News-Miner Editorial
Persistent problem
Weekend arrests show DUI is an everyday issue
Published Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!One thing should be crystal clear to anyone who read today’s lengthy public safety report: driving under the influence is an everyday problem in this area.
Thirteen sets of charging documents were at the courthouse Monday morning, most collected during the weekend, a couple from the week prior. Add to that 14 more DUI charges in the report since April 22 and you’ve got quite a pile; 27 reported in the newspaper in seven days. Even if innocence is preserved for a majority of those charged, that’s a lot for a community of this size.
This past week was not a holiday week, no special occasions, even the weather and road conditions for a large part of the time were less than favorable.
It is continuing evidence that alcohol abuse is a serious problem in our community and that existing enforcement efforts and laws do little to dissuade people from getting behind the wheel. From under-aged to over 70, the problem is spread among all ages.
We know that many of the area DUI arrests come courtesy of special grant money and that, quite likely, high numbers of arrests just mean that police and troopers had the opportunity to spend time on enforcement at a particular time.
It’s an everyday problem, always out there waiting for law enforcement to address — or for potential victims to suffer.
We’ve said it before and you can expect us to repeat it often; perhaps community leaders need to consider a stronger and more consistent approach to enforcement, like finding a way to have sobriety checkpoints set up occasionally on the roadways.
Many other states have these checkpoints, at which motorists are funneled toward waiting law enforcement officers who then try to determine if the driver is intoxicated. There’s nothing alarming about the checkpoints — except maybe to people who drive drunk.
Maybe knowing a checkpoint awaited them would have prevented some of these people — and many others we likely don’t know about — from getting behind the wheel in the first place.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
We’ve said it before and you can expect us to repeat it often; perhaps community leaders need to consider a stronger and more consistent approach to enforcement, like finding a way to have sobriety checkpoints set up occasionally on the roadways.
I remember one weekend that they were going to do these checkpoints in Anchorage. It lasted one weekend!! It goes against everything we hold dear in Alaska with our privacy! I guess your editorial staff do not remember this. At the time, I was a drinker, and even now, I hold personal privacy top in almost every case. Sobriety checkpoints will not stand up in any Alaskan court!
What about making the entire City of Fairbanks alcohol-free? Or at least discontinuing from selling alcohol after certain times.
An Additional thought would be to make dui first time offense stricter such as 30-45 days of jail time and impoundment of the vehicle during imprisonment. I talking about no leniency. Strait time and no time off. Oh yeah, you may lose your job. What about holding these bars, clubs & individuals holding social affairs liable when someone a patron is intoxicated. This will make the individual think twice about serving alcohol. But all in all, something has to be done. Too many people are receiving DUIs and it is becoming a common practice.
Fairbanks is way too big to effectively make it a "dry village", and reducing the hours that alcohol can be sold will only change the times that alcoholics have to go to the store.
Tougher 1st time offense laws may be at least part of the answer.
How about just having to turn in your keys and pass a breathalizer before you get them back at a bar. They already have someone at the door to check IDs..so add a lockable box for keys & a machine to check if you should be on the road. It wouldn't be perfect but, already a business can be prosecuted for serving a person who then commits a crime behind the wheel..Wouldn't this save them some money in the long run and do something to knock down the drunk driving? I don't drink so having to do this would be no big deal for me, I am always the designated driver :o).
No offense NativeAlaskan, but bars and nightclubs are in business to sell alcohol - not hinder their patrons from doing so. I do agree that people driving under the influence is a major problem in Fairbanks, but I don't feel that making our precious town into a "police state" is the answer.
Yukonjohn - What I hold dear about Alaska is the children and the future, for anyone to think it is ok to drive drunk, this threatens bigger things than out "Alaskan freedoms". We all have the right to be safe. Adding a check point or stiffening the penalties only PROTECTS our rights and the future of the state as we now and used to know it.
The only people who are against finding a better way to take drunk driver off the street are really adding to the problem.
I appreciate the support that is given to upholding the Alaska way. All to often I hear what we shouldn't do, and complaints about taking things away.
I challenge people who comment like this to continue to support your beliefs, but with that, be proactive and tell how we can stop these problems while staying true to the state.
NO ONE SHOULD THINK DRIVING DRUNK IS OK.
Having consumed more than my share of alcohol, i think i speak with a little knowledge of what i speak... no one goes to a bar to sit and drink coke or coffee. When a car leaves a bar parking lot the odds of the driver being "drunk" is more that "probable cause" to check him or her for being drunk,, not a so called "check point" that may ?? violate someones "rights" , just comon sence. First time offence? Loose your PRIVLEDGE to drive , forever, and what ever you are driving, no matter who it belongs to, even the bank,,, or your wife, or your preacher... you just loose it,, sell it to help with the cost of keeping me safe from your stupity.....
you can't trade freedom for safety. it has been proven time and time again not to work. and who came up with that nonsense that driving is a priviledge and not a right?
we're reaching a point of diminishing returns on stiffening penalties for drunk driving. face it, intoxicated people don't make logical decisions. threatening a drunk doesn't work. we can up the ante and institute the death penalty for drunk driving. that would work only because the drunk won't be around anymore to do any driving. also, i can about guarantee you no drunk would ever stop for the flashing red lights behind him/her anymore. that would create dangerous situations out on the road.
face it... there are no guarantees in life. safety is proportionate to the amount of risk you are willing to take. getting out on the road in a car is risky. i think the law enforcement people right now are doing a good job, but it isn't ever going to be perfect.
