3 ms·
You don't have to add a disclaimer about not condoning drunk driving. That you felt it was necessary says quite a bit about how we've been groomed to accept the
by noarchy 15y ago
You don't have to add a disclaimer about not condoning drunk driving. That you felt it was necessary says quite a bit about how we've been groomed to accept these checkpoints.
- nasmorn 15y agoThe problem is that DUI is actually dangerous and the threat of being punished when you do kill someone does not deter people enough. Plus they obviously have low regard for their own life already. You need to threaten them with something that happens more frequently. Tada DUI checkpoints and losing your license or money.
- noarchy 15y agoSince DUIs have not stopped, even with checkpoints, what are you suggesting should be done beyond this?
- yolesaber 15y agoProblem: these DUI checkpoints are un-Constitutional and violate the 4th amendment. Lawrence Taylor has written an excellent article about the dangers of such "DUI exceptions" to the Constitution - http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.htm http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/lawrence-taylor.h...
- king_jester 15y agoThe actual fundamental problem is that in many locations alternatives to driving (drunk or otherwise) take longer or are more expensive. Cities with strong public transit and better city planning help mitigate drunk driving because it no longer necessary to drive after drinking to go somewhere.