Make that three.

I'm assuming this will be the same for marijuana DUIs as well when it becomes legal in KY?

 

A DUI is a DUI...your drink, or drug of choice is irrelevant in the end.

I'm normally an extreme libertarian and anti regulations. But it would seem the more efficient stop would be to mandate car manufacturers to put a breathing device on all new models.

 

Stricter laws don't stop crime it's proven over and over. It just increases prison population. Like drug users , most multiple time offenders have a disease or problem.

 

I'm not for drinking and driving I'm just for the most sensible solution.

 

2 problems with this.

 

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.

A breathalyzer device on the car will do absolutely nothing to stop people from driving high on marijuana, meth, heroin, etc.

A breathalyzer device on the car will do absolutely nothing to stop people from driving high on marijuana, meth, heroin, etc.

 

No way HB, I'm pretty sure no one in NKY at least shoots up heroin and then get's behind the wheel of a car. :ohbrother: I can think of at least 3-4 fatal car wrecks in the past year that involved someone on heroin behind the wheel. Sadly in most cases they weren't the ones that died as a result of their actions.

I 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.

2 problems with this.

 

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.

 

Owning a car or driving isn't a right it's a privilege. So comparing to gun ownership isn't apples to apples.

 

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.

 

Owning a car or driving isn't a right it's a privilege. So comparing to gun ownership isn't apples to apples.

 

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.

 

I've been drunk several times in my life. I have been very drunk several times in my life.

 

Never once drove a car. That's an excuse I'm not buying.

 

Punishing them keeps them off the road while they're in jail at least...

The 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.