NativeAlaskan, bars, etc. cannot be prosecuted for what a driver does after they leave the establishment. They CAN be prosecuted for allowing a drunken person to be on the premises, or for serving alcohol to someone who is already drunk, and they CAN be sued civilly by the victims or their estates for what an impaired driver does (i.e. kill another driver) after having been drinking in their bar, club, etc, but that is far different than being prosecuted by the government.
Bugger, not saying whether I think you are right or wrong, but this is why government can't win and they are always the "bad guy." On the one hand, you have people in your corner saying take every car, and people like newsreader in a recent comment saying that the government is stealing people's private property. Who wants a job where no matter what you do, someone hates you? Where do I sign up?
The News-Miner is wrong, again. The last time I went out with friends and family for a few drinks we made sure to have enough cash so we could take a taxi home.
For those of you who missed it, I took responsibility for my actions when I planned to drink and NOT drive. We don't need checkpoints to prove our innocence. We need the state legislature and the state courts to "up the ante" for DUI convicts.
Once again folks. Deal with the individual committing the crime and leave us, the vast majority, alone.
http://www.roadblock.org/
Polarmark - I was just wondering about your comment "and who came up with that nonsense that driving is a privilege and not a right?" I was wondering where you heard it was a right for you to have a license.
The last time I checked we all had to pass a driving test, including a written test and a road test prior to paying a fee and obtaining our licenses. No one ever told me it was my right and gave me my license. With your license comes responsibility. I have no problem stopping to talk with a police officer for a minute or two at a check point if I know when I continue there will be a reduced rate of drunk drivers following me. These check points have been very effective throughout the lower 48 and I would like to see them here.
fbkreader, i'm right there with you. i'd rather have safer roads and less possibilities of pointless deaths, than have more "privacy." those are PUBLIC ROADS we are traveling!! our numbers for DUIs are not getting any smaller, something needs to be done until a concrete solution is found to prevent future tragedies. checkpoints? why not. nothing else we've done so far seems to be working. i think it's more about taking the time to be stopped in a long line, than it is about privacy, in my opinion...it's all about getting to places and getting things done as fast as possible these days.
uafgrad08 -
It is all about the time. I can tell you the check points I have seen in the lower 48 are very fast to get through and a majority of the time they are insurance check points. Heck that’s another great idea. I have had several friends who have been involved in accident that were not their fault and guess what the other driver's were not insured. Not only would you get impaired drivers off the roadway you would also stop drivers without insurance which could help stop the inflation of our insurance rates. You could help solve two problems with one check point.
Polarmark - not trying to be hateful, but where did you get the idea that driving is a "right"?
Back to the topic at hand - I have long wondered why Fairbanks doesn't crack down on the alarming number of local bars that over-serve. It is ILLEGAL to over-serve, yet it happens all the time.
I'm beginning to think that the state sees DUIs as a way to raise funds. If they wanted it stopped, the bars who chronically over-serve would face penalties, and the penalties for DUI would be much higher.
I'm reminded of what the rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said: "Some are guilty, but all are responsible."
There's no doubt that drunk drivers make bad choices and that the guilt for making those choices lies with them.
But who is responsible for the choices they are given? We are.
In another town, a drunken person might walk home, or take the bus or train.
But we have chosen, as a community, to live an auto-intensive life: our lots are large, and every destination is distant from every other, so cars must be our lifeblood.
By our zoning ordinances, we have chosen NOT to live close enough to each other that walking and public transit are viable for a majority of the population.
And, since some drunkenness is inevitable even in a generally healthy community, we have virtually guaranteed that drunk driving will occur. And, the farther we (as a community) live from our destinations -- be they drinking establishments or friends' houses -- the farther we will be encouraging people to drive drunk.
I certainly appreciate the "individual responsibility" point of view. But the individual can only choose from the options he or she is given.
Can we give people something better?
Paul Adasiak
"The Fairbanks Pedestrian"
http://fairbankspedestrian.wordpress.com...
Did anyone think about it this way the top of the page says " 27 reported in the newspaper in seven days." Does that not mean that the cops are doing there job and from the looks of it getting better? Why spend more money to just have cops sitting in there cars at check points waiting for a car to come up the road let them do their jobs they ARE getting better finally.
Geez...It seems this issue is around twice in the same month. It must be important. We need some serious penalty reform in the arena of drunken driving. And no, threatening a drunk won't work but when your buddy drives drunk and actually has to face some harsh punishment, maybe you'll think twice about letting him drive, driving yourself or taking a taxi. If you don't and you get popped for DUI or DWI, good, you should be "nailed to the wall" also. I wrote this a couple weeks back...
"Drive hammered, get NAILED!!!" As stated in other's comments we need to make it overtly negative for someone to get a DUI. I do not think current penalties are harsh enough. Fines should be raised and not negotiable in court for any reasons whatsoever. Licenses should be revoked for at least one year for first offence. They want to drive again? Okay, make them repeat the process of completing driver's education, getting a provisional license(with all the restrictions) and demonstrating driving ability through written and driving exams. Once they have done their time with the Provisional license they can reapply for a driver's license that will be labeled "DUI" for at least 5 years. This is not an "End-all-DUIs" plan by any means but I do believe we should throw the proverbial book at them, it will stop a few folks.
You contest the idea of a checkpoint for reasons of privacy...What could you possibly want to keep hidden from a police officer? I can assure you that they could care less about how dirty your car is(Don't quote me on that though, you never know with North Pole police.)
