Archive for Monday, August 30, 2010

22 people arrested last weekend in Douglas County on drunken-driving charges

August 30, 2010


Douglas County law enforcement officers arrested five people on suspicion of drunken driving late Friday night and early Saturday morning in a check lane in central Lawrence.

Sgt. Steve Lewis, a Douglas County Sheriff’s spokesman, said officers stopped and checked 278 vehicles as part of the check lane in the 1800 block of Kentucky Street. 

The Kansas Highway Patrol and Lawrence Police Department also participated.

One person arrested on suspicion of DUI was also booked on an unlawful marijuana possession charge. In addition to the DUI arrests, check lane officers issued seven open container citations, Lewis said.

He said officers also stopped 18 vehicles for traffic violations associated with the check lane.

Area law enforcement agencies also conducted saturation patrols this weekend seeking drunken drivers and other traffic-related offenders.

Kansas University Public Safety and Eudora police officers also made drunken-driving arrests over the weekend. Including the check lane, 22 people were arrested in Douglas County this weekend on DUI-related charges from Friday evening through noon Sunday, according to jail records. 


Ricky_Vaughn 7 years, 8 months ago

Are check lanes Constitutional? Innocent until proven guilty right?

How is stopping cars for no apparent reason legal?

Ricky_Vaughn 7 years, 8 months ago

How much safer are we? Do you have any data?

Daniel Speicher 7 years, 8 months ago

Well, right off the top of my head, I'd have to say that there were 22 less drunk drivers on the road JUST that night.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

If these things are so amazing why is that 11 states don't conduct them because they find them unconstitutional?

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Just a shot in the dark here, but likely because those 11 states have their own constitutions and don't use the Kansas one?

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Oh, sorry, eddie, forgot to make the answer understandable to certain 'special' folks.

See, eddie, what I was saying was that those other states that have found them to be unconstitutional have absolutely no bearing or relevance to Kansas law since the constitutions of the various states are different.

Got it, or do I need to type slower?

wisenup21 7 years, 8 months ago

because, despite the confusion of many persons in this country, driving is a PRIVILAGE not a right and may be, and should be, revoked with reason. I have witnessed entirely too many results of impaired driving and have no qualms about having even questionably impaired drivers stopped. If you have a problem being stopped, perhaps you should look within yourself.

RoeDapple 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas; Upheld under both state law and federal Constitution. State v. Deskins, 673 P. 2d 1174 (Kansas 1983). Davis v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 843 P.2d 260 (Kan. 1992), held that legislative authorization is not necessary for checkpoints. See also State v. Baker, 850 P.2d 885 (Kan. 1993) and State v. Campbell, 875 P.2d 1010 (Kan. App. 1994).

Ricky_Vaughn 7 years, 8 months ago

In other words...because some judges said so.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 8 months ago

That's one thing that judges do, you know.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

Yes. And in other states judges have said they are not constitutional and don't allow them. They should not be allowed anywhere. There is no probable cause or suspicion. Its dumb.

To be legal, all the cops would have to do is sit outside a bar and watch people stumble to their cars, or swerve when they are driving away and they would have the suspicion or probable cause they need.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 8 months ago

That happens here a lot, too. They sit at the old Bucky's and wait for the Pool Room, Crimson and Brews and Wayne&Larry's to empty at closing time.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

"In other words...because some judges said so."

Yeah. Kinda like a judge's ruling aginst the Arizona Immigration Law.

mdfraz 7 years, 8 months ago

Or because our state (and the federal) constitutions say so? As wisenup points out, driving is not a RIGHT, it is a privilege. And it is subject to regulation by the state.

People that think they have a "right" to do pretty much anything they want miss the point. I'm all for individual choice and freedom, and I don't like the government (local, state or federal) telling me what I can and can't do all the time, BUT I'm also realistic and know that living in a society of 100,000 or so (in Lawrence), 2.5 million or so (in Kansas) or 300 million (in the US) means there are certain rules that I/we need to abide by. Whining about DUI check lanes is ridiculous. There are enough government abuses of real, enumerated rights to worry about.

