Massachusetts Falls Short Fighting Drunken Driving

November 17, 2010

  • November 17, 2010 at 1:05 am
    Compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A drunk doesn’t need a license to drive. They will drive anyways. Also as long as the Kennedy’s stay in MA, the state will always have drunk driving problems.

  • November 17, 2010 at 3:34 am
    Jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Many State Reps and State Senators in MA have a vested interest in the system since they represent people accused of DUI (including my current State Senator, who is part of the leadership).

  • November 17, 2010 at 6:37 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    sounds to me like that legislature is having a few extra drinks on the house! how many times does it take to see that we need these folks off the road? how many times do we allow them to have an opportunity to cause harm? some states are just about revenue instead of removing the habit. can’t wait to see those affected finally suing the gov’t for keeping these folks on the road with valid licenses.

    example is the one kid that was killed by a driver, although he had not been drinking that night, but did have over 3 dui’s and should not have had his license to begin with. here’s a case, where it was not a dui related vehicular manslaughter. yet, he could have not had a license because of his habitual offenses.

    so where do we stop and start? where do we give folks another chance? how long should they wait til they start again driving? or is it truly forever?

  • November 19, 2010 at 3:55 am
    observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree. It’s all about revenue. Those who can afford the legal fees can get around the “conviction”, therefore, avoiding the consequences. Pitiful. Where’s the ethics in that?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*