DD Anyone?
I don't think the idea of DD-ing works as well as people wish it would. Those who are intoxicated will believe they can drive just fine...heck I was one of them! Luckily a friend of mine refused to let me drive away. So in that instance, it's a great idea to get rid of your keys or at least let someone else hold on to them. Many people drink at bars alone, without friends, or their "DD's" eventually end up drinking as well. I believe the checkpoints are a good idea, why not have them where they are most often found, either near or around bars?? It will keep the police officer in that one area and be a good deterrent for those who are even thinking about driving away drunk. It's at least worth a try, to see if more of these drivers are caught using this method, or if it's better to just keep the cops spread out over a vast area. As Paul mentioned, people choose to live miles away from town, and then choose to drink. The thought process (as I've heard it from others before) of these drivers, is they have never gotten into an accident driving drunk, so why stop now?? Sad, but true.
Any time you focus on one problem it is going to seem more apparent then before. With the addition of the DUI Unit I think it is reasonable to expect the number of people stopped to go up. This doesn't mean the problem is any worse then previously thought it is just being focused on more.
With cellphones the checkpoint idea is moot. It will take one call and an entire bar will know exactly where they are. Fairbanks is spread out and has very poor public transportation, until those are resolved drinking and driving are going to be a problem with no viable solution. That includes arresting people.
uafgrad08: "As Paul mentioned, people choose to live miles away from town, and then choose to drink."
But what I hoped to emphasize was that the "choice" to live miles from town isn't such an individual choice as people think. The deck is stacked against compact urban living -- even just compact enough to make public transit viable -- by a collection of laws that make it more expensive. People make the most rational, economic decisions they can about where to live, given the rules in place. Yes, individuals ultimately choose, but only from among the choices they're given.
If Greater Fairbanks -- through all its government agencies -- were to embrace dense, mixed-use, neighborhood-centered, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development, then in time we'd see a major drop in drunk driving. But our automotive infrastructure and the lifestyles we've built around it will still keep us driving drunk for years to come.
Peoples lives are stake. DUI and DWI offenders need to have their vehicles confiscated and auctioned off for their first offense, drivers licenses revoked permanently for their second offense.
You have got to be kidding. How many times are you going to write up this suggestion? Until we start to think it is ok? It sounds like your plan might be working already. God forbid we come up with a solution that we are responsible for. NO lets make it an ENFORCEMENT issue! You want to set up check points and take their licenses for EVER or throw them in jail for 45 days. How is that going to work for us? We pay to have them in jail, they lose theirs jobs so then we pay to have them supported, then they can't get around because the can't pay with money they are no longer making or drive a car you want taken from them, so then you are paying to have them evicted or what ever court or police action is required, or arrested when they are driving on a suspended license because there is no public transportation and they are trying to get to work, then you are paying for their children and families. Not to mention the cost of giving up your freedom for someone else’s bad decision. To those of you who want a check point, you just move back to that place you liked so much that had them, We do not want them. It is incredibly ignorant to think that threatening a DRUNK will make them do the right thing. If they were thinking right they would not be doing the driving to begin with. How about taking all that money you are planning on spending on the enforcement and housing of drunks and making cab rides available at a reasonable price? How about having a flop house in the vicinity of town to make the ride for an over night stay affordable? How about looking at things that focus on the problem and not on eroding more of my rights.
There should be harder pentalties on drunks that keep offending. There time is not going to run out, but mine might if they are still on the road. I am amazed that people don't think there should be check points. It does work very well in other states.
For those of you that think this is a privacy issue--grow up. You are probably the same people complaining about the tighter security at the airports. You would think if you are not doing anything wrong then you would want people out there to protect your LIFE not so much your right to privacy!
Wendee--you can just start deducting out of my pay check if that is what it takes to keep my precious cargo safe! There is always someone who has to tell people to go back to where they came from, that is a real original idea you got there! Do you have kids? Do you care about the well being of yourself? I think you are right we need to quit talking about this issue and just do something about it, and unfortunately it might encroach on your privacy--buck up!
Well News Miner, the last time you wrote about this subject, I only had to turn two pages in your publication before finding "Martini Fridays at Pikes Water Front Lodge".
Maybe you 'Community Leader' should put your money where your mouth is and stop advertising liquor establishments.
Please don't bore me with why that can't be done since your editorial side knows not what it's advertisment side is doing?
Policy smolishy, put up or shut up.
We had DUI checkpoints where I grew up in the lower 48. They didn't just set up the checkpoint in the middle of town, they had one on every entrance/exit to the city on one night. If we did that here, those people who have to drive into town to get drunk, can't drive out.
Checkpoints would be a waste of time and taxpayers dollars, word spreads fast of where the checkpoints are. also, it would waste my time as a sober driver to wait my turn to blow in a breathalizer. Fbks a dry village-that would be impossible and pointless. Alot of us can enjoy a glass of wine w/dinner and then proceed to go out and about town in a cab or whoever is the DD for the evening, several establishments in town give free non-alcholic drinks for people who are the DD. they get a bracelet in the establishment and sign a document stating they will not drink while there. Harsher penalities and loss of driving priviliges for a longer time might help.
Paul Adasiak-I agree unfortunatly. If the community would build a better public transport and walking community...there are many positives to this. But that is another issue.
