Are DUI Laws Excessive in your state ... ?

[Cat_Driver]

...Good Evenin Cat,
Agreed, but we are not advocating drunk driving here !

scott_vt ... I know no one here is 'advocating" drunk driving and yes you are discussing two beers but therein lies the Dichotomy. One can not discuss "two beers" without discussing drunk driving since they are synonymous with each other, and I might add where most people kid themselves.

For someone about 150 pounds, two drinks ( equals two beers ) in two hours would probably make you legally drunk (.08 blood alcohol level). It doesn't take much alcohol at all to make you legally drunk, and alcohol stays in your system for hours before it is all gone.

All states in the United States have adopted 0.08% (80 mg/dL) as the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle for drivers aged 21 years or older. However, drivers under age 21 years are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle with any level of alcohol in their system.

According to the CDC - Note: Legal limits do not define a level below which it is safe to operate a vehicle or engage in some other activity. Impairment due to alcohol use begins to occur at levels well below the legal limit. YET, people in general define the level to operate a vehicle safely is TWO BEERS. Sorry to break peoples bubble but that level has never been defined and anyone who say it's two beers is frankly a liar.

No two people on the planet react the same to equal amounts of alcohol in two beers. Two beers for many is called a buzz, for others it's called getting your whistle wet.

Individual reactions to alcohol vary, and are influenced by many factors, including but not limited to

* Age.
* Gender.
* Race or ethnicity.
* Physical condition (weight, fitness level, etc).
* Amount of food consumed before drinking.
* How quickly the alcohol was consumed.
* Use of drugs or prescription medicines.
* Family history of alcohol problems.

A standard drink is equal to 13.7 grams (0.6 ounces) of pure alcohol or

* 12-ounces of beer.
* 8-ounces of malt liquor.
* 5-ounces of wine.
* 1.5-ounces or a 都hot of 80-proof distilled spirits or liquor (e.g., gin, rum, vodka, or whiskey).

So you can see two beers is equal to two drinks and in some states "depending on the above" you are considered drunk.

ANY alcohol use slows reaction time and impairs judgment and coordination, which are all skills needed to drive a car safely.2 The more alcohol consumed, the greater the impairment obviously, but two beers will also impair you and there is enough science out there to prove that, no matter what someone says.

 

[DieselPower]

Personally I think there is no such thing as a to strict a DWI law. You drink and drive you should be locked up and locked up for a long time. I have 0 pitty for DWI scumbags. I have had a couple of friends killed by DWI drivers over the years and having towed away dozens of DWI accident vehicles over the years feel the law can't punish them enough. It wouldn't bother me if they made it illegal to drink anything before driving. I to like many others here have a CDL and if they ever cought me with the slightest wiff of alcohol on my breath wouldn't have a problem if they locked me up and revoked my license, I would deserve it.

 

[jgrreed]

While I have been fortunate enough to never have had a loved killed by a drunk driver, what a horrible thing that would certainly be, I also hope that my kids never get caught up in the system and have their lives ruined by todays laws !

Rarely do laws ruin lives unless you break them. I'd look at it more like - "I hope that my kids never get caught up with, or become, the drunks and either kill someone, or die themselves".

A friends brother received his sentence for his second DUI just last week. No accidents, or injuries, just busted. He was sentenced to 3 MONTHS IN JAIL!!!! Apparently the Red Deer area has taken a zero-tolerance policy and have really tightened up on this stuff. At first I thought "Wow, that's harsh", but then I thought just how irate I would be if someone I love was hurt by a drunk driver.

Statistics tend to show that penalties are not a deterrent to crime. The DUI laws are no exception.

Oh?? I'm interested to know what would be a reasonable and effective deterrent??

While they have succeeded in making criminals out of ordinary people......

Every criminal, at the moment before he or she committed their first crime was an 'ordinary person'. Every 'ordinary person' has the ability to easily become a criminal be it via tax evasion, speeding, rape, or....... driving drunk. Unless they are one of the rare people wrongly accused, or framed, they've done it to themselves, and need to take responsibility for it.

A few of the responses in this thread are really poor in my mind. The laws are there because people are dying. When you put away TBN this eveing, stop and look at the family pictures on your walls and imagine that one of the people in that picture doesn't come home tomorrow morning, ever. Or, take yourself out of that picture, and imagine just how sad, and screwed, they'd be without you. Can't believe this is even being discussed.

