Drunken driving laws don't prevent tragedies

ktuu ^

[Huck]

. We cannot legislate morality. We can pass laws that say, "You MAY do this, but you CANNOT do that." But, who's to enforce EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE at every single moment? Can't be done.

It is a good question to ask why a repeated offender is allowed into the general population to endanger the lives of more people. It seems to me if the penalty for second offense DUI were 15 years in prison, you'd see a behavioral change. Wouldn't convince every idiot. But a lot of them. Hence, it is a good question to ask if a repeat offender should be free at all.

[knews_hound]

That guy scares me.

AND he carries a badge...

Stunned is an understatement.

*knews hound shakes his head in amazement*

[FF578]

Well Honestly, Thank you for the thanks. You don't get many Thank You's in this job, and You don't expect it either, but it is still nice to hear.

[Kozak]

Bar lets out at 2:00 AM - most people are legally intoxicated, but given the percentages of wrecks caused versus the number of people driving intoxicated, the "DUI problem" is very insignificant

Look alcohol is involved in almost 50% of fatal car crashs, but the percentage of miles driven by people under the influence is a tiny percentage of all miles driven. Alcohol is a HUGE factor in auto fatalities. Your Idea of just prosecuting those who actually cause a wreck would be like prosecuting only those who actually hit people when they shoot at them with a gun.

[stands2reason]

What does B3 mean?

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

BINGO!

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Hmmm....

What about Jefferson's assertion that we recognize a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as guaranteed by Nature and Nature's God? He did not assert that man guaranteed these rights but that Nature's God guaranteed them and only then were governments instituted among men to uphold these rights by the consent of the governed. May I assume you disagree?