Checkpoints aren't pointless if you can't avoid them. There are a lot of other things to whine about having to pay for, not keeping the drunks from driving.
Bugger said, "no one goes to a bar to sit and drink coke or coffee."
Actually, I have done so many times ... and friends have done likewise as well. It just depended on who was designated driver. Other times, I just wanted to hang out with friends or listen to the music. Still other times, I just wanted to take a break and, being without a designated driver, didn't want to spend $85-100 for a taxi to get home.
When I go to Chili's, I almost always sit in the bar section. However, there's been quite a few times I've managed to eat there without ordering alcohol.
Ar_85--where I was from the checkpoints didn't work the way you are thinking. They didn't stop every single person and have them blow into a breathalizer. The concept is still the same for police officers--if you show probable cause to them that you have been drinking then you will have to take the next step. I believe if the word gets out about checkpoints it is not a waste of time or money--it would still make people think twice about getting in that car after drinking. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT!
In 2005, 19.2% of all alcohol sold in Alaska was consumed by people under the age of 21. This totaled $74 million in sales with $36 million in profits going to the alcohol industry.
In 2003, youth self-reported on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey that 23% had their first drink before 13.
The current level of alcohol consumption by Alaska youth is alarming, coupled with the fact that Alaska is among the top states in the nation for early consumption, binge drinking, and driving after drinking. There exists a perception that adolescents can easily recover from drinking because their bodies are more resilient, when just the opposite is true. According to the AMA, alcohol can seriously damage the short and long term growth processes of the brain during adolescence.
We need to make the penalty for sales of alcohol to a minor consistent with the penalty for sales of tobacco to a minor. In 2006, 13% of all retailers investigated sold tobacco to underage buyers, whereas 30% of all retailers investigated sold alcohol to underage buyers. Yet the penalties for alcohol sales are not equal to that of tobacco sales. Why?
Seems to me that the solution leans more toward community education and then community responsibility. Drunk driving is just one piece of the puzzle...another is the impact of addiction...and ultimately, the cause of addiction.
It's not "their" job to fix this problem. It's ours.
LA Girl- and unfortunately it might encroach on your privacy--buck up!
Yes I do have children, that happens to be part of the reason I find such extreme thoughts disturbing. I am not sure what type of place these people come from where they have the mentality that is it all about jail and harsher punishments. The reality is those are your kids and family and friends and as easy as it is to say "Throw The Book at Them" in a public forum it is not the reality of the world. It doesn't work. It is a fallacy that we keep perpetrating and we need to stop and look at other ways while protecting your rights at the same time. I was born and raised here and I believe everyone is responsible for their actions but I do not believe creating More Government and more Enforcement is the solution and it gets old hearing all we have to do is create harsher punishments and more cops. Buck up, I am more then willing to look at ANY original idea as opposed to giving law enforcement more power and more authorization to pull me over for nothing. It grates on me to hear people say we need more cops, we need more laws, we need more people telling us how to walk talk and chew our gum. We need to be responsible for ourselves and our families and stop looking for "them" to save us. If you have an idea I would love to hear it we certainly know the current one's aren't working.
Honestly there is no real way to make everyone "happy" when it comes for a solution. Living in a community means that you should be thinking about everyone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as your own. YOUR individual rights shouldn't supersede the rights of anyone else. So if you feel that your privacy is being trampled upon because of check points, but it is for the safety of others, really what is more important? Yes, as long as there is alcohol there is going to be drunk drivers, but that doesn’t mean that the safety of my child should be pushed to the side. I am almost always the DD when my friends and I go out. I find that there is no reason that anyone should be drinking and driving. If you can’t afford a taxi, then you shouldn’t be out drinking in the first place. If people don’t have enough personal responsibility, then yes, I think the community has the right to take the safety of others into consideration, before personal privacy.
Sorry, I didn't intend on that being as long as it was.
Paul, just wanted to give you a kudos for taking the words right out of my mouth.
Beyond looking at legal response to drinking and driving, we need to think outside the box an address alternative methods for people to be able to consume and still get home safely.
julia (mccarthy)
thank you, lagirl. That IS the point. Where I'm from they would post the checkpoints in the paper the day before. You knew where they would be and what time they would be starting. Idiots STILL got DUI's! Why not set an easy trap, right?
WENDEE-forgive me, but I need some clarification for you saying that you have kids and that is part of the reason you would not want harsher law enforcement on drunks. I agree that we need to be more responsible as a whole, but if we didn't have the laws that we have the world would turn into "Lord of the Flies."
I would venture to say that a lot of the people that are first time DUI offenders are probably not drunks--they just made a bad choice to get in that car and drive, because they didn't think they would get caught. If they thought there might be a checkpoint waiting on them they might have made a different decision. For those that are repeat offenders we do need harsher pentalties for them.
Wendee~ I'm not sure what happened in your lifetime that made you so bitter to law enforcement and the government. Better yet, I'm not sure why it would be such a disservice to you if you were pulled-over by an officer for "no reason" (as you stated)if you were truely doing nothing wrong. I would be more than happy to be pulled-over by an officer for "no reason" if his reason was to observe my sobriety. It seems to me, and proof is in the Public Safety Report, that those who are pulled over for "no reason" are pulled over and observed to be under the influence.
