Yeah, I know, some people are against drunk driving, and I call those people 'the cops.' But you know, sometimes, you've just got no choice; those kids gotta get to school!
I'm not for drunk driving - however, the states ought to decide. Different states have different penalties for drunk driving because they're states and they get to do that. If people of one state want to be lighter on drunk drivers, they're wrong. That's their business.
Zero-tolerance on drinking and driving - meaning no drinking at all before driving - is a collective punishment that, in essence, only affects responsible adults who follow the law.
Our challenge is to stop people from driving drunk. Punishing them afterwards doesn't bring back the victim or make the family feel better. The idea is to stop the DWI before it happens.
If the Internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they're a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?
Getting stopped for drunk driving in those days might mean that your entire career was over then. Not today.
There's no question that we need tougher drunk-driving laws for repeat offenders. We need to take a lesson from European countries where driving isn't a right but a privilege.
Death by drunken driving is a socially acceptable form of homicide.
In response to the advocacy of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, most states adopted tougher laws to punish drunk driving. Numerous states now have some type of mandatory sentencing for this offense - typically two days in jail for a first offense and two to ten days for a second offense. Possession of a tiny amount of crack cocaine, on the other hand, was given a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.
