BADDD (Bloggers Against 'Dawgs Driving Drunk): Why Running Stadium Steps is Not Enough
by T Kyle King on Jul 14, 2010 12:15 AM EDT
in Football
Email
PrintIt goes without saying that I am a huge fan of the Georgia Sports Blog, for more reasons than the fact that Paul Westerdawg is directly responsible for my entry into the Dawgosphere. Even when there are areas of disagreement between that weblog and this one, we generally are operating from similar premises and regard highly one another’s views.
However, Quinton McDawg made a grave error when he wrote this:
Here's my standard for arrests: If I and most normal, reasonable people have done it, then the player has embarrassed the program and should have to sprint up and down the stadium steps at 3:00 PM all summer until his guts spew from his orifices. But, no suspensions. If myself and other reasonable, normal people haven't done it, you miss time or get the boot. This standard is simple and removes the relative moralistic and political grandstanding of state legislatures and discretionary local law enforcement. (It also places me in sole control of arrest punishments for UGA athletes.)
Most people have driven a car tipsy, if not outright drunk. I'm not saying that's right because it is exceedingly wrong. But, it's not an uncommon thing. I've done it, even if I'm ashamed of it. So, DUI: RUNNING. While I've been tempted to stomp someone into unconsciousness, often in Jacksonville, Atlanta, and Baton Rouge, I've never actually done it. So, BYE-BYE. Minor in Possession: RUNNING. Shoot an AK-47 off in a parking lot: BYE-BYE. Suspended license: RUNNING. Dealing grass: BYE-BYE. Smoking grass: RUNNING. Dropping a keg on some dude's head: BYE-BYE. Kicked out of a Bossier City strip club: RUNNING. DUI with a twenty-something girl in the car and red panties on your lap: BYE-BYE (but man, I wish I could say RUNNING.)
The sentiment expressed in the first paragraph basically is sound, but the position taken at the start of the second paragraph is wrong, and dangerously so. To his credit, Quinton admits this, but his admission does not prevent him from reaching his morally mistaken conclusion.
While I will admit to leading a more boring life than most, even in my teens and twenties, I do not concede that "most normal, reasonable people" "have driven a car tipsy, if not outright drunk." Even if that premise is true, though, commonality does not justify leniency, at least as long as the following facts remain facts:
1. On average, someone is killed by a drunk driver every 40 minutes in US
2. Each day 36 people die and almost 700 more are injured in vehicle crashes that involve a drunk driver
3. The total cost of alcohol related crashes is roughly $51 billion
4. In 2006, out of 1,746 fatality that included children one out of six was killed by an alcohol impaired driver
5. Half of all teenage fatalities is due to drunk driving
This type of behavior is exceedingly dangerous and exacts an enormous toll on life, limb, and property. While reasonable people can and do disagree over the best way to address this problem, minimizing the offense using an "everybody does it" rationalization is irresponsible.
The unfortunate part of Quinton’s posting is that he missed it by that much. He draws his line reasonably, with one exception. When people possess alcohol prior to turning 21, drive on suspended licenses, get tossed from strip clubs, or smoke marijuana, they do not put other people’s lives in jeopardy in the absence of extenuating circumstances. Some of those activities can lead to more dangerous behavior, but, alone, they do not put others at risk.
On the other hand, the safety of others is put directly in peril by stomping people into unconsciousness, discharging a semiautomatic weapon in a parking lot, drug trafficking, dropping a keg on someone’s head, and driving under the influence of alcohol, with or without an e-mail correspondent’s underwear in your lap.
In short, Quinton drew his line reasonably well, but he put DUI on the wrong side of that divide. While Quinton was right to denounce drunk driving as wrong, it is not enough for us to pay lip service to that exceptionally risky behavior. Driving under the influence needs to be punished like the serious offense that it is, even if the offenders are Bulldog-born and Bulldog-bred, and even---no; especially---if that criminal misconduct is common.
Go ‘Dawgs!
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well argued sir
People wonder why the drinking age is what it is, its because average decent smart Americans who are of legal age don’t drink responsibly enough, and the risk for an 18-20 year old to use poor judgment in how they consume alcohol would be even greater. Maybe we should only license mature adults who show they can handle that responsibility, the ability to drink. I don’t know, i’m just tired of alcohol related instances, so take all of my proposals with a grain of salt, i’m not trying to take us back to prohibition.