Jeff Kilgore 7 years, 8 months ago

You can play a guitar. I didn't know you were a lawyer too. Too bad you're dead. You know, I hate Southern Airlines.

Tammy Graham 7 years, 8 months ago

Ricky, Who cares if it is constitutional or not, how would you feel if a drunk driver killed one of your loved ones? Give me one good reason why a bunch of drunks should be out driving on the roads that your loved ones travel on... Hats of the the Lawrence Police Dept. & Kansas Highway Patrol for getting those stupid drunks off the road. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people drinking, just DON'T DRIVE!!!

Casey_Jones 7 years, 8 months ago

Who cares if it's constitutional? Are you serious?

Tammy Graham 7 years, 8 months ago

Here's what I am serious about...... I'll bet ya if you have a child and that child were to be seriously injured or killed by a drunk driver, you wouldn't care if it is constitutional to keep drunk idiots off the road. I'll bet if you were hit by a drunk driver and paralyzed for the rest of your life, you wouldn't care if it is constitutional or not. Is it constitutional to get drunk and then drive...putting innocent people at risk? I hope every one of the drunks that were stopped are completely miserable due to their consequences.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

Hey Tab, how would you feel if someone got shot because its your constitutional right to own a firearm?

A cop can't stop each person walking through the ghetto to see if they have a gun. How is that any different than stopping every single person driving down the road.

There is not probable cause or suspicion in either case.

Tammy Graham 7 years, 8 months ago

not a good example for comparison-

If I am stupid enough to walk through the ghetto, I might get shot- common sense.

If I am on a common public road, I don't expect to get hit by a drunk driver.

Common sense problem with drinking, drink til ya puke if you want. JUST DON'T DRIVE! Can you give me one good reason why a drunk should be driving?

allktag 7 years, 8 months ago

Disagree, if I am driving in the student ghetto of a college town, on a Friday NIGHT, I would expect to get hit by a drunk driver. It happens, a lot. I feel as though it is an excellent comparison.

The constitution is the constitution, regardless of circumstances. That's like saying oh, you robbed a bank, but you were broke and your family was starving, so it's okay and you aren't going to jail. I understand that drunk drivers cause lives, but the law is the law. That being said, it is legal to conduct these.

Yes it is because some judge said so. In case you don't pay attention to our legal system, that is how nearly EVERYTHING is decided. It is called precedence.

Daniel Speicher 7 years, 8 months ago

Whoa... Whoa... Let's not take this too far. I think we all care if law enforcement act outside of the constitution. None of us want a 1984 society here. But, the point is... They are operating well within the constitution.

Hoots 7 years, 8 months ago

People would turn onto the street and then swerve and take off in another direction. That's probably what they are talking about to some extent.

Jock Navels 7 years, 8 months ago

those who don't care if is constitutional will lose their constitution. then they will whine.

Tammy Graham 7 years, 8 months ago

Give me one good reason why a drunk should be driving? Again, I don't care if it is constitutional or not.....I want protection for my family & friends from drunk driving idiots.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

They shouldn't be driving.

But even if they are they have the same rights as any other driver. And that is only being pulled over for breaking a law or probable cause or suspicion of DUI.

IslandContributor 7 years, 8 months ago

Give me one reason why any person who has been involved in one accident that was there fault should be allowed to drive....... I want the same protection you do!

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

When there's a chance your house might hit me or my kids while you're driving that house down a public street, come back and we'll talk.

Thinking_Out_Loud 7 years, 8 months ago

Jesse, I know people who really do subscribe to this idea. They say "If you don't have anything illegal in your house, you won't have any trouble so you shouldn't mind!"

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

Except for this being a non-issue. The Constitutionality of the d l check lanes was challenged a long time ago. As long as certain proceedures are followed, police can conduct them. EOM.

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

No problem. Oh, except you'll have to go blind or have cancer to get it. That okay?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 8 months ago

Head to Colorado, TOB. There's grass in them thar hills!

grimpeur 7 years, 8 months ago

Did you forget the terms you agreed to when you got your license? Are you under the silly impression that driving is a "right" given to you by the constitution? And if so, do you think this imaginary right takes priority over public safety? No wonder we need drunk checks.

