Pitt doesn't own the Beehive.

http://www.post-gazette.com/business...ve0730bnp3.asp

I'm not dissing the school, I was accepted there, went to writing workshops there, have three really close friends there, hang out on the campus often, and I live in the city. I'm saying that I don't particullarly care for their chancellor. I personally think that a lot of the Otterbein administration is twatty and I would say that openly and I have in my articles in our campus newspaper.

Criticism and couth are a fine line. I like to walk on both sides. I'll admit that I'm no dainty debutante, I've got a foul mouth and I use it to say what I feel. Being a performance poet will do that to you.

And I'm sorry that I didn't know that the Kings Court wasn't owned by Pitt, I just remembered lots of City Paper articles about it years ago when it first closed.

So let's all unbunch our pantaloons and simmer down.

Co-sign...not only is it a HUGE deal for the victims, but its a BIG OLE DEAL for the offender...first of all he has to retain an attorney to represent him (to the tune of hundreds of dollars), In IL no public defender is available for DUI's, second his license is automatically suspended if he refuses the testing, third his car is impounded, could face jail time and revocation of license, his day to day life is affected because he isn't supposed to DRIVE AT ALL until his case is resolved....etc. And GOD FORBID HE HURTS ANYONE, that is a whole other ball of wax with the insurance claims and/or civil lawsuits. Not to mention the possibility he/she may become uninsurable to drive.

Trust me, I've seen enough of these practicing. They ARE a BIG DEAL:(

ITs actually a shame that we have made DUI into a huge social issue.

Originally DUI laws were targeted for people that were driving in an obviously impaird way.

However, with the addition of grants and the Politically Correct climate, police now look to pull people over at random to look for DUI regardless of how you are driving.

As a result a lot more people that are lighter drinkers and not showing symptoms are still given this hellacious ticket.

With the BAC level down to .08 that will happen more and more often with organizations like MADD happily pushing for even stricter penalties because thats all the organization really exists to do.

I wish they would just make it a felony because then you would see some real dialogue about the subject. and you could get juriy trials etc.

Now they can wack you with prison time, enormous fines and you don't even have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. At least in NJ and many other states.

See, I don't understand how it CAN'T be a huge social issue.

I don't understand why this isn't a big deal. Just because you might be able to "hold your alcohol" better than someone else doesn't mean you aren't impaired. A good friend of mine is almost completely lucid after drinking a gigantic tankard of screwdriver, but I still wouldn't let him drive, even down the street to my dorm.

As I said way earlier in the thread -- there is a MAJOR difference between having one or two beers and driving home from the bar and slamming a 5th of Jack and going joyriding. HUGE difference.

The penalties are the same though. Both drivers will get a DUI. I'd argue that the person that had 1 or 2 beers -- especially if it's someone like me who 1 or 2 beers won't even give a buzz to is not doing anything immoral. If the driver that killed your friend had only 1 or 2 beers and what they're saying isn't a lie (which it most likely is), I'd wager that the wreck had nothing to do with that person being impaired because of alcohol. Maybe they fell asleep at the wheel, maybe they just did something stupid. Sober people have wrecks also.

I personally don't make it a habit to go out and drink and drive. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for the poor folks that have to go through all that crap over .01, ,08 or something like that.

I just don't think it's that black & white.

You can rationalize it that way if you want, but the alcohol is deemed a contributing factor to the wreck. It is the 1-2 beers/bottle of Jack Daniels that slows a persons reactiion time, impairs their visions, dulls their senses, causes them to fall asleep, or make bad decisions---decisions they may not have made if they were sober.

So 1-2 beers or a entire bottle of Jack Daniels makes no difference in the legal world, especially since both can bring you over the legal limit. The driver is considered impared due to alcohol and anything that happens while driving is directly attributed to that.

I think we are talking about a fairness issue or a proportionality issue versus the legal stipulation.

This is off topic, but this kid got sentenced to 8 years in prison because he was 4 years and ten days older than his girl friend (the parents didn't like him). Had he been ten days younger it would have been ok.

No, I'm clear on the topic. My point is it is just as fair for a person to knowingly take 1-2 beers, take the chance at being over the limit and willfully get behind the wheel as it is for someone to the purposely abusive (ie drinking a entire bottle) and decide to drive a car.

Since the legal limit is so low, the average person could be considered drunk with a "small" amount of alcohol in their system. Therefore, everyone gets charged the same. Its the drink that takes you over the limit that counts, not how much you had afterwards.

I wish there was a way that a person could find out exactly how many drinks it does take to reach your state's limit. I know I feel fine after one and most times after two. But am I over the limit at 1 drink? Can I safely drink two?

I know you can argue that no drinks is the safest way to go but I don't see the world giving up drinking...our restaurants and bars would probably go out of business from no alcohol sales. So how can we help people to safely learn where the limits are?

I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the seriousness of any DUI charge, and that someone in an advisory position shouldn't have even one. Yet, we're talking about Pitt, which has a horrible time getting and keeping a Greek Advisor.

Frankly, if kddani and fire1977 think he's okay, and he's been vetted by his superiors, I can live with him.

Unfortunately, I think there are just too many factors involved. Everyone's physiological makeup is different. It would depend on how much you ate in a given day, how your body breaks down alcohol, your weight, the amount of alcohol in the drink, etc. I know its strict, and anyone can get caught up, but the surest way to avoid a DUI is to avoid drinking if you're the driver.

Realistically, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

The same elements that would support prohibition are generally behind the drinking laws.

I would say do nothing. If this person tries to screw over any org on campus, I say lay that card out then and there and make the biggest flap ever.

Students these days don't know how to fight back.

-Rudey

I think it is a rare occurance that a university administration would stand behind a student affairs administrator ( a lower level position at that) in the case of a DUI. I know that if I did that at my institution, I'd be out on my butt so fast it would make your head spin. Judging by some of the responses to the article (on the Pitt news forum), there will be many people who won't let this die. I hope not, but my gut tells me this will come back to haunt Chris professionally.