My second thought is this and maybe those who drink more or are around those who drink more can help me with this question. Why drink so much that you end up impaired in the first place? By all means enjoy a few drinks! I believe as Psalm 104:15 implies that God gave man wine to make his heart glad and for us to enjoy; but not to make us stupid and impaired, unable to function.
All i’m saying is Know your limit, enjoy a good drink with friends and then stop so you can continue to have a good time and get home safely. Is that too hard to ask our athletes to do, or any person for that matter?
(btw: good to have you back firing on all cylinders the break has obviously done you well, oh and just wanted to give you a friendly reminder about the Dawgography idea which i had a week or so ago and Auditdawg basically executed very well)
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
I Corinthians 9:24
age and judgment
Great points, Southern Dawg. But as I was reading your comments, I immediately thought that, perhaps, the failure to drive responsibly (or, more accurately, make responsible decisions regarding driving) is at least as much of a problem as the failure to drink responsibly. During my four years as an undergraduate, I did not have a car. I made several bad drinking decisions and almost certainly made several bad riding decisions, but fortunately, I had no driving decisions to make.
By the time I got a car in Athens when I was in law school, the Classic City’s conversion was well under way from a town where “college bars” were fairly well scattered about town (in the days when a pub crawl analog required wheels to get from Son’s/Steverino’s to Papa Joe’s to Harry’s to T.K. Hardy’s to Gus Garcia’s to whatever fraternity house was having an attractive party to (for those wild-hair nights) the Night Owl Lounge) into the petite vieux carré that is today’s downtown. That is, by the time I had the option to drive, it was easier to pool resources for a taxi to and from downtown, which had become “one-stop shopping”. By appearances, the downtown concentration of adult entertainment (I’m not necessarily talking about the Topper’s variety) is even greater now than it was 20-25 years ago. Of course, my time in Athens was when the legal drinking age was 19. Then 20. Then 21.
I don’t know how much alcohol Dontavious Jackson consumed, but if it was enough to create an impaired driving condition, that doesn’t necessarily mean (to me) it was the result of irresponsible drinking. A 0.10 BAC isn’t the same thing as a 0.20 in that regard. The irresponsibility came with the decision to drive. Yes, the two things are closely related, and yes, alcohol consumption impairs judgment, which is linked to executing turning the key in the ignition or not. But past one drink (or less) per hour with food, all drinking decisions are irresponsible when it comes to driving. I’ll not fault anyone for having three, and then it’s entirely about whether to drive. It would be far better to make decisions regarding driving before going out in the first place.
Good points
People wonder why the drinking age is what it is, its because average decent smart Americans who are of legal age don’t drink responsibly enough
Southern, that quote in and of itself is one of the biggest issues I see with impaired decision making. We preach “drink responsibly” in our Budweiser ads and the ADAP classes we force our 15 year old teenagers to attend so they can get learners permits, but we never define what “drink responsibly” means. It’s just a vague term left to one’s own judgment about what is and isn’t “responsible”.
Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I don’t feel that DUI’s are as damning on a person as other crimes. While obviously dangerous and deadly, as confirmed by the facts quoted by TKK above, DUI’s are an entirely different animal than other serious crimes (i.e. murder, armed robbery, etc). This is probably why they are tried in their own court in Georgia. Those other crimes require some element of maliciousness or intent to harm or impede on someone’s Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
Generally speaking, DUI’s are an exercise in poor judgment, not ill intent or maliciousness. I’m not so quick to throw another human being under the bus (rabble rabble you got a DUI so that makes you the worst person in the world and you should be fired from your job and be kicked off the team rabble rabble) as some people. I don’t inherently believe a person is evil or bad or even deserves to be treated like the scum of the earth because of a DUI because as I mentioned above it is an exercise in poor judgment. Everybody makes poor choices for which we don’t attach criminal repercussions. For that reason alone, I’m willing to give anybody a pass the first time he/she is arrested for DUI.
While I don’t deny the seriousness of the crime, the real question is how are we educating people to prevent these types of offenses from occurring? Perhaps it goes back to the fact that the legal drinking age in the USA is one of the oldest in the world. If we’re going to allow alcohol to be a part of everyday life while through advertising and such, yet telling young people under 21 that they’ll be arrested if you so dare to partake in this tantalizing beverage that we collectively spend billions on advertising every year.