-Jer.

 

[Skyco]

Every morning on my way to work I hear at least one hit-and-run on the radio traffic reports, sometimes there are 3 or more... This is in the Columbia SC area. I have no idea how many of these are DUIs, or not insured, or illegals or what....but I'd bet a fair percentage are DUIs.

 

[DieselPower]

I helped tow these DWI/DUI accidents away, any questions?

I didn't think so.

 

[Sigarms]

Oh?? I'm interested to know what would be a reasonable and effective deterrent??

You did not dispute the comment "Statistics tend to show that penalties are not a deterrent to crime. The DUI laws are no exception".

Fact is, by statistics, increased penalties by the law does not always change people's behavior. Mary Jane is a prime example.

I laugh when I hear about the "good old days" and how much better society was in the past compared to with what we have today. How many people do you think were killed by drunk drivers in the 1950's and how did society "back then" deal with that particular issue?

At least in todays society, we reconize the issues and problems at hand, and try to deal with it the best we can. Draconian laws somehwere usually come into play.

Yes, have two 12 oz beers within an hour, and chances are, you could be legally drunk in your state. With todays laws, get pulled over, even for a first time offense, and those two beers could, depending on where you are in your life, screw you over for the rest of your life.

No, I don't feel sorry for those who have killed while driving under the influence.

helped tow these DWI/DUI accidents away, any questions?

I didn't think so.

Anyone remember the movie "mechanized death" (I thought that was the name at least) that they showed in high school that was made by (I think) the Ohio State Police? You can show all the pictures of death and destruction you want, however, it still will not change everyones behavior.

The first time I went to an Bill W meeting, there were five guys there who were sent there by the court system (they had to go or they'd lose their drivers license). Those five guys went, made all the madatory meetings they had to, then guess what? They stopped coming. Laws will never change peoples behaviors (how many here have said "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands?"), people themselves have to change their behavior.

Then again, if we want to go to the way Joseph Stalin used to run his office, I'm certain we probably can change peoples behaviors. The catch 22 living in one of the greatest nations on earth (for how much longer, I'm not so sure).

 

[scott_vt]

While I agree that the .04 limit isn't fair and should not apply to a commercial license holder when he's not on the job, it is what it is. If you got pulled over, I'd be very curious why? If you didn't have that one or two beers, would you still have done what drew attention to you and why you were pulled over?.

Eddie

Good Mornin Eddie,
I would think the most likely scenario would be if you were stopped at a DUI check setup that is screening all drivers that drive through that roadway or intersection. I highly doubt that anyone that has one beer and driving normally down the road would get pulled over IMO ! The only other possibility would be if you were driving a motor vehicle that is missing lights etc...

It is ridiculous to have different percentages of blood alcohol to meet DWI standards dependent upon the type of license that you have. If you are driving under the influence, which means that you do not have the ability to drive safely, it doesn't matter if you are driving a car or a big rig. Either one can easily kill or maim. But, in the event that you are caught driving DWI, and you have a cdl, I believe the penalties should be tougher.

Good Mornin Dudley,
Agreed ! If you have a CDL you are certainly held by a higher standard while driving commercially !

I confess to making the mistake several times of driving after a few drinks and thinking that I am sober enough to drive safely and pray that I never do that again risking the lives of myself and others regardless of whether or not I get stopped for DWI.

Dudley, I have made this mistake in years past myself. And thankyou for being man enough to admit it. With todays laws I am extra careful, and if there is any question in my mind I have my wife drive rather than myself and risk losing my CDL.

H

(i hit the wrong button while typing sorry)
needed surgery for two years but afraid to go back living in pain,

NOW WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD DO TO A DRUNK DRIVER.

(1) first time caught DUI. with no one even hurt (20 years)

(2) first time caught DUI. and someone hurt (LIFE IN PRISON)
without ever getting out.
(3) FIRST TIME CAUGHT DUI. AND SOMEONE KILLED,
DEATH PENALTY

If someone is going to drink, they should stay home where they belong

(AND I LOST my CDL because of my wrist and leg ) JUST BECAUSE
SOMEONE WAS DRIVING DRUNK,

you asked what i thought about it and there it is

i have seen so many family's destroyed because of a drunk driver.

