How about a pill you must take that takes away urge to drink forever.would that be ok with our society...we are heading there
-
-
Or just attach a breathalizer to every car made. Blow into it and the car won't start if you are lit.. Won't be any drunk driving then..Comment -
How about mandatory 1 year minimum prison sentence for 1st drunk driving conviction or plea deal? It is a 100% preventable crime and fairly obvious the current laws aren’t working due to excessive recidivism rate.
There is no excuse to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while intoxicated.Comment -
There should be a serious penalty if you blow above .20 . Throwing someone In jail for a year or even a few days for drinking 5 beers and blowing a .10 is a joke thoughComment -
Stiffer penalties always work!!! I'd like to see an automatic death sentence for each 1st degree murder charge found guilty and the death carried out immediately with no appeals.. Gang shootings would certainly go down over night, violent crimes as well.
Everyone in jail now for a proven guilty 1st degree murder charge should all be taken out as well. Jails would be freed up in no time.. If you kill an innocent person in cold blood for robbery or greed you should have no right to live yourself, bottom line!!!
I'm a firm believe in that. That would be equal justice.. Our laws are soft in the States and more innocent people unfortunately will die for it.Comment -
<------------- Nope.....
Man, alcohol is so good! I mean, an ice cold draft I.P.A. as the game's about to start, or a whiskey/rocks and a cigar after a steak & potato meal.....
Uber/Lyft is everywhere - just don't be a DUMBA$$ and drive intoxicated. Simple as that.....Comment -
how about we ban alcohol???Comment -
Comment -
You cannot do that. In some states, a 1 year mnimum prison sentence is a Felony conviction. There is no way that any judge would think that blowing a .09 is worth a felony conviction. It would be too easy for the attorneys to get around that and the Supreme Court would throw it out immediately. Again, forcing a person to blow in a breathalizer is a much better way. And before they get any ideas, make it a felony to breath in one to help a drunk start his vehicle.Comment -
That's a good solution in a vacuum, but how many of the people found guilty for murder (or any lesser crime, for that matter) are actually guilty? I think it's the majority, but majority isn't close enough when it comes to the death penalty. Read a newspaper for a year straight and see how many people across the country are released from prison because of scientific advances (usually concerning DNA) that weren't available when they were tried. If a man is found guilty and convicted of murder, we should give him a life sentence. If something happens years later that shows that he may have been wrongly convicted, we can at least attempt to make amends for taking away his freedom, but if we kill him and it is later discovered that is guilt is doubtful, we cannot fix that. Death penalty may seem fair as a concept, but as long as cops, attorneys, judges, and juries are all human beings, the possibility of error (whether innocent mistakes or malfeasance) is entirely too strong.Comment -
I would suggest to you as would most (if not all) public health officials, that the cost of alcohol use far outweighs the taxes it brings in. Mental health, physical health, violence, the list goes on and on.
Do I think it's realistic to reenact prohibition? Probably not. We should have a discussion about it though.Comment -
Current laws are punitive an ineffective.
They discrimate against rural communities.
Old DUI % was.15, strong sentencing along those lines would be fair.
Current .08 law a slim lady on empty stomach could blow w one martini or an athlete, in ketosis, could blow after 2 beers.
Self driving cars will eliminate this but the real issue is the driver who doesn't skip a curb, swerve, cause injury or damage yet is pulled over for "failure to signal a turn".... is that probable cause for a DUI test? Then he blows a .09 and spends the weekend in county.
We have too many police, and they selectively enforce. If there is no reckless driving, no accidents, no injury and no damages then I say there is no crime.Comment -
Self driving cars would solve that problem.. Hard to trust those on the streets if that's all there was, one malfunction here and there and that will cause deathly accidents as well..Comment -
Cars have mechanical problems at times which self driving smart cars might not be able to compute and compensate for like humans..
For example - Blow out tire on freeways, braking and driving in very harsh weather, the quick responses in flash situations like when a little kid darted out in the road and you need to swerve. So many intangibles to account for when driving..
I don't think we have arrived yet with our current technology when trusting self driving cars.. How about if the accelerator sticks, brakes fail, the transmission goes at high speeds, etc?
I'll trust a human to deal with those problems in the crunch over a self driving sensor computer driven car.. I want to be at the controls in those situations..Comment -
Millions of miles have been logged already - and that number will grow exponetially as more cars are sold and run semi or fully.. Have you ever seen the average person deal with a tire blowout? An ice skid? There's proper ways to react. What % of people react properly (in your view). Maybe you're in the top 0.1% of drivers who is calm when they go into an uncontrolled skid or have a vehicle in front of them slam on the brakes. Self driving cars aren't meant to replace the 0.1%. The 0.1% will unfortunately (to them) be swept up in it too.
In the end, we'll see driving fatalities drop more dramatically than when seatbelts were implemented into vehicles, and then made mandatory in most locales.
I get that you want to be in control in those situations. However, when it's provable (and it will be) that self driving cars are multiple times safer than the average driver, it'll become unfeasable for most people to insure their vehicles (as insurance companies will treat "own" drivers much like they do 17 year old males with drivers licenses...as might higher risk)
There will always be scenarios "what if you have to swerve and kill a kid in order to not hit a bus of kids". There will always be an element of randomness. However, the VAST majority of accidents are caused by people simply not paying attention to their surroundings, or driving according to the road/weather conditions.Comment -
^^^^
Comment -
How us that law constitutional? A Govt mandate to blow into a meter to start an engine would violate 4th and 5th ammendment (along the lines of implied consent) and doesn't have any bearing on weed consumption, fatigue, ketosis, prescription meds, etc
If theres no accident, no swerving, no damage then what is the crime?
I'm not a fan of the game police play using bullshit reasons as probable cause to pull people over. It's really just a quota game.Comment -
No. But once a person proves they can't be trusted and they DUI, they should have to have one installed in their car for the rest of their life. And if they are caught driving a car without one, they lose their license forever. And if they're caught driving after that, it's a long term prison sentence.
Let's put it this way: If I walk into a crowded shopping mall, close my eyes and fire a gun in random directions without hurting anyone, would I ever be able to legally own a gun again?
So why can DUIers ever have a driver's license again?Comment
..