If we’re going to allow alcohol to continue being a mainstay of American culture (which isn’t going anywhere anytime soon) we’ve got to start educating younger people about the risks associated with alcohol rather than this laissez faire attitude (they’ll learn when they’re the appropriate age) similarly to the one we took on educating young people on the risks of unsafe sex for so many years. Just like an abstinence only policy for sex education is ineffective so is the abstain from alcohol only policy we have in our society with regards to alcohol. It’s like speaking out of both sides or your our collective mouth when we have tons of advertisements that rely on sex appeal and the greatness of alcohol while telling young people “No, you can’t do that because you’re not the appropriate age”.
Sorry for my rant there, but this is one of those subjects that while I do not discount the seriousness of the crime at hand, there’s a lot more at hand rather than the old worn “thugs were doing some drankin’ and drove” that is rehashed every time a young football player is arrested on DUI charges.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I disagree with you here a bit
People wonder why the drinking age is what it is, its because average decent smart Americans who are of legal age don’t drink responsibly enough, and the risk for an 18-20 year old to use poor judgment in how they consume alcohol would be even greater.
Actually, the average decent smart American who is of legal age does drink responsibly enough. According to the stats I found at duilimit.com (an anti DUI site), 135 million Americans drink. Of those 135 million, only 21 million drink and drive atleast once a year. We are talking about 15.6% of the U.S. population who chooses to drink and drive in a year. Of those 21 million, only 1.5 million are arrested for DUI yearly…about 7%. Certainly, there are people who drive impaired who aren’t caught. Additionally, there are those who drink and drive who aren’t impaired.
Naturally, the easiest mechanism for preventing a DUI is to not drink and drive. If we’re going to try to curb DUIs, rather than ostracize those who are guilty of drinking and driving, we should work to educate them on the dangers of drinking and driving. What’s my suggestion for doing that? Aside from the usual talk of preventing injuries and deaths, make a point about issues that hit home on a more common level, like the fiscal cost of a DUI. The average DUI in the state of Georgia will cost the perpetrator around 5-6 grand including lawyers fees, insurance hikes, fines, etc. People take notice of possible dents in their wallets. It’s a practical consequence that is much less likely to incite indignation than the “you’re a bad person, you made a stupid decision, rabble rabble.”
I will say, this isn’t to minimize the importance of preventing the deaths of innocent people due to drunk driving. I’m simply proposing that we look at other means (possibly more effective means) of educating the average person on the normal consequences of a DUI, aside from the obvious, more dire (and uncommon) consequnces.
Additionally, if (according to you) 18-20 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to drink because the average decent, smart, American can’t make the right decision regarding drinking and driving, then why in the world are we letting them make decisions that carry equally high importance, like voting, possessing jobs in law enforcement, joining the armed forces, getting married, having children, and so on?
by hailtogeorgia on Jul 14, 2010 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Agreed, Kyle, regarding DUI's being on the wrong side of Quinton's analysis
The two most damning statements by Damon Evans that appeared in the police report were, beginning with the worse, “I’m not trying to bribe you, but I am the Athletic Director of the University of Georgia,” and “We all have a drink and jump into a car.” (Those may not be exact quotes, but we all remember the substance of what he said, I think.)
That second statement has some truth in it (where “we all” represents “many, many people”). Presenting this statement of fact as a reason why leniency should be granted was very, very bad. Richt’s punishment policies should reflect this. Everybody has done it. Let’s do what we can to decrease future instances.
Counterpoint
Blowing a 0.09 will get you a DUI, a level at which many drinkers are not, in fact, impaired, and demonstrably less dangerous than texting while driving.
An arrest is appropriate (as the law now stands), since it is the LEO’s job to simply enforce the law, not interpret it. Whether or not the law itself is correct should be under review.
Is it wise to derail, and possibly ruin, the life of a citizen because he or she exceeds a provably arbitrary boundary in instances where literally no harm has been done?
An individual with an ALDH2 deficiency may exhibit signs of impairment at 0.04, while a regular drinker or individual with a naturally high tolerance may still retain the focus and coordination required to hit a 96mph curveball at 0.15.