You want freedom of movement? Walk. Otherwise, don't act surprised. If anything, we as a society are too lenient on motorists. Time to start hammering these idiots.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

As soon as I do break a law while driving down the road then it will be find to pull me over and see if I'm drunk or not.

You are correct, driving is not a right.

But ONLY being pulled over based on probable cause or suspicion IS a right.

By stopping every single car driving they are taking away that right.

booyalab 7 years, 8 months ago

It would only be a right if the roads were private property. They're not.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

Well if you read only 5 people were arrested for DUI. So only 1 in 55 was drunk.

BorderRat 7 years, 8 months ago

T.O.B, Snap is right. Out here in Denver, the "Medical Marijuana" business is taking off like wildfire. They'll write you a prescription while you wait, then you can pick from hte menu.

mbulicz 7 years, 8 months ago

'Unlawful possession of marijuana'? I was under the impression that Lawrence decriminalized in 2006.

He/she shouldn't have been driving with it anyway; that's just like an open container.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

Here's a question for somebody.

The LPD has to publish when and where they are conducting these checkpoints. Where was/is that posted? And why wasn't it on the LJW? I know the door guys at all the bars were advising people on their way out not to drive that direction.

Maddy Griffin 7 years, 8 months ago

It's always announced in the paper a couple days before,but you have too look for it. It's not a headline.

easyliving 7 years, 8 months ago

They have to publish when (date and times) but not where.

tubs_of_love 7 years, 8 months ago

Anyone who has lived in this town for awhile should know exactly where they set up the DUI check points and it's always on Tennessee and Kentucky, at least in my neighborhood. These check points are set up mainly for new students arriving to Lawrence. It's pretty easy to avoid them by taking back roads.

akt2 7 years, 8 months ago

If you aren't drunk, don't have any warrants out for you, aren't carrying illegal drugs, have auto insurance and valid registration, what possible friggin difference should it make if you get pulled over in a checkpoint? Checkpoints are nothing. You are under constant survellience from the moment you step foot outside the door. It has more to do with public safety than violating personal rights. To the paranoid ones, it's all about them though. They don't care about the rights of innocent people to not be slaughtered by a drunk driver.

Amy Heeter 7 years, 8 months ago

If you don't drive drunk then tou do not have to worry about check points or if they are constitutional or not. Keep it simple.

Sigmund 7 years, 8 months ago

I know I am picking at nits here (and possibly tilting at windmills), but there is very little distinction between a "privilege" and a "right." despite courts to this day using that phrase. Courts merely characterize certain privileges as "rights" when they wish to impose a higher degree a of due process on the government to remove them from a citizen, or vice versa they will demote a right to a "privilege" when they wish to lower the due process needed to remove them. Typically such statements by courts are conclusions and without any rationale except to quote another court whose statement was equally unsupported.

A drivers licenses, like any other right, can be removed. To state that a person does not have a "right" to a drivers license is only to say that he must comply with reasonable, lawful, and nondiscriminatory terms laid down by the proper authorities to obtain and maintain such license. This "privilege", like all other rights granted to citizens, can only be removed only upon failure to comply with those terms and after being afforded a substantial amount of due process by the government. In the case of a drivers license something as small as failure to renew or as large as being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers for of DUI.

This misconception of "a privilege not a right" isn't just a recent observation of mine, but the subject of a 1968 Harvard Law Review article; "In this article Professor Van Alstyne reviews the uses and misuses to which the "privilege" concept has been put and then examines those doctrines whose flanking attacks have gradually eroded its efficacy. But none of these doctrines comes to grips with Holmes' basic idea of a "privilege" to which substantive due process is inapplicable. Applying Holmes' own jurisprudence, the author argues that the concept of "privilege" is today no longer viable, and that the size and power of the governmental role in the public sector requires substantive due process control of the state in all its capacities." The Demise of the Right-Privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law, By: William W. Van Alstyne, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 81:1439.

