woods (12/10/82)
You're damn right there's a flame coming! I was once convicted of an alcohol
related offense (details are irrelevent). It was a product of an exremely bad
period in my life psychologically. I was really depressed and didn't really
care what happened to me. On the night in question I had had way too many
drinks (by which I mean I wasn't even close to the limit). I wrapped my car
around a light pole and totalled a $2000 car, spent a night in jail, lost my
license for 6 months, and now pay outrageous insurance rates. It is true that
I deserved all this. However, it was only *one bad night* and it is now in the
past, and I want it to stay that way. I am glad I am not *branded*.
I don't think it's a good idea to brand first offenders for life. I think
we should stop nitpicking on this issue and stop passing tough-looking
legislation that really doesn't address the heart of the matter, which is
people with alcohol problems who may honestly want to reform, but the
physical disease these people have makes it certain that it is only a matter
of time before they drive again while drunk. In this case, fooling around
with different color plates is totally ridiculous, we should keep these
people off the road altogether! Revoke their licenses, don't waste time and
money on different color plates. That is the stupidest idea I've heard since
Reagan's plan for our defense (why do you think they call it dense pack..)
I think the current laws are adequate for non-alcoholic drunk drivers.
I paid a pretty heavy price for what I did.
The important thing in addressing the drunk driving problem is to
differentiate between the habitual offender and the one-time stupidity.
And let's keep the alcoholics off the road and stop fooling around with
token answers that accomplish nothing.
I too have an asbestos suit,
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodsmark (12/11/82)
I once knew an alcoholic drunk driver. He got arrested for drunk driving frequently. After about the third time, his license was suspended for 6 months. (This was in Ohio.) He got out of jail after a couple days and started driving again. Next time he was arrested for drunk driving and driving without a license, his suspension was extended 6 months and he spend a couple more days in jail. This happened a few more times and eventually his license was suspended permanently. He still drives, he still gets arrested, and he still only spends a few days in jail each time. He even legally owns his car! The point here is that suspending the license of a drunk driver is not enough - they'll drive anyway. You have to go further - confiscate their car (don't just let them sell/give it to a relative who will let them borrow it) and have exponentially increasing jail terms. By the way, while in principle I like the idea of distinguishing between alcoholics and one-nighters, the distinction would probably just prove to be a challenge to a lawyer to prove his/her client is in the latter category. Also, there ARE reformed alcoholics who don't drink any more and are perfectly safe to drive (as long as they don't drink). I hope the Penna law does not permanently brand people with special plates, but that rather going x years without an arrest reverts you to normal status, even if you are an alcoholic.
heliotis (12/13/82)
Why don't the police just keep a good file on who is a recent DWI offender? It is my impression that most police outfits at least have the ability to radio a query in to a central office, so someone can check out the offender's record on a computer file. It seems to me that this will help people those useless warnings cops give out. Have you ever been hundreds of miles from home and have a cop say to you, "OK, I'll let you go this time, but don't let me catch you doing it again."? (OOPS! Sorry about that sentence in the middle. I gotta get an editor attached to this.) No special license plates! Jim Heliotis