I agree, with your statement that harsher punishments aren't always the correct solutions to problems, but it's a start. Start somewhere. I also find it satisfying when I read about repeat offenders who, after the typical license suspension and probation periods, are required to carry a Breathilizer in their vehicle that doesn't allow the vehicle it be started without a sober driver. I think this should be something that is utilized a little bit more frequently. Not neccessarily harsher punishment, but utilizing what has already been approved. Unfortunately, Harsher Punishments need to be assessed to keep me, my current/future family safe. I am willing to do what it takes to assure that someone under the influence isn't the cause of an accident, injury, and/or death in my family.
alaska isn't other states. we don't want to be like other states. i came here a long time ago to get away from those other states. many don't like newcomers coming up here and urge changing things to the way they are down there. why do they come here in the first place if that is how you want to live? we don't want roadblocks, sobriety check points. it isn't because we have something to hide, or our cars are dirty, it is because we see our relationship with authority figures differently than people do in those other states.
and i still wonder who decided that driving should be a priviledge and not a right..... vote AIP
Julia- and anyone else who thinks we should cater to the drunks-- what kind of outside the box solution to the problem are you looking for? Maybe we should have a free drunk taxi that you can call and will take whoever home however far away they live. We can hold their hand AND,,tomorrow, we'll deliver their freshly detailed car from the bar to their house, with a full tank of fuel. Sounds crazy, right? "We" don't need to address ways to so people can "be able to consume and still get home safely." When my wife and I want to "go out" we both want to drink but can't....why??? Because we aren't stupid enough to both drink and then play Rock, Paper, Scissors to see who drives. Adults need to make a choice, party it up and take a taxi, friend, etc... OR not drink. There's an "out of the bar" solution.....
Get off the Alaska High Horse!! It doesn't matter what state you are from or if you grew up here or not--it is still MY LIFE AND I WANT IT PROTECTED!!
You moved to Alaska, because you didn't think they would enforce laws here?!?
Twin Girl- Unfortunately you do not see past the immediate. If you "accept" checkpoints for drunk driving, how long will it be before you "accept" checkpoints for any ridiculous stuff? Maybe why they are there they can
Check your citizenship
Check to see that you're not paying too much for insurance
Check to see if you filed your taxes
Check to see if you filed for the dividend
Check to see if your career is on track
Check to see if you graduated from high school
Check to see if you're getting paid the proper amount for the work you do
Check to see if you're going to church regularly
Check to see if you're a terrorist
Check to see if you're on a "no fly" list
Check your credit
Check your oil
Check to see that your vehicle meets IM standards
Check to see if your children are meeting school testing requirements Check to see if you're wearing clean underwear
Check to see if you're getting the best interest rate on your home loan
Check to see if your credit card payments are up to date etc. etc. etc.
907girl who believes that public safety should be put before individual rights would have loved living in communist Russia, where the "public good" was put above all individual rights.
I can not understand why LaGirl and others like her think it is not a big deal. I suppose this is where the cultural differences start to show in Alaskans and Lower 48er's. It didn't hit me until I read Polarmarks' comment. You guys really don't understand. Your rights must be protected every day at every opportunity. the problems that you are talking about are fixable in some way without lining up like a herd of sheep and waiting for an officer of the law to come over and sniff your breath.
Lagirl the clarification is I am entrusted to defend my children’s right to a free country to the best of my ability until they are old enough to protect it themselves. You can't throw up your hands everytime you have a tough decision and think the cops or are going to fix it for you.
Twin Girl- Unfortunately you do not see past the immediate. If you "accept" checkpoints for drunk driving, how long will it be before you "accept" checkpoints for any ridiculous stuff? Maybe why they are there they can
Check your citizenship
Check that you're taking the proper vitamins
Check that you're eating properly
Check to see that you're not paying too much for insurance
Check for child abuse violations
Check to see if you filed your taxes
Check to see if you filed for the dividend
Check to see if your career is on track
Check to see if you graduated from high school
Check to see if you're getting paid the proper amount for the work you do
Check to see if you're going to church regularly
Check to see if you have the right religion
Check to see if you're a terrorist
Check to see if you're on a "no fly" list
Check your credit
Check your oil
Check to see that your vehicle meets IM standards
Check to see if your children are meeting school testing requirements Check to see if you're wearing clean underwear
Check to see if you're getting the best interest rate on your home loan
Check to see if your credit card payments are up to date etc. etc. etc.
907girl who believes that public safety should be put before individual rights would have loved living in communist Russia, where the "public good" was put above all individual rights.
I can not understand why LaGirl and others like her think it is not a big deal. I suppose this is where the cultural differences start to show in Alaskans and Lower 48er's. It didn't hit me until I read Polarmarks' comment. You guys really don't understand. Your rights must be protected every day at every opportunity. the problems that you are talking about are fixable in some way without lining up like a herd of sheep and waiting for an officer of the law to come over and sniff your breath.
Lagirl the clarification is I am entrusted to defend my children’s right to a free country to the best of my ability until they are old enough to protect it themselves. You can't throw up your hands everytime you have a tough decision and think the cops or are going to fix it for you.
The only thing that I took out of your last comment Wendee is that you are WAY too melodramtic. You can't argue with someone who isn't thinking clearly... and I think that last post from you says it all. Good luck!
whoops! Computer Glich! Double posting!! :) Sorry. Good luck to you all in this conversation. It is obvious that at some point we will have to agree to disagree.
This way of thinking definitely makes the world interesting. But REALLY all the cops want to know is if you are DRUNK! They really don't care about the color of your underwear, or what vitamins you are taking, because that is not going to somehow hurt your fellow citizens. I really hope that you don't have some drunk driver run into you and hurt you or yours, because I wouldn't want to hear about you relying on our laws for justice! Our laws are here to protect even the liberals!