(lost children, fathers,mothers,sisters,brothers and grandparents)

Good Mornin Johndeere,
Im truly sorry that your life was so affected by a drunk ! Im also very sorry to hear that you were injured and lost your CDL.

But I have a hard time with someone being sent away to jail for 20 years after being stopped in a routine check after consumming two beers JMHO !
Which I guess Im entitled to an opinion also. So I guess Im saying that I dont agree with your system!

scott_vt ... I know no one here is 'advocating" drunk driving and yes you are discussing two beers but therein lies the Dichotomy. One can not discuss "two beers" without discussing drunk driving since they are synonymous with each other, and I might add where most people kid themselves.

For someone about 150 pounds, two drinks ( equals two beers ) in two hours would probably make you legally drunk (.08 blood alcohol level). It doesn't take much alcohol at all to make you legally drunk, and alcohol stays in your system for hours before it is all gone.

All states in the United States have adopted 0.08% (80 mg/dL) as the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle for drivers aged 21 years or older. However, drivers under age 21 years are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle with any level of alcohol in their system.

According to the CDC - Note: Legal limits do not define a level below which it is safe to operate a vehicle or engage in some other activity. Impairment due to alcohol use begins to occur at levels well below the legal limit. YET, people in general define the level to operate a vehicle safely is TWO BEERS. Sorry to break peoples bubble but that level has never been defined and anyone who say it's two beers is frankly a liar.

No two people on the planet react the same to equal amounts of alcohol in two beers. Two beers for many is called a buzz, for others it's called getting your whistle wet.

Individual reactions to alcohol vary, and are influenced by many factors, including but not limited to

* Age.
* Gender.
* Race or ethnicity.
* Physical condition (weight, fitness level, etc).
* Amount of food consumed before drinking.
* How quickly the alcohol was consumed.
* Use of drugs or prescription medicines.
* Family history of alcohol problems.

A standard drink is equal to 13.7 grams (0.6 ounces) of pure alcohol or

* 12-ounces of beer.
* 8-ounces of malt liquor.
* 5-ounces of wine.
* 1.5-ounces or a 都hot of 80-proof distilled spirits or liquor (e.g., gin, rum, vodka, or whiskey).

So you can see two beers is equal to two drinks and in some states "depending on the above" you are considered drunk.

ANY alcohol use slows reaction time and impairs judgment and coordination, which are all skills needed to drive a car safely.2 The more alcohol consumed, the greater the impairment obviously, but two beers will also impair you and there is enough science out there to prove that, no matter what someone says.

Good Mornin Cat,
That was an excellent post ! I dont think many could argue with most of what you stated ! I do hope that any future posters that add to this thread, are kind enough to go back and read my original post !

At almost 58 I have never been stopped for DWI. I have been stopped at routine roadblocks, once after having a glass of wine while visiting my elderly parents a few towns away, but have never been asked to exit my vehicle !

I also advocate getting the drunks off the road, I have been hit by one as rescently as last year !


Good Mornin Dieselpower,
I have been to some horrific accidents also just like yourself ! Both through the fire department of which I have been a volunteer for 25 years. And If you recall I drove a rollback car carrier for almost a year also ! I have had a front line look at what excessive alcohol can do on our roadways !

Thankyou to all the posters, whether I agree with what you have stated, or otherwise !

Have a good and safe day !

 

[milkman]

Everyone is all for getting the drunks off the road, and I agree. What about the impaired drivers, you drink, you're impaired period. In discussions in some of the other threads on this site, people brag about towing max. capacity weights and how well it does at 70 and 75mph. Driving in this rushed society takes all our attention because so many people don't pay attention, I don't like to share the road with a P/U pulling a trailer with a skidsteer doing 70 and 75 mph even if they're dead sober. If you have to have something to drink with a meal, there's lots of choices besides alcohol if you have to drive. I don't think the laws are too lenient, the penalties are not enforced.

 

[DocHeb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_vt
In conclusion I think the laws need to be adjusted just a bit. I would like to see just a bit of liencency when it comes to some one consumming two beers, rather than be taken away in the police cruiser and have their life turned upside down. This is just my opinion, and Im sure you guys have your own feelings on this subject, please feel free !