Sigmund 7 years, 8 months ago

This previously filed unpublished opinion by the Kansas Supreme Court states clearly what is allowed for checklane stops

  1. Factors for testing the validity of checklane stops are stated and applied, include: (1) The degree of discretion, if any, left to the officer in the field; (2) the location designated for the roadblock; (3) the time and duration of the roadblock; (4) standards set by superior officers; (5) advance notice to the public at large; (6) advance warning to the individual approaching motorist; (7) maintenance of safety conditions; (8) degree of fear or anxiety generated by the mode of operation; (9) average length of time each motorist is detained; (10) physical factors surrounding the location, type and method of operation; (11) the availability of less intrusive methods for combating the problem; (12) the degree of effectiveness of the procedure; and (13) any other relevant circumstances which might bear upon the test.

  2. No specific statutory grant of authority is required to legitimize a checklane operation.

  3. Absence of advance warning to the public at large does not by itself invalidate a checklane operation.
  4. The presence of a drug-sniffing dog at a sobriety checklane does not constitute an illegal search.
  5. Police officers are not required to close their eyes to all offenses observed at a checklane operation which are not purely traffic related.
  6. The State is under no obligation to give drivers an opportunity to avoid a checklane operation.

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. JOSEPH JACKSON, Appellee. Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish by an order dated July 10, 1997, pursuant to Rule 7.04 (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 40).

Stuart Evans 7 years, 8 months ago

the state loves alcohol. They love to tax it, they love to regulate it, they love it when people drink it in excess, and they love to nab some of those people now and again for even more revenue. alcohol is the political gift that just keeps on giving.

tubs_of_love 7 years, 8 months ago

What really ticks me off is the speeding check points. I got a ticket for driving 25 in a 20, and since I was not wearing my seat belt, I got an additional charge! By the time you figure in court costs, you're looking at a ticket over $100. I shouldn't have to wear my seat belt in town if I do not want to, seat belts don't save lives, not driving like an idiot saves lives.

Stuart Evans 7 years, 8 months ago

I bet you'd have gotten away with the speed if you were wearing the belt. I don't really like wearing mine either, but if it keeps the cops eyes averted, so be it.

tubs_of_love 7 years, 8 months ago

Eh, they had one of those speed guns out and caught me off guard. It's pretty rare that I get a ticket at all. It just ticks me off because I try really hard to obey and stay out of trouble and just 5 miles over the limit and all of the sudden I have to give away that days pay. I would understand and gladly pay a fine if I were really out of line.

Practicality 7 years, 8 months ago

What really ticks me off is when people whine about the consequences of breaking the law. Don't like the consequences, then don't break the law. Seems pretty simple if you ask me.

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Is obeying the speed limit one of those things that qualifies for "not driving like an idiot"?

Just sayin'.

tubs_of_love 7 years, 8 months ago

I obey the speed limit, but every now and then when I'm idling, I could go 5 miles over the speed limit, which is way different than going 40 or 50 in a 20, which I have seen people do, sure, bust those people. But really it's all about meeting the stats quo. I'd say I was not endangering any lives. I've seen some idiot drivers in this town and I am not one of them.

Stuart Evans 7 years, 8 months ago

you and practicality should get together. like peas in a pod you's frightening.

Robert Schehrer 7 years, 8 months ago

You may not drive like an idiot, but what about the other drivers. Just read about a driver on US 59 south of Lawrence that crossed the center line and hit two vehicles. Eight people in these two vehicles sustained injurys. None were killed. The driver of the vehicle that crossed the cenrter line was killed. He was not wearing his seat belt.

trinity 7 years, 8 months ago

that driver had a medical condition, his erratic driving was due to said condition. and a pox to you for inferring that somebody who suddenly became ill and is now dead is an idiot.

Robert Schehrer 7 years, 8 months ago

I was replying to the comments of Tubs_of Love " that seat belts don't save lives, not driving like an idiot does."

I did not mean to imply that the driver was driving like an idiot. My point was that the driver killed was not wearing his seat belt.

The point I was trying to make is that everyone should wear seat belts because you don't have control over the other drivers on the road.

kef104 7 years, 8 months ago

I have 2 comments. First most speeding tickets are nothing more than random taxation. I dislike the practice and do all I can to avoid getting one. You might want to get a Valentine One for some mobile protection.

