them how to enjoy it responsibly. Why in the hell do they think their is such a problem with kids coming to college and becoming drunks??? Or even in high school now. The more you tell a young person they cant do something...the more they are going to want to do it. There is just too many old values still trying to be instilled in this country. It is time we dealt with our problems with modern solutions, not what worked when some 60 year old politician was a teenager.

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 3:15 PM. Reason : and what he said ^]

8/22/2006 3:14:52 PM

I contacted the ACLU about the changes to the underage drinking laws last year. (was gonna use this for a paper)

Basically what I think will happen is the ALE will start doing sweeps of parties and breathalyze everyone present who is underage. Under the old law they had to witness the underage person in posession of the alcohol or get them to admit it was theirs.

The ACLU basically responded saying that it would be illegal for them to breathalyze everyone in a particular location who is underage without individual propable cause to search(breathalyze) them. This is true, but we all know that its rare that people contest drinking tickets in court so the cops have no problem writing them even when they did not follow proper procedure in investigating. I am sure everyone on here knows someone who has gotten a drinking ticket just for being in proximity to alcohol.

For most people its not worth going through the process to argue the ticket when they always offer the first offender program (which costs $$$ to complete).

This is the letter I got back from them anyway.

Quote :

"July 25, 2005 Dear Mr. Williamson: Thank you for contacting the ACLU-NC with your concerns regarding the keg registration and underage consumption legislation currently in the North Carolina legislature. House Bill 1048 was introduced by Representative Joe Hackney. It passed the House of Representatives on July 20, and is scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, July 25. We expect that it will pass. You can find additional information concerning H.B. 1048, including the text of the bill, by visiting http://www.ncleg.net and performing a bill search for “H1048.” The ACLU-NC has been monitoring H.B. 1048 since it was introduced. The bill has a number of civil liberties implications, especially concerning keg purchase restrictions and new regulations applied to DWI roadblocks. We have worked with Representative Hackney to address our concerns with the bill; however, we have not specifically addressed the issue with which you are concerned. Part XIV, section 25 of H.B. 1048 makes it illegal for a person under 21 to consume an alcoholic beverage. Section 26 of the bill allows a law enforcement officer to require a person to submit to an alcohol screening test if the officer has probable cause that the person is under 21 and has consumed an alcoholic beverage. This means that the officer must have a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime before the officer subjects that person to an invasive search or seizure. An officer would not simply be able to detain all persons present at a gathering and require them to submit to an alcohol screening without a reasonable individualized suspicion that each particular individual has committed a crime. The alcohol screening procedure created by section 26 of H.B. 1048 is consistent with general probable cause restrictions placed on law enforcement officers. If an officer acted outside of his or her constitutional bounds in detaining and screening an individual, that action could be challenged in court. Without a clear constitutional violation present, the ACLU-NC will not take action against this provision of the bill. If you are in opposition to the bill, we suggest that you contact your state senator this afternoon before the expected vote on H.B. 1048 at 4:30pm. Thank you for contacting the ACLU-NC. We appreciate your sharing with us your commitment to civil liberties. We are sorry that we cannot assist you with this matter. If we can be of assistance in the future concerning any constitutional matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Dan Blau Intern, ACLU-NC ACLU-NC P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 "

8/22/2006 3:27:48 PM

^gj

i wish more people would do that sort of thing

8/22/2006 4:09:09 PM

this still doesn't change the fact that our law enforcement and society has nothing better to do then nick pick and worry about kids drinking. unless it is a total $$$ generating thing

8/22/2006 4:26:43 PM

fascism is great!

8/22/2006 4:33:45 PM

no shit

8/22/2006 5:07:52 PM

waaaaaah I can't drive after drinking waaaaaaaahh

cry me a river

8/22/2006 5:19:04 PM

I think .08 should be the standard, but you should be able to take a test to determine what your personal BAC should be.

8/22/2006 6:05:35 PM

Quote :

"Well he just wrapped up his next election, that's for sure"

you think easley will run against purdue in 2012?

nc governors are not allowed more than 2 consecutive terms

how do people not know this?

8/22/2006 8:42:27 PM

because it seems like jim hunt was the governor for 20 years

8/22/2006 10:01:44 PM

so it should be a little while before it is in effect, correct?

8/22/2006 11:22:25 PM

Set 'em up!

8/22/2006 11:32:35 PM