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

[Sue Malek]

Thank you for the good discussion of this important issue.  I hope that those of you who are committed to addressing DUI will help to do the research that will be required to get an ordinance and legislation passed.  I hope we will think about the victims of impaired drivers and also about perpetrators.  Breathalizer tests and interlock devices can save the lives of both.
 
I do believe that driver's, bike riders and walkers have rights.  They have the right to expect that people who are driving machines that can kill are operating those machines responsibly.  Current Montana law requires people who do not take a breathalizer test to lose their driver's license for 6 months.  Because many of these people apparently continue to drive and drink, a $300 fine is an immediate consequence that I believe will make a difference.  I believe that Police Chief Muir testified at city council that prior supreme court decisions have held that drivers can be required to take breakthalizer tests, hence the current law specifies a consequence for not taking the test and laws exist across the nation.  I find it hard to believe that police will indiscriminately require that people take a breathalizer test.  In fact, if I recall correctly police officers testified before a city council committee that they require the test only if
 drivers fail the field exam.
 
Legislators, including myself, who want to require interlock devices on first offenses will need all the support and data we can get to pass an interlock law.  I don't believe anyone will be hurt.  I do believe many lives, limbs and tax dollars will be saved.  Don't forget that Montana has the highest rate of drunk driving deaths in the nation.  One of the highest suicide rates.  Many social problems are related to alcohol.  Those who abuse and find themselves destroying their lives and the lives of their families often are ultimately thankful that someone cared enough to force them to stop long enough to get help.  These interventions will be good for all of us.  
 
Thank you for your continuing discussions of these critically important issues.
 
Representative Sue Malek, House District 98
 

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, Andrew Stickney <stickneyal at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Andrew Stickney <stickneyal at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Dave's proposal is to make it a criminal offense to refuse the test punishable with a $300 fine
To: "Jeremy Hood" <thepoe at hotmail.com>
Cc: "Bob Jaffe" <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>, "missoulagov" <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 8:33 PM


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.
>
_______________________________________________
-----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record.
Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org
List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20100222/03e567bd/attachment.htm>