My co-workers wife was charged with DUI in Snohomish Co even though she was below the legal limit. If I remember correctly, she was at .04.
It ended up costing them over $5k to get it reduced.
SF

Weird, while what you say is true, I don't know anybody that tries to justify it, do you?

Yes. All of the people who selfishly choose to drink and drive because "they drive better, they're fine, they can hold their liquor, they don't care about other's, it won't happen to them, etc" are justifying their behavior by getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't. Is there something confusing to you in that?

Again, who here is trying to justify drinking and driving?

You must run with a different crowd than I do.

I know people who say they know people who say that...I just don't know anyone that says that.

That is all.

F4B, is there any significance to this post or nah?

I didn't say it was anyone here but you know as well as I do that a lot of people thinks it's just fine to drink and drive. I guess until you have a serious drunk driving accident or fatality happen "close to home" it's just fodder for arguing on a stupid website.

I agree with what you are saying, nobody should be driving, running a boat or flying a aircraft under the influence of any debilitating substance.

What a lot of people don't understand when it comes to enacting stricter DUI laws is the economy of DUI. Having sat in meetings with legislatures and watching all of the competing interests in changing DUI laws, it is apparent that there is a number of groups who make money and rely on their existence by influencing law makers not to tighten the noose too much on offenders. You have the treatment lobby that wants to see more people funneled into treatment. Then you have the defense attorneys who lobby for favorable laws that will help their interests, then bar and restaurant owners; add to that prosecutors, law enforcement, and others, you have a number of very distinct and different interests impacting DUI laws, some of whom make their living or depend on their existence by swaying legislators their way.

Add to this, many legislators and even jurors know, "There by the grace of God go I". In other words lots of otherwise upstanding people have driven after drinking and can sympathize with others who have done the same.

I have a very good friend in Germany who is a Police Officer in Bavaria and worked traffic on the autobahn for many years. The penalties are so strict and the chances of being caught are so much higher that you don't see many people driving after drinking, its just not something you will see most people do, and this is true through most of Europe.

Be careful in Canada, especially British Columbia where they have a tiered system of DUI, starting at .02, where you can have your license taken away and your car impounded with only one beer in your system. They are also very effective at utilizing roadblock DUI checkpoints to catch offenders and the locals know it, and it creates quite a deterrent and for Americans, any DUI conviction will ban you from travel to Canada.

Strict laws and enforcement techniques such as random check points work, but you won't see it in Washington, especially check points, because the Washington Constitution doesn't allow for them.

So basically people have selfish interests justifying the existing DUI laws.

That is true for certain groups and I think you can figure out who they are, but there other groups who have fought for stricter DUI laws who have other's self interest at heart.

Key words:

Newport
22 years old
Range Rover

That tells you everything you need to know about how that selfish cvnt was raised.

Yup.
They rear em different in C'attle.