All I know is after 25 years, I am tired of telling family members their relative has died, and if DUI laws prevent me from having to do it again I'll go for it.

The statement that "laws never prevent anything" - horse pucky. Of course hardened criminals will continue to drive while impaired, but even on this thread there are folks describing their altered drinking/driving habits because of these laws. You cannot measure a law's effectiveness by prevention since you can't measure the number of missed events caused by behavior modifaication. However, the percentage of deaths in car accidents associated with alcohol has been in steady decline over the past 11 years (from 60% of all traffic deaths in 1983 to 40% of all traffic deaths in 2003)

Statistically you can't just go by total number of deaths since car safety (air bags, "crumple zones", safety improvements) could account for the declining deaths. You also can't make a direct cause-and-effect conclusion between decreasing alcohol use and decreasing deaths, but as the laws have tightened up over the past years, there sure is a nice drop in alcohol related deaths.

 

[LBrown59]

1*Personally I think there is no such thing as a to strict a DWI law.
2*I have 0 pitty for DWI scumbags.
3*Ifeel the law can't punish them enough.
4*It wouldn't bother me if they made it illegal to drink anything before driving.
I to like many others here have a CDL and if they ever cought me with the slightest wiff of alcohol on my breath wouldn't have a problem if they locked me up and revoked my license, I would deserve it.

1*-4* I agree completely with you on all 4 points.

 

[crbr]

Personally I think there is no such thing as a to strict a DWI law. You drink and drive you should be locked up and locked up for a long time. I have 0 pitty for DWI scumbags. I have had a couple of friends killed by DWI drivers over the years and having towed away dozens of DWI accident vehicles over the years feel the law can't punish them enough. It wouldn't bother me if they made it illegal to drink anything before driving. I to like many others here have a CDL and if they ever cought me with the slightest wiff of alcohol on my breath wouldn't have a problem if they locked me up and revoked my license, I would deserve it.

100% agreed.

Those looking for anything less have (evidently) never lost a loved on to an alcohol impaired driver.

Cell phones are next. Dead is dead, no matter what the cause nor how one whines about leniency to enjoy a dinner over the life of so many factual deaths.

Thanks for the pics. They are worth thousands in words.

 

[scott_vt]

100% agreed.

Those looking for anything less have (evidently) never lost a loved on to an alcohol impaired driver.

Cell phones are next. Dead is dead, no matter what the cause nor how one whines about leniency to enjoy a dinner over the life of so many factual deaths.

Thanks for the pics. They are worth thousands in words.

Good Mornin crbr,
Im glad you brought up cell phones when discussing roadway accidents ! Im thinking statistically they contribute to more accidents than alcohol.

Im glad i dont own one ! Last time I looked, the fine was $75 for getting caught using one ! Not 20 years in prison !

 

[Runner]

My 2 cents:

I think the law should be reasonable. I also agree with Pat Bedard in this article:

Government's Heavy Hand: It Wants Your Wallet - Column/Patrick Bedard/C/D Staff/Columns/Features/Car and Driver - Car And Driver

He had another really good one out there specifically dealing with DUI laws, but I couldn't find it.

I know from personal experience that the government ratchets up laws in response to the insurance industry. My specific experience is with building codes and floodplain ordinances. You would not believe the hoops my city jumps through to try and impress the insurance companies with strict laws, the more draconian, the better.

No question people should not be driving around out there hammered, but nailing people on technicalities because it helps the insurance companies jack up their rates is bull.

 

[ray66v]

Cell phones, cigarettes, over the counter medications, and prescription drugs, looking for CD's or other things, fooling with the radio, or navigation system, reaching into the back seat for children while driving, and or being distracted by children, all cause accidents. Then they too should be banned, and violators jailed. Lets make everyone a criminal. Of course, we will have to let lots of real criminals go free, to make room for them all.

Or we could just say, If your found to be impaired, or even just a reckless or really bad driver, then every thing possible should be done to see your kept off the road. It's not a perfect system. But, as long as alcohol is available, there will be drunk drivers. No matter how harsh the penalties, it will never be perfect.

 

[jgrreed]

Oh?? I'm interested to know what would be a reasonable and effective deterrent??

You did not dispute the comment "Statistics tend to show that penalties are not a deterrent to crime. The DUI laws are no exception".