To those that share the same opinion as lagirl and others on this thread; I do not ever tell people to "go home, get out of here etc." We came here to escape the hustle/bustle and laws, rules etc from down south. So far, we have accomplished that to a huge degree. Now-a-days, one has to move to the village to grasp the freedoms that used to be offered in Alaskan towns. How sad that is. To those that feel more law enforcement and stiffer penalties are the answer to the ills of society, maybe it is time to re-evaluate where you live and why. Alaska has been doing just fine without these additions that you found worked so well in the states. If you feel the need to have them, maybe it is time for you to relocate.
With a high DUI rate and the highest pedophile rate per capita in the nation, I would hardly say that "Alaska has been doing just fine without these additions".
"Julia- and anyone else who thinks we should cater to the drunks"
Skagdog,
I lost my little brother (25 years old) to a drunk driving accident, in which he was a passenger, two years ago come June 21st. I have also lost numerous friends and acquaintances in Fairbanks to the actions of people who chose to drive under the influence. If you take a look at the wall of photographs at the DMV, I know 90% of the people pictured.
I don't think we should "cater" to drunks. I do think we should have other alternatives for people to get home from the bar than their own vehicle or a designated driver. I think we should do this to protect OURSELVES from people who choose to drive drunk, not because I think we should hold the hands of those who make poor decisions.
I think Paul's comments were helpful. I don't think that many of the other comments have been helpful, but since this issue is very emotional for me, I don't know that I need to engage in conversation about how harsh drunk driving penalties need to be, what sort of actions we should take to deal with a society where binge drinking is the norm, or where or not LEO's role is to set up roadblocks to check for drunk drivers.
Sometimes I wonder if the numerous friends I have lost to drunk driving would have lived if there had been a bus out to Goldstream or North Pole. Sometimes I wonder if my brother would have lived if he had made different decisions the night he died, but I'll never know.
What I would advocate for above all else is for all of us to think about the impact we might have on other people should we choose to drive under the influence and the impact others may have on us because they are not thinking about the repercussions of their actions.
I'm afraid if I continue this response I'll only be emotive, so I'll leave it at that.
you assume risks everytime you get out of bed in the morning. you don't want the government locking you up in a box to protect you from everything. i accept those risks. i say, let the cops keep doing what they are doing. they pull over those who have violated a traffic law (and drunk drivers do that alot) and arrest those who are intoxicated. the penalties hurt those receive them and normal people will endeavor never to drive drunk again. but afterwards they can still function in society as useful members. alcoholics will NEVER get it. so the penalties get progressively worse until they are locked up for a long time. once in a while someone innocent will get killed on the highway. that is truly horrible. but that is the risk assumed when you get in a car and drive. you could also hit a moose. should we outlaw moose? i agree yukonjohn, i can see and feel our way of life slipping away. i almost pray for a downturn in the economy so many of the "sunny day alaskans" will give up and return to from where they came. or have a winter so horribly cold that it scares off many.
We already have road blocks...mobile road blocks where law enforcement officers stop you on the road because you have snow on your license plate, blinking brake lights (questionable), crossing a white line anywhere on the road, cracked windshield, failure to signal and the lastest most popular choice is pulling you over for not stopping when you enter a roadway. Maybe law enforcement should expose their stop/arrest ratio. How many did they let go over how many they actually arrested? One of those New Year's Eve all out efforts that we practice every year showed almost 400 stops with 16 arrests. Get the picture now!
The existing laws, most of them with the ink still drying, are tough and are enforced. Problem is nobody wants to see if they actually have an impact. We don't need more laws but we do need more common sense....from those that drink alcohol and from those who want to set aside due process to burn their witch of choice.
And who is it that gives us a privilege....and who is it that can take that privilege away? Our courts can take away your rights because you broke the law because our constitution says we have rights and can get them taken away. Didn't see anything in the constitution about privileges being granted and removed.
Oh, because I have a driver's license I have a right to drive my vehicle on Airport Way. If you walk, ride a bike or a horse you do not have the right to be on Airport Way....even with your driver's license. Is Airport Way a right or a privilege to be on!
That's the way I see it.
"Alaska has been doing just fine without these additions." I found a website that has statistcs on drunk driving in alaska. They started keeping track (on this website)in 1982. The total number of vehicle related deaths was 105 out of that number 64 were related to alcohol. In 2006 (best year on record) the total number of vehicle related deaths was 73 out of that number 23 were related to alcohol. I think you can do the math yourself, but throught those years the laws on alcohol have been harsher for a good reason. Our declining number of deaths due to alcohol is attributed to our laws and law enforcement and to those responsible people out there that chose to make the right choice. If there were harsher rules enforced it might cut that number even more, so that no ones family has to suffer at the hands of the inconsiderate!
"once in a while someone innocent will get killed on the highway. that is truly horrible. but that is the risk assumed when you get in a car and drive. you could also hit a moose. should we outlaw moose?"
Being a thinking being responsible for ones actions, imbibing alcohol, then risking others lives with your behavior is very different than being a moose trying to travel on old trails that have now been replaced by highways.
Minimizing the frequency that people die in alcohol related accidents in Alaska by saying "once in awhile" does a disservice to all of those who have lost loved ones, whether to death or incarceration.
