[MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine

Mon Feb 22 01:24:56 MST 2010

I appreciate you answering my question how you interpret it. I have some thoughts on it that maybe I should of expressed a bit earlier. 

While I have not personally suffered the consequences of drinking I sympathize with people that have. It is a ridiculous thing to ever have happen. That is why i want the most long term affective solution; which breeds my strong disinterest in quick solutions. I want to feel safer four years from now from the actions started today. Making a temporary "crack down" has never done that and will never. Once things settle down Policing will return to the things that attract attention, or the next uproar. It is no different than when under-age drinking crack downs happen at bars, the young people stay away for a month and then go back to trying to sneak in/use fakes. (who can blame them the alternative for many is sit in their dorm rooms doing nothing because of curfews and noise ordinances instead of enjoying live music or whatever)

The driving is a "privilege" is a bit bunk. I personally think almost all the cars on the road are being unnecessary driven 90% of the time. However it is not hard for me to see that people are not going to walk or bike. They will take advantage of, or learn too of public transit if possible and over time. That option must be available. If it is not you put people in a position where they must sacrifice their livelihood or choose to drive without a license anyway. People have made choices, and our society has structured it such, that driving is often a necessity. The issues range from work to house distances to deadline demands and as simple as not friendly enough available routes for alternative transportation with children. Any which way if you do not allow something else to happen you are going to just squeeze people into making more rash not legal decisions. 

> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:33:06 -0700
> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense to 	refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
> From: stickneyal at gmail.com
> To: thepoe at hotmail.com
> CC: missoulagov at cmslists.com; bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> I think that you are seeing the emotional state of a community that
> has been hurt recently and frequently by injuries and deaths resulting
> from DUI-related car crashes - from the death of the Hellgate girls to
> Sunday's article about a crash up Deer Creek that injured 11
> teenagers. In this city, people are hurt and crying, feeling punitive
> and wanting immediate action to make drinking less fun - because they
> are >>really<< not having fun going to funerals of loved ones or
> friends and want to spread the hurt around. The pressure is high on
> city officials to "do something" to reduce deaths and injuries, and
> the punitive route has the greatest political support and the least
> economic cost (in the short-term) to city resources. Moreover, as
> happens frequently at the federal level, the city often writes policy
> to the lowest common denominator. In other words, if they have to
> change behavior, they will review the policies that they already know
> about (e.g. research and city staff time/hours/money not required) and
> identify the one that  1) actually works, 2) provides the best
> financial return-on-investment, 3) has an "behavior change" impact on
> the  greatest number of constituents.
> 
> The challenge is for us as citizens to do the research >>for<< the
> city (or at least help), and find alternative policies that are more
> humane, less punitive, use taxpayer dollars wisely, create jobs, etc.
> Last time I checked, there were far more residents of Missoula
> (between 50,000-60,000) than city staff and although we have busy
> lives too, we collectively have a lot of time to talk to people we
> know, surf the web, etc. to come up with solutions for the city to
> consider. Consider that a quick search of Google Scholar turned up
> more than 9,000 hits on research related to reducing alcohol-related
> fatalities or injuries
> (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reduce+alcohol-related+deaths+and+accidents+driving&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000001&as_sdtp=on)
> 
>  The city could help by creating an official task force or advisory
> board, which includes regular citizens in its membership, so that
> there is a place to submit interesting ideas and have a dedicated crew
> putting time to this. However, that's not totally necessary as this
> mailing list is a great forum to share ideas, and we've already had
> some interesting ideas tossed out.
> 
> Whatever way we go, we need to enact social change as part of the
> solution, which means changing the current attitude towards the
> consumption of alcohol. I suspect that if an informal poll of
> Missoulians were given with the question "Is the ability to legally
> consume alcohol a right or a privilege?", between 50% and 75% of
> residents would argue that it is a right, if not legally written as
> such. However, state and federal laws, whether the driver's license or
> DUI laws definitely suggest that it is more of a privilege. We need to
> come up with ways to change the predominant mindset - perhaps even
> nationally - from the "it's a right" perspective to "it's a privilege"
> perspective, a campaign that will be extremely difficult to undertake
> without ruffling quite a few feathers and impossible to complete
> quickly.
> 
> The city (and its citizens) >>want<< to reduce DUIs and
> alcohol-related fatalities and injuries in a way that respects our
> wish to drink responsibly and not take the fun out of it. However, we
> need people like you who care about both sides of the equation to show
> them the way, in whatever way you can.
> 
> I hope this answers your question, Jeremy.
> 
> Andrew Stickney
> stickneyal at gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Jeremy Hood <thepoe at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Again why do we leap to the punishment route instead of making it a
> > pleasurable experience? Handing in your keys is punishment. I mean what if
> > you do not own a car or are not driving and plan to get drunk? Should we
> > tattoo everyone with a registered car and you have to either be metal
> > detected head to toe or leave without keys if you are not driving? This is
> > so 1939.
> >
> > What do people have against making social change? What is wrong with public
> > transit and taking away the development of young binge drinkers by getting
> > rid of MIP's? Statistically both work from what I understand.
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20100222/17739da6/attachment.htm>