Second, you have to be insane not to wear a seat belt. Driving carefully is not enough. I have been hit twice in the last 25 years where my seat belt absolutely prevented serious injury. The accidents were not due to my lack of diligence. In the first a drunk driver, just clocked at 82 mph, ran the light at 23 and Haskell and rear ended me. The other was a 70 mph t-bone. The worst injury from either accident was the abrasion where the seat belt held me in safely in the car.

Most accidents occur at intersections, and half the parties involved are usually innocent victims. The medical costs of not wearing a seat belt are borne by all. Well, at least all who have insurance. So, no matter how much you would like to increase your personal/families/coworkers/employers pain and suffering, others still have to deal with the consequences of your actions. If nothing else consider it a noble act to set an example for the city's youth so they might survive an accident.

kernal 7 years, 8 months ago

With all the idiots driving around, I don't mind wearing my seat built at all. I don't have time to deal with broken bones, time off work and physical therapy, thank you very much. Oh, and then there's dealing with a smashed up car, having to deal with insurance companies, banks, repairs (if car not totaled) and shopping for a new car if the previous car was totaled.

Evan Ridenour 7 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

independant1 7 years, 8 months ago

DUI is a problem, esp. in college towns, esp. at start of fall semester. Like moths to flame.

The Checkpoints also go up on certain holidays like New Yers, 4th of July.

There are ways to avoid them like don't drink and drive, stay off publicized checkpoint routes, stay home, etc. Still, intoxicated and sober people drive into the inconvenient checkpoints.

Not known if the sampling technique (checkpoint location) can be caled scientific sample. But we do know drinking and then driving is problem.

Stay safe, use designated driver, taxi, stay home don't drink a just a few alternatives to the perils of driving and getting checked for sobriety on the city streets.

Kris_H 7 years, 8 months ago

I got dinged by KHP once for doing 76 in a 65, which I was, but I'm convinced he wouldn't have stopped me if I'd had my seat belt on. (This was prior to the new laws).

The road is public and there is no real expectation of privacy while driving on it, like there is inside of your own home. The two aren't the same.

Stop drinking and driving or being idiots and driving, and watch out for the rest of the idiots.

DMH1983 7 years, 8 months ago

Probable cause applies to constitutional searches and seizures. There is not allow that prevents an officer from controlling traffic or doing a well-being check (i.e. requiring a driver to stop and speaking to the driver through the car window). It is only if the driver provides suspicion that any further action takes place and a probable cause search or a BA could occur. If a driver breaks a traffic law than an officer is allowed to perform an incidental search.

Now the idiotic house officer can knock on your door and it does not violate your constitutional rights. If you provide him with probable cause (stolen items setting around, your house smells like meth, etc.), then he can search your house.

Vinny1 7 years, 8 months ago

You also do not have to open the door for the cop. You have to roll down your window at a checkpoint.

gogoplata 7 years, 8 months ago

I don't like it. Cops shouldn't be able to stop you for no reason. We have too many cowards in this country that will blindly follow orders from the police. Grow a backbone people.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

The problem with your post is that cops cannot randomly stop anyone for no reason. Reasonable suspicion is the minimum requirement for a traffic stop, except in the case of DL check lanes. Even then, the cops cannot randomly stop anyone. The courts have ruled there must be some sort of systematic method to conducting the stop to make check lanes legal, The easiest is to stop everyone who comes through it. Having said that, if a driver turns around to avoid the check lane, that does constitute reasonable suspicion to make a stop on that car. It comes under the topic of public safety because the courts have also ruled that the police have no obligation to protect any individual, but they do have a responsibility to protect the public at large. Drunk drivers are a danger to the public at large.

gogoplata 7 years, 8 months ago

Some drunk drivers are a danger. Just like some sleepy drivers, distracted drivers, and just plain bad drivers. I don't approve of these checkpoints. I'm not convinced they increase safety and even if they do I value freedom over safety.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

So, where exactly is your freedom being jeopardized?

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

I missed that in the Bill of Rights. Which amendment is that? Or is it elsewhere in the Constitution? Please educate us as to where it says you have a right to drive without being detained in a dl check lane.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

Oh yeah! Please inform us on just how your rights have been violated.

gogoplata 7 years, 8 months ago

I call it an unreasonable search that should be protected by the 4th amendment in the bill of rights.