Fact is, by statistics, increased penalties by the law does not always change people's behavior. Mary Jane is a prime example.

I didn't dispute it because I didn't want to get into a discussion about statistical significance, but here goes.

Truly meaningful statistics don't 'tend to show', they either 'show' or they 'don't'. Please show me these statistics along with the authors methods for data collection, power analysis, and statistical calculations. If, once I see them, they look like reasonable studies with reasonable methodology, I'll give that statement to you. Until then, can we please stop talking about how deterrent laws are ruining lives???

I live in a world where we try to use statistics derived from solid evidence for every decision we make, but even then, sometimes common sense has to take over.

Really though, what is the deterrent then?? You're telling me that if an 'ordinary guy', like you or me, has 4 or 6 beers after work on friday and then makes the stupid call of driving himself home and gets caught, that the 6 months of lost income, personal embarassment, personal stress, and family stress, that a DUI will bring him won't make him think twice about doing that again??? Would the thought of showering with a He77's Angel named Bubba for a few months stop him?? Or maybe, just maybe it'd wake him up and make him realize the guilt and shame he'd feel if he killed someone else's little girl, little boy, wife, husband, mom, dad, etc.......

Why is this even a discussion??

-Jer.

 

[jinman]

I hold a CDL license, which in this state, you are considered DUI witha .04 BAC. I would never have a drink while driving commercially, but it is nice to have a beer or a glass of wine with your dinner when you go out to eat. Unfortunately that BAC applies even if your driving the family SUV ! . . .

. . . In conclusion I think the laws need to be adjusted just a bit. I would like to see just a bit of liencency when it comes to some one consumming two beers, rather than be taken away in the police cruiser and have their life turned upside down. This is just my opinion, and Im sure you guys have your own feelings on this subject, please feel free !

Good morning Scotty. I understand your angst with the unequal application of the law and your worry of being stopped and charged. I also think that the outcome of a concentrated effort on the part of CDL holders might be to lower the limits on everyone rather than raise the limits to bring about equality. If the law is to be equal, why not just make everyone have a .04 BAC limit? Why not make everyone have to meet the same rigid standards as the CDL holder?

Also, can you positively state that you have seen anyone given a citation for drinking one beer. I have serious doubts that has ever happened. According to my Texas School Bus Driver's Resource Manual, tests have shown that:

• If you weigh 100 lb, your BAC will be .03 after one drink
• If you weigh 200 lb, your BAC will be .03 after two drinks

Any additional drinking within that timeframe (1 hour) will put you over the .04 BAC limit. That is based on one 12 oz beer, one 5 oz glass of wine, or one oz of 100-proof liquor.

Additionally, the manual goes on to point out:

• A BAC of .04 to .06 brings about overconfidence in driving
• A BAC of .03 to .035 causes braking, starting, and stopping times to be reduced by 25% to 30%
• A BAC of .03 shows some impairment of visual skills

Considering those numbers, I think there is plenty of argument for making alcohol related penalties even more stringent.

Finally, what about the guy who is found sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a bar? If he is over the limit, I believe he is also charged with DWI or something similar. Is that fair?

In Texas in 1997, 30.4% of all traffic dealths were alcohol related. Someone was injured every 18 minutes and three persons killed in every 24 hour period. Those numbers are horrible. I think you will find more people who are willing to take excessive measures to reduce those numbers than would be willing to increase the BAC limits for CDL holders. My expectation is that limits will tighten for the non-CDL holders rather than the opposite.

 

[jgrreed]

Or we could just say, If your found to be impaired, or even just a reckless or really bad driver, then every thing possible should be done to see your kept off the road. It's not a perfect system. But, as long as alcohol is available, there will be drunk drivers. No matter how harsh the penalties, it will never be perfect.

And it's available EVERYWHERE!! To almost EVERYONE!!! At least there's some check (MD's and Pharmacists) for prescription drugs (although sometimes weak checks). The others are important factors too, but in today's society where any kind of criticism of another individual is considered racist, sexist, or otherwise, good luck proving that someone is simply a bad driver. Have any of you seen the discover channel show called "Canada's Worst Driver"?? Check on YouTube, it's hilarious, awful, and scary all at the same time!!