This 0.08 threshold, pushed down from 0.12, then 0.1, is largely the result of lobbying efforts by M.A.D.D.: an organization decried as having become neo-prohibitionist by its own founder, and with a financial stake in the amount of arrests made. (There are oceans of more data on that last point.)
All laws, although somewhat sacred per se, are not always wise or just, and thus not correct. Revocation of scholarship, expulsion from school, ruin of reputation and driving record, and the commensurate damage to personal finances, future scholarships and employability, based on an arbitrary, unevenly applied, and possibly corrupt, law will not only invite discussion on its alteration, but also disrespect both of the law itself, and the legal apparatus responsible for its passage and enforcement. Presented with such a law, and absent any hard and fast bylaw of one’s own institution, it is not unreasonable to suggest a contextual, human flexibility be applied to decisions whose repercussions will be so lasting to the parties involved.
None of this is to suggest T.K.K., or any of the commentors, are wrong. It’s just my (non-J.D.-having) opinion.
Logic, however, does dictate that one cannot be “morally mistaken,” as one is morally praiseworthy, not morally obligatory.
Go Dawgs!
Bonus points for citing the young Spock from the J.J. Abrams "Star Trek" movie.
Generally speaking, your points are the sort that caused me to add the caveat that “reasonable people can and do disagree over the best way to address this problem,” with the line-drawing conundrum most definitely being among the issues about which there is room for rational debate of the sort you have offered.
The level of impairment, obviously, is relevant to the danger posed; I would wager that far more of us have driven when exceedingly tired than have driven when dangerously drunk, and both conditions constitute an impairment that puts others unduly at risk. In short, there is much room for discussion over what the law ought to allow and how the law ought to address the problem; however, “everyone does it, therefore it is no big deal” is not an argument that ought to be given credence.
Nice job, Grib. Well argued.
Go 'Dawgs!
I wanted to post something like this, but couldnt have done anywhere near as good a job
there are a lot of apples and oranges in the alcohol discussion. there are a lot of points to discuss.
- I assure you i can drive better than the average person at .08 – I am skilled operator. The law is the law and I have to abide by it.
- one issue Grib highlights I have a problem with is DUIs dont just get you arrested and fined, its almost at the same level as a child predator. You lose your job, your community will shun you, etc. As a military member – getting a DUI is an automatic ending of a career.
- I think it’s ridiculous you can vote and serve and marry and not drink if under 21. We need some type of cultural change that allows alcohol to somehow become part of adulthood, rather than, 21, go get hammered!
- here in wichita, they more or less have a DUI police task force. They put cops on buildings and watch who goes into what bars and how long they are there, and call in other officers when they see them get in their vehicle. They have posted undercovers in bars similarly. I have no doubt there is a money/vote connection somewhere in this. But it is sad when we have multiple break in homocides and they can’t find those guys, but can dedicate so much effort to DUIs.
- alcohol is everywhere (particularly here), yet, its not that close. within 5 miles there are over 10 liquor stores and probably 25 restaurants with bars or bars. But i cant walk to any of them. We dont live in tight communities where you can walk to the local pub and see your mates. We actually create “bar districts”. Somebody has got to drive to get to them.
- its easy to feel “not that drunk” and get a DUI, its the nastiness of the drug.
- alcohol is a killer disease for some people. Its hard to treat. But the onset can be very insidious. making it hard to know you have the disease.
- i can buy a case of vodka and a carton of cigs, but marijuanna is illegal. Maybe unrelated – but it still makes no sense.
"One thing I will never do as long as I’m at Georgia is lose to Florida." - Herschel Walker
Good thing we don't have that DUI task force
watching bars in Tulsa, or I’d be in big trouble.
I like to go dancing. This means I arrive between 10 & 10:30am and I leave at closing time. So I’m in a bar about 4 hours. During this time I usually purchase 2 Bahama Mama’s and 4 glasses of water (each glass of water is about 1/2 the size of the alcoholic beverage.) I usually drink 2 glasses of water and the 2 Bahama Mama’s. Most people will agree that after that level of consumption over 4 hours, I am not only not intoxicated, but I am as sober when I walk out as I was when I walked in. If the cops are only using “time in the bar” as a standard by which to decide who to pull over & investigate for DUI – I’d spend a whole heck of a lot of time talking to cops.
"Never refuse to do a kindness unless the act would work great injury to yourself, and never refuse to take a drink- under any circumstances." Mark Twain
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