I know my position is not the most popular. We have a lot of people like you who prefer safety to freedom. I just hoping that times are a changing. We have too much govenment and too much interference in our lives by government. DUI checkpoints are just another example of this.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

You can call it what you like, the courts call it legal. And I agree that there is too much government and that times, they are a-changin'.

gogoplata 7 years, 8 months ago

I'd like to see more people start pushing back at all the government intusions including DUI checkpoints.

DMH1983 7 years, 8 months ago

Explain how this is an unreasonable search? You are not searched unless there is probable cause and you are not being legally detained so your freedom is not infringed upon.

beatrice 7 years, 8 months ago

Just curious gogo, where were you on the Henry Gates incident of his getting arrested for acting foolishly in his own home?

gogoplata 7 years, 8 months ago

Acting foolishly or being an A hole is not and should not be against the law. If we love liberty we must tolerate people we think are scumbags. And we must start pushing back on the law sticking its nose into our lives.

dani36921 7 years, 8 months ago

Let's see, Tennessee and Kentucky streets are obviously labeled as places where a lot of drinking take place on weekends (ask any college student or Lawrence resident), so if someone is driving on tennessee and kentucky does that automatically connect them to drinking or a suspicion of drinking? This is seriously a question. I can see it both ways.

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Not too sure about Kansas, but in at least one of the states I used to live in, the cops can't just sit outside bars and pull over cars leaving the parking lot. In some ways that would make more sense than random check lanes, but I can see both sides of that one, too.

When I lived in Virginia, it was not unheard of to see DUI roadblocks at 9:00 - in the morning. And they'd set them up in places like the Elizabeth River bridge in Portsmouth, not too many ways to get around it.In Connecticut, I used to see them set up on freeway entrance ramps, usually out of sight until you were already on the ramp and committed.

I remember reading in a magazine years ago about some of the things that cops used to decide whether or not to stop someone for suspicion of a DUI. One cop said he looked for cars late at night with the back window frosted over, because that suggested they had just got in the car, which (to him) suggested they just left a bar. Not sure how constitutional that one was ...

slowplay 7 years, 8 months ago

Congratulations on a job well done. Now, let's increase the penalties. 30 days in jail for the first offense and loss of license for 5 years. Add 1 year of jail time for each subsequent violation and permanent loss of license. Get these idiots off the road.

wdl 7 years, 8 months ago

I think check points should be adopted all of the time. Moving them around in the city or county but apply them daily. The drinking & driving public will never get the message unless strong messures are applied to this disgraceful self-centered selfish behavior. Driving while impaired (booze and or drugs) or preoccupied (cell phone, texting, etc) is putting lives at risk. Do you understand that your life can be taken in a moment. It doesn't matter who you are, or who you think you are. An impaired person behind the wheel of a 3,000lb car that is on the fringe of loosing control is a leathal weapon.

I would like to see 1st time offenders lose their license for 1yr plus a $5,000.00 fine. If they can not pay the fine then they would get out of prison in 1yr. 2nd time offenders never get their license back, lose their plates and their car. Caught behind the wheel again (impaired or not) 10 years in the joint, no exceptions. This sounds over the top I know, but the situation is serious. The real point is the victum in these situations are often killed or injured for life. The stakes for driving impaired should be just as high. It will not take all of the drunks off of the road but it will make the stakes high enough they will be physically removed from the road. And that will impact their families, friends and loved ones just like the people who are killed in drunken incidents are impacted. Kind of an eye for an eye I suppose.

Armored_One 7 years, 8 months ago

I cannot believe that I just read some jerkweed saying that drunk drivers have all the same rights as sober ones.You need to be dragged behind a horse down a gravel road for that level of utter stupidity.

Nothing illegal against OWNING a car and being drunk.

Nothing illegal about driving somewhere, THEN getting drunk.

Public intoxication is against the law. You can't drive your car on gasp public roads without being in public.

