What about AA or rehab? Without one of these, jail time will not stop the drinking. You’ll just use taxpayers money and disrupt the family. Drug diversion is by no means perfect but at least some times it works.
I would be all for it if we had reasonable BAC’s to go with these stupid laws that do nothing to save lives.
MADD propaganda does not inform you that of the majority of the 2,440 drivers with a BAC >= .08 that were involved in a multi-vehicle accident in 2008 where at least one person died were well over .16 BAC. How is it that drunk used to be .15, then .10 and now .08? Special interest lobbying.
Once MADD gets their little ignition interlock on every car in America, it will be programmed to a BAC of .02. That’s MADD’s little prohibition.
And no, I don’t support drunk driving. I happen not to look at the 5th Amendment as a loophole that needs closing like Mr Richardson in NM.
So, NM has one of the strictest laws on the books already. How come just last week a guy was arrested for the 13th DWI.What good are laws if they are not enforced. Richardson is just posturing.
And that’s what it’s going to take. Unless irresponsible people perceive a SIGNIFICAN consequence for their actions nothing will change. This will get their attention. If there’s a second conviction, it should be 30-days in the slammer and a 6 month license revocation. Society needs to stop tolerating people who ignore the law.
I suppose you are all for locking up people that have 2 or more speeding tickets in their lifetime as well Amy?
Being the smart individual you are, you already know the SOBERs that speed and drive inattentively are causing the majority of carnage and death on our roads.
Funny how Mr Richardson is still only giving $100 fines to those that are doing the majority of killing.
I love when people hoodwinked by propaganda call for ever harsher punishments. Look in the mirror Amy
Do we all agree that the more alcohol a person consumes, the more drunk they become, have a slower response time, take more risks… ie, drive less safely?
When people know they are going to drink and drive, are they thinking they can consume X number of drinks to stay under or near the legal drinking limit of .08? With that in mind, if we were to LOWER the limit to .06, people might consume less, trying to stay under or near the limit? Would that lower the # of drunks on the road?
Conversely, if we were to RAISE the limit, people think they could drink more? Would that raise the # more drunks on the road?
Just a question.
Go ahead, anti-MADD people. Hit me with your FARS propaganda… which, by the way, I am not convinced is any better than the MADD propaganda.
But let’s not do it half-arsed. How about a zero tolerance policy? Why don’t we start arresting people on their way home from church if they’ve taken Communion. After all, impairment begins with the first drink!
Our elected officials rely on studies and research by third party groups, to decide what the legal limit should be, to make the road safe for everyone. Based on this information, it has been decided that to drink in excess of that limit, an individual is not considered a “safe driver” and should be punished. What’s wrong with that? Oh, wait. The collected data was not from FARS. Ahhh, yes. Now I see it. The only real truth in this situation can be found in FARS and anything else is propaganda, trying to take away our most basic liberties. Wow! Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.
NM has laws already in place. The problem is the defense lawyers that find a loophole to get their client off 2, 3 and more times & judges that don’t enforce the laws. We had an 18 year old that has 3 priors.
The new law will simply give defense lawyers more clients.
What about AA or rehab? Without one of these, jail time will not stop the drinking. You’ll just use taxpayers money and disrupt the family. Drug diversion is by no means perfect but at least some times it works.
That would be a powerful deterrent for most people.
I would be all for it if we had reasonable BAC’s to go with these stupid laws that do nothing to save lives.
MADD propaganda does not inform you that of the majority of the 2,440 drivers with a BAC >= .08 that were involved in a multi-vehicle accident in 2008 where at least one person died were well over .16 BAC. How is it that drunk used to be .15, then .10 and now .08? Special interest lobbying.
Once MADD gets their little ignition interlock on every car in America, it will be programmed to a BAC of .02. That’s MADD’s little prohibition.
And no, I don’t support drunk driving. I happen not to look at the 5th Amendment as a loophole that needs closing like Mr Richardson in NM.
So, NM has one of the strictest laws on the books already. How come just last week a guy was arrested for the 13th DWI.What good are laws if they are not enforced. Richardson is just posturing.
LOL you hit the nail on the head!
And that’s what it’s going to take. Unless irresponsible people perceive a SIGNIFICAN consequence for their actions nothing will change. This will get their attention. If there’s a second conviction, it should be 30-days in the slammer and a 6 month license revocation. Society needs to stop tolerating people who ignore the law.
I’m a believer in strong laws against drunk driving, but this is serious overkill. Let’s just enforce the existing laws.
I suppose you are all for locking up people that have 2 or more speeding tickets in their lifetime as well Amy?
Being the smart individual you are, you already know the SOBERs that speed and drive inattentively are causing the majority of carnage and death on our roads.
Funny how Mr Richardson is still only giving $100 fines to those that are doing the majority of killing.
I love when people hoodwinked by propaganda call for ever harsher punishments. Look in the mirror Amy
When does it end?? I can beat a man half to death and get a softer penalty than if I have three beers on my way home from work and get pulled over.
Penalty of over two thousand dollars?? Is this really helping anyone?
Do we all agree that the more alcohol a person consumes, the more drunk they become, have a slower response time, take more risks… ie, drive less safely?
When people know they are going to drink and drive, are they thinking they can consume X number of drinks to stay under or near the legal drinking limit of .08? With that in mind, if we were to LOWER the limit to .06, people might consume less, trying to stay under or near the limit? Would that lower the # of drunks on the road?
Conversely, if we were to RAISE the limit, people think they could drink more? Would that raise the # more drunks on the road?
Just a question.
Go ahead, anti-MADD people. Hit me with your FARS propaganda… which, by the way, I am not convinced is any better than the MADD propaganda.
Good idea.
But let’s not do it half-arsed. How about a zero tolerance policy? Why don’t we start arresting people on their way home from church if they’ve taken Communion. After all, impairment begins with the first drink!
Our elected officials rely on studies and research by third party groups, to decide what the legal limit should be, to make the road safe for everyone. Based on this information, it has been decided that to drink in excess of that limit, an individual is not considered a “safe driver” and should be punished. What’s wrong with that? Oh, wait. The collected data was not from FARS. Ahhh, yes. Now I see it. The only real truth in this situation can be found in FARS and anything else is propaganda, trying to take away our most basic liberties. Wow! Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.
Ohh trust me, our elected officials rely on a LOT more than just pesky facts and figures. Most of it quite suspect.
NM has laws already in place. The problem is the defense lawyers that find a loophole to get their client off 2, 3 and more times & judges that don’t enforce the laws. We had an 18 year old that has 3 priors.
The new law will simply give defense lawyers more clients.