The cel phone issue seems to be pretty undeniable. I've seen some good simulator work (on Discovery Channel, I'm not claiming to be an expert...) where they test people's response times on and off a cel phone, and it's pretty obvious. I don't know how my wife hasn't had a major incident yet. When that Blackberry makes it's way to her ear it like she enters a parallel dimension that is just slightly off of reality, and whatever is going on in reality is suddenly less important!!! That's a big bone of contention for us...... My solution is my Bluetooth Headset.

FYI re: BT Headsets - BUY A JAWBONE!!!! The noise cancelling technology is amazing and makes it actually usable in wind, or with other background noise.

-Jer.

 

[skipro3]

13,000 people killed in the USA in 2007 due to alcohol related accidents. How many people died in the military? of AID's? or any other highly documented instance?

Sorry, I think if you are ever caught drinking and driving with anything above .00 you ought to loose the privilage of driving. My opinion, so there you go.

 

[Scooby074]

Wisconsin AG wants to make a first DUI NOT a crime. He also wants to give judges the option of probation for a second offense instead of mandatory jail time.

He does make some sense to me. He wants to beef up the punishments for subsequent offenses and legalize roadside checks etc.

First drunken driving offense shouldn't be crime, Van Hollen says - JSOnline

 

[scott_vt]

Good morning Scotty. I understand your angst with the unequal application of the law and your worry of being stopped and charged. I also think that the outcome of a concentrated effort on the part of CDL holders might be to lower the limits on everyone rather than raise the limits to bring about equality. If the law is to be equal, why not just make everyone have a .04 BAC limit? Why not make everyone have to meet the same rigid standards as the CDL holder?

Also, can you positively state that you have seen anyone given a citation for drinking one beer. I have serious doubts that has ever happened. According to my Texas School Bus Driver's Resource Manual, tests have shown that:

• If you weigh 100 lb, your BAC will be .03 after one drink
• If you weigh 200 lb, your BAC will be .03 after two drinks

Any additional drinking within that timeframe (1 hour) will put you over the .04 BAC limit. That is based on one 12 oz beer, one 5 oz glass of wine, or one oz of 100-proof liquor.

Additionally, the manual goes on to point out:

• A BAC of .04 to .06 brings about overconfidence in driving
• A BAC of .03 to .035 causes braking, starting, and stopping times to be reduced by 25% to 30%
• A BAC of .03 shows some impairment of visual skills

Considering those numbers, I think there is plenty of argument for making alcohol related penalties even more stringent.

Finally, what about the guy who is found sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a bar? If he is over the limit, I believe he is also charged with DWI or something similar. Is that fair?

In Texas in 1997, 30.4% of all traffic dealths were alcohol related. Someone was injured every 18 minutes and three persons killed in every 24 hour period. Those numbers are horrible. I think you will find more people who are willing to take excessive measures to reduce those numbers than would be willing to increase the BAC limits for CDL holders. My expectation is that limits will tighten for the non-CDL holders rather than the opposite.

Good Mornin Jim,
I think your feelings on making the playing field more even are probablly more of a realistic scenario of what will happen in the future ! Thanks for the facts and figures on the BAC statistics, Im sure they are an interest to anyone following this thread !

The cel phone issue seems to be pretty undeniable. I've seen some good simulator work (on Discovery Channel, I'm not claiming to be an expert...) where they test people's response times on and off a cel phone, and it's pretty obvious. I don't know how my wife hasn't had a major incident yet. When that Blackberry makes it's way to her ear it like she enters a parallel dimension that is just slightly off of reality, and whatever is going on in reality is suddenly less important!!! That's a big bone of contention for us...... My solution is my Bluetooth Headset.

FYI re: BT Headsets - BUY A JAWBONE!!!! The noise cancelling technology is amazing and makes it actually usable in wind, or with other background noise.

-Jer.

Good Mornin Jer,
It always amazes me driving down the highway, looking to my left some lady is multitasking, talking on her cellphone and applying lipstick at the same time ! Now that same lady is distracted from her multitasking operation in the front seat to see what little Johnny is doing in the back seat ! She swerves, and we have a pileup on the interstate ! Innocent people are killed ! I can only hope that those people that look for stiffer penalties for alcohol related accidents, look at this hypothetical incident as impairment, is just as dangerous as any other ! Hopefully this lady will get more than a slap on the wrist, but something less than a 20 year sentence, so little Johnny has a mother to raise him !