What about the rights of everyone else on the road to not get plowed into by one of these damned genetic hiccups that seem to think a 12 pack doesn't impair their ability to make decisions?

You should be forced to be in the car with them, hog-tied to the passenger seat and watch what happens.

Give me about 25 feet clear room and the drunk driver tied to a pole. I've got a real nice rhino hide bullwhip. 10 lashes in public should be enough to not only change their opinion, but seeing the result will catch quite a few others' attention before they try it on for size.

I helped a friend of mine bury his daughter because of a drunk driver. One of my better friends in high school died because of one as well. Yes I'm biased. Yes, the concept pisses me off to no end. Yes, I have forcefully taken keys from drunk people and thrown them on top of buildings before.

Better a pissed off drunk than another funeral. Period. End of conversation, and no, I do not care what your opinion is. You bury a seven year old little girl that calls you 'Uncle'. Until you do that, sit down, shut up and let people with experience make that judgment call.

beatrice 7 years, 8 months ago

Interesting that many who tend to express conservative views here are siding in this instance with the tactics intended to protect society at large. Isn't this an example of what many call the "nanny state"? The police get to decide that this is bad for society and people agree, but mention something like protecting society by banning cigarettes in public places and you get a very different response.

Just an observation.

Sigmund 7 years, 8 months ago

What tactics are the police using to enforce the smoking ban that conservatives should also object to?

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

You're correct that, from what I observe on these message boards, it does seem most conservatives object to at least parts of the smoking ban. I, for one, don't fault the police for enforcing the law that the legislature, not the police, are responsible for creating.

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Sorry, placed in the wrong spot - I hate these nested threads. That was also in response to bea's post, a continuation of the post below.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 8 months ago

The police don't use any tactics to enforce the no smoking ban. That is the responsibility of the fire department. Besides, I hardly think a smoker is nearly as dangerous as a drunk driver. Nice try though.

Sigmund 7 years, 8 months ago

Are you trying to make some moral equivalency argument between second hand smoke in bars and drunk driving?

notajayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Not quite, bea. The police aren't deciding anything is good or bad. That is not their concern or within their purview. They're doing what they get paid to do, which is enforce the laws enacted by the government elected by the people of the state.

beatrice 7 years, 8 months ago

Not trying to say the smoking ban is a police issue. My point is more about the nanny state issue. Stopping cars to check for possible drunk drivers is a nanny state tactic, in my opinion. Conservatives generally are against nanny state actions, or so they claim.

Armored_One 7 years, 8 months ago

I'm sorry, but we are going to have to take different stances on this issue, beatrice.

  1. Alcohol, while regulated, is not being demonized as one of the greatest threats to humanity. There was a time that it was, but we appear to have at least moved past that point of a government trying to babysit everyone.

  2. Why is it against federal laws for tobacco businesses to advertise in basically any media format, while alcohol can have ads on TV during the Super Bowl, World Series and the Stanley Cup?

2a. More to the point, why are tobacco companies banned from issuing an advertisement that simply states what the statistical chances of developing cancer are without the inclusion of tobacco products in the mix, so to speak?

  1. Why is tobacco one of the most highly taxed items in the American economy?

Again, I contend that all smoking bans are going to do is break local, state and federal economies. As an example, the state of Kansas forecasts a tax revenue of over 150 million dollars during the next fiscal year from the increase in tobacco product taxes.

If we are several hundreds of millions of dollars away from breaking even in the state budget, what lunatic believes that completely removing a source of income will improve that deficit?

I could provide the math, but nobody cares. Another fine example NIMBY. Not In My Bar, Yours?

Driver_611400 7 years, 8 months ago

Remember, Public Transportation is a common target of international terrorism. Every time you disrespect the T, the terrorists WIN. Why do you hate America?

Steve Mechels 7 years, 8 months ago

If you think your rights are being violated at checkpoints, just walk through one. No problem. Only those who are driving are stopped. Since everyone is stopped, there is no opportunity to discriminate. It is not "random." BTW, it is not unconstitutional to have drug/alcohol tests for jobs, metal detectors at airports,etc. If you drive, you are are accepting the risk of being stopped at checkpoints. Again, jobs, flying and driving are not rights!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.