A quick tally of people I have known in the Fairbanks area who have died in alcohol related accidents in the past 15 years, which would be when the first person I personally knew died in an alcohol related accident, results in 11 people. That means someone I knew died approx every 16 months for 15 years. I'm certain I don't know everyone in the state of Alaska who has died in alcohol related accidents, so I would venture to say that the problem we're talking about is a huge one.
As an issue that is endemic in our society, why wouldn't we all brainstorm to figure out ways to address it? Instead, we get side tracked arguing about issues of personal freedom and whether or not checkpoints and "infringing on people's freedom" would adequately address the issue.
I respectfully submit that, even when talking about self-governing ideas of social construction, when people put the safety of others repeatedly at risk it's everyone's responsibility to figure out how to lessen that risk.
PS I'm not a fan of governmental control of our actions.
PPS Along with independence comes personal responsibility. Along with personal responsibility comes the need to make conscious decisions to create safety for the people who are part of your community. Unless, of course, you operate in a black hole and don't need anybody or anything to get by in the world.
PPPS Before someone accuses me of being a "sunny day Alaskan", I'm born and raised – in the interior and on the YK delta. I know the "real Alaskan" argument comes up repeatedly, whether one is responding to an opinion in the NM or sitting around Jeffry's (wait, can't do that anymore) debating our "independence". It doesn't prove any points. It makes other people roll their eyes and wonder why you didn't choose to say something more interesting and pertinent.
agreed "thewayiseeit". if you read the police blotter regarding dwi arrests you some thinly veiled excuses for pulling over the ones that they suspect are driving drunk. if you are making a right turn with out using your turn signal at 2pm and a cop is behind you, what do you think the chances are that he will bother to pull you over? try the same thing at 2am. that puts an undue burden on people who work odd shifts. they are held to a higher standard of following the traffic rules than are day time workers. i guess the cops just profile the vehicles they think may contain a drunk driver and then follow them long enough to get an excuse to pull them over. they should just suspend the rules regarding police powers to pull over cars. get rid of the charade.
Julia-it's unfortunate that you know so many people who've been killed by drunk driving--maybe if there was a bus to goldstream or north pole......NO WAIT....MAYBE if people decided "Hey, I don't have a way to get home, I won't drink....." Or "Hey, my buds had too much to drink, I'll take him/her home safely..."
You know what? I can't speak about goldstream but I do know taxis run all over north pole, just give'em a call....or let the bartender do it....
If you think it's the fault of the city for not having a bus to take drunks home, try litigation, see how far that gets you.
wendee colette- I respect that you want you children to grow up with the freedoms that we here in Alaska love. I would love to see both, safe roads and privacy.
(not directed at anyone)
One thing I see on here is a lot of complaints but not a lot of alternative ideas. If checkpoints are not the direction that we should go, what is? How can we protect our freedoms and our safety? The answer is not to send people away from the state because they support something that you don't like these are not the people we should be worried about. It is the people who don't care and will do it anyway. Once again I ask, how do we stop the abuse, neglect and disrespect that the drunk drivers have for our way of life. How do we continue to live free when people are selfishly taking that freedom away when they get behind the wheel drunk? Its not the police or the government that are doing this to us it is our friends, neighbors and co workers who make the decision to drive drunk.
NO ONE SHOULD THINK DRIVING DRUNK IS OK.
Ummm, guys... a vehicle when used improperly is a weapon. Don't think so? I've been to the open casket funeral of a five year old boy who was killed by a drunk driver. I will never shake any part of it from my memory. Most haunting were the way they tried to cover his injuries with make-up and how heartbreakingly small the casket was.
So, let's be real here. Drinking inhibits people from making rational decisions. I'm all for making the consequences unbearable. I'm all for random stops and checkpoints. Maybe then somebody would hand over their keys BEFORE they drink. If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to complain about. AND it has nothing to do with slippery slopes or civil liberties. I imagine us grown-ups, those of us who HAD the chance to grow-up, can come up with an appropriate search law.
Julia: Funny you should mention Jeffrey's here. I actually got in an altercation with a woman there when I forcibly removed her keys.
I have an idea. Just don't drink and drive period! I know this sounds complex to those of you who choose to drive under the influence but I figure if you enjoy receiving enormous fines and jail time then who am I to deny anyone their happiness.
Checkpoints are ineffective. Too much wasted time. I say, have the police start up there own cab agency. Charge a lower price than regular cabs and really start doing something that helps rather than fishing for drunks. It would make a lot more money, and save our jail system the extra work, also it would help lower insurance rates and above all keep our children safe.
I think some people need to realize that there IS no such thing as a risk-free world. You can jack up DUI sentences 'til one DUI ruins ones life, spend the city dry, and give up rights and privacy, and it STILL won't eliminate risk. Then what? Punishment for DUI already outstrips what it is for alot of all-out crimes of intent, some even felonies (when you add it all up). People lose jobs, houses and marriages over it. And then of course they get printed up in the News-Miner, before they're even convicted of anything.
And that tired argument "well, why should it matter to you if you're not doing anything wrong" is the refuge of people who are willing to violate the constitution. NO CHECKPOINTS! This isn't a police-state! (yet)
In fact some respondents to this article might want to consider moving into and hiding in armor-plated houses, it's sooooo dangerous out there. Are there DUI related tragedies? Yes. There are also crossing-the-street related ones, driving-a-car related ones and getting-stung-by-hornets related ones. Maybe we need harsh laws about those too...
