Page 2 of Make that three.... 23 comments | 787 Views | Go to page 1 →
Jan 20, 16, 10:31 PM #16
Jan 21, 16, 07:10 PM #17
Jan 21, 16, 07:29 PM #18
- Join Date
- Aug 03
1. Who pays for the new technology? Law abiding citizens who don't drink would.
2. Just like the whole gun control debate, people who are intent on going out on a bender and driving home will just drive older cars without the technology.
And the disease doesn't make them get behind the wheel. That's the criminal act, not the drinking.
Jan 21, 16, 07:41 PM #19A breathalyzer device on the car will do absolutely nothing to stop people from driving high on marijuana, meth, heroin, etc.
Jan 21, 16, 08:08 PM #20
- Join Date
- Aug 04
Jan 21, 16, 08:46 PM #21I just don't think stiffer penalties for drug abusers solves anything. Do we not learn from history.
Listen it's just different opinions. I don't believe stiffer sentences solves anything when it comes to drug use. We need to be more creative and think a little more. We can't continue to repeat past society mistakes.
Jan 21, 16, 08:49 PM #22
I never understand people when they say the last line . The whole reason we don't want drunks driving is because it alters there motor skills , reaction time and decision making. But I'm suppose to believe a drunk or a drunk addict high has the mental capacity when they are under influence to make the correct decision ?
Of course the drug influences the decision making.
Jan 22, 16, 04:32 AM #23
Jan 25, 16, 02:56 PM #24The problem I've seen with multiple DUI charges is sometimes in smaller communities where most of the County's population know one another a second or third DUI charge is occasionally amended to a lesser charge to help avoid more serious penalties, such as a felony charge.