If you want to live in a bubble, go ahead. But I don't, and I vote.
All you people advocating random police checkpoints; you make me sick. Get the hell out of here and dont come back. I suggest communist China as a destination. Bye.
PS-As this includes at least one editor of the Fairbanks News-Miner, from this day forward I will not purchase another issue. I strongly reccommend any others who still believe in personal freedom to join this boycott.
To clarify - I don't condone drinking and driving. I was merely trying to advocate for additional community response to issues around drinking and driving. My apologies if that was unclear.
Skagdog, the point I tried to make earlier is that, in a society with alcohol, a certain amount of excess drinking is normal and expected: not for every person, not for every occasion, but sometimes and among some people. You can change the consequences of over-drinking all you want, and it will persist. You can say, "It's all about individual choice, it's their own bad decision," and *still* it will persist.
The question I see for us is, "Knowing that some people will always drink to excess and impair their own judgment, what mechanisms do we put in place to minimize or negate the damage they can cause?" But, by making car travel the only way to reach most of our destinations, we have *maximized* the damage likely to be caused.
I am not suggesting, as you seem to think Julia and I are, that there be a "free drunk taxi that you can call and will take whoever home however far away they live." I *am* suggesting (1) that the distance people live at from their drinking destinations is itself partly to blame, and we might all be better off living enough closer together that we didn't have to drive, and (2) that public transit, running frequently and fairly late, can help reduce the need to drive for *everybody*, including drunks -- but that it can needs a minimum population density to be financially viable.
I am suggesting we adopt a model where we think less about how much more we can punish people for their bad decisions, and think more about what we're doing that leads people to those bad decisions. I am advocating SOCIAL solutions to a SOCIAL problem.
Finally here is a brief passage from "The Great Good Place," by Ray Oldenberg, who said it much better than I could:
"Up until the 1950s, the drunken night owl staggering home from the tavern and hanging onto the lamppost to stay upright was the basis of many cartoons and dime-store mementoes. The staggering is now done behind the wheel of a car, and one can find no humor in it.... Why should a nation of drinkers arrange their municipalities such that drinking and driving are almost necessarily combined? "Gasoline and alcohol don't mix," says the American slogan. Of course they do. Our urban planners mix them all the time and in great doses. See the zoning codes for confirmation."
Paul Adasiak - " am suggesting we adopt a model where we think less about how much more we can punish people for their bad decisions, and think more about what we're doing that leads people to those bad decisions. I am advocating SOCIAL solutions to a SOCIAL problem."
Thank you.
We need to be responsible for each other, this is a social problem. We need to look at each other and not accept this behavior from the people around us. Fight for our freedoms, please, but with that freedom please protect help protect it. AS society we are to accepting, we expect our law enforcement to take care of us. We would not need that if we held each other to a higher level of respect and looked down at the people who are taking our privacy and freedom away.
DenaliGuy- Don't show your ignorance, its not about legalizing pott or getting rid of the systems that you believe are taking away your rights. Its about respect for each other and by your posts you it shows you don't have much. Let me ask, how do you think we can fix the Drunk Driving problem in Alaska? Bring something to the table, please, other than send everyone who disagrees with you out of "your state". How can we make it better?
I was born and raised in Fairbanks and it is sad to see what bitter people we have here. I don’t even know where to start. If you read the judgments that come down from the court you will see that there are people getting more time in jail for driving on a suspended license than DUI. If you also notice a lot of the DUI's that are arrested are suspend as well.
For those that think that transportation is the issue. We have taxi cabs that run all night long and I don’t think you would find a person who doesn’t have a cell phone with at least one number in it of someone who doesn’t go out drink. I see there is transportation available to these people, they just choose mot to take advantage of it. There are also a large number of bars in the Fairbanks Area. If you want to walk home just choose the bar closets to your home. Because you choose to go to a bar 25 miles from your house is your fault. Another idea is to skip the last two drinks and then you could afford to take a taxi home.
For those who are concerned about being pulled over for minor infractions – don’t commit the violation and you wouldn’t be pulled over. For those concerned about the time people are being pulled over. Let’s look at the Fairbanks Police Department calls for service from 2006. (Taken from the annual report on the city web site) There were a total of 29058 calls for service. For the average number of officers on the street at one time (3) that means these officers are responding to approximately 79 calls a day or 3 calls an hour. In addition to responding to call they have to write reports, appear in court, public appearances and perform follow up on reports they have already taken. Do you think they have time to stop you for not using your turn signal while they are responding to a fight in progress or a hold up alarm? If you’re out a 2 a.m. there are additional officers on specialized DUI enforcement so I would expect them to do there job and pull you over for not using your turn signal.
Now lets look at the statistics In 2006, an estimated 17,602 people died in alcohol-related traffic crashes—an average of one every 30 minutes. These deaths constitute 41 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities. Of these, an estimated 13,470 involved a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). On average someone is killed by a drunk driver every 39 minutes. About three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related crash at some time in their lives. The average DUI offender drivers over 100 times while impaired before finally being stopped and arrested for DUI.
With these numbers I do not see how anyone could argue they can not afford 2 minutes to stop for a check point. For those who don’t think check point will work – how many years have there been DUI commercials on TV. I don’t think you could find a single person who has never heard that drinking and driving don’t mix yet people still get into vehicles and drive while they are impaired. Check points are not hidden they are advertised several days in advance and are clearly marked prior to the actual check point, yet still they prove to be an effective tool in combating impaired driving.