Comments about ‘Readers' forum: No DUI law is too strict’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 23 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser

Should simple assault be prosecuted the same as first degree murder? There are vast differences in DUI circumstances.


Death to drunk drivers! No, death is too good! We need to torture them slowly and brutally, with medieval implements of pain, and then throw them out in the gutter. In the rain.

Doug G

One drunk driver is too many. One child finding dads' gun in the house is not. One distracted driver is not. Several cigarette smokers per day...not. However many die from secondhand smoke...it is not too many. We rail agains the drunk drivers, and we should, but they're not the only ones making poor decisions with fatal results.


The average drinking driver wants exactly the same thing everybody else who drives does--to get where they're going safely and conveniently. The fact that they are SLIGHTLY worse at it than the average sober driver seems to drive our society nuts!

There are plenty of bigger problems to worry about than making our draconian DUI laws even more unreasonable.


"If our laws were stricter, we would have much less drunken driving"

This is simply not true and shows a lack of actual thought on the writers part.

Rail against DUI!

Hear, hear!

The big difference between DUI and ALL other activities cited by these smarmy defenders of drunks is this -- DUI is the readily predictable consequence of an unnecessary and indefensible vice.

That puts it in a COMPLETELY separate category from those other offenses committed during the careless pursuit of necessary or desirable everyday activities.

Innocent vitims of DUI are asked to involuntarily subsidize what selfish losers have come to regard as their "right to party."

And, of course, they are aided and abetted in this pillaging of innocents by the best politicians "hospitality industry" money can buy.

Sadly, because of that money, the carnage will continue until there is enough outrage to tackle the real problem -- the enablers and promoters in the "hospitality industry."

If we properly incentivize these feckless, but intelligent businessmen, THEY will come up with ways to stop the slaughter of innocents.

It's an easy fix -- liberalize dram shop laws and apply them to brewers, distillers, and distributors.

But, it won't happen until politicians think more of their contituents than they do of their contributors.

Common Sense Calling

RE: Rail against DUI! | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 23, 2009

"DUI is the readily predictable consequence of an unnecessary and indefensible vice."

So when I have a drink, it's easy to predict that I'm going to get a DUI, even though I don't drink?

"And, of course, they are aided and abetted in this pillaging of innocents by the best politicians "hospitality industry" money can buy."

Why is there a shortage of liquor licenses if the politicians have been bought off by the "hospitality industry"?

Are you really that paranoid, or have you just skipped your morning coffee and cigarette?


No law is too strict? Capital punishment?


Rail against DUI! | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 23, 2009 said "It's an easy fix -- liberalize dram shop laws and apply them to brewers, distillers, and distributors".

That is plain silly, not everyone who drinks will drive while drunk. That is akin to saying that because someone texts while driving we need to punish the cell phone companies.

It's not their fault

It's not the drunks fault they get drunk though. They are predisposed to getting drunk. They were born that way. The liberals would have us believe that nothing is ever anyone's fault(except Bush's) and that the rest of society should take an equal share of responsibility for someone else's dumb decisions in life.


To Common, Anon:

Why is it that I am expected to meekly and happily run the risk that you'll drink, then drive? Why should I pay for your "right to party?"

Would it be OK for me to walk through your living room twirling my hogleg pistol? I susptect you'd object, and rightly so. Why should you be required to pay for my "right to twirl?"

You shouldn't.

And I shouldn't be required to shoulder the entire burden of you drinking irresponsibly and driving when you're impaired.

That's why, even though I'm just as committed to my hogleg twirling as you are to your drinking, I don't object to restrictions on twirling, and I fully expect to pay the consequences of my negligence. I'm sure we both expect hogleg twirling promoters to ante up their fair share, as well.

So, unless you suggest partying occupies some favored, protected position in our society, you should have the same expectations for your hobby as I do for mine.

@ 8:57

"The liberals would have us believe that nothing is ever anyone's fault"

Strawman much? I could just as easily say that conservatives believe that women should wear burkas anytime they are in public. Its OK, I understand that as a conservative with the simple minded there is no way to define yourself without logical fallacies. (wow that is fun)


Having DUI laws does not stop drunks from getting behind the wheel of whatever vehicle they can find keys to. There is an answer to the problem since people will NEVER quit the alchol. Taking away a license does not work either. But now we have impaired individuals driving while trying to either text or dial cell phones. What the answer is, I'm not sure anyone knows. Until it is found, more people will suffer the consequences of bad decisions on the part of drivers who made them.


Stricter laws do not equal less drunken drivers. Better public transportation would be a much better solution to the problem. If people have more options of getting around, especially at night, that would help to reduce the problem.


While I agree that even one drunken driving accident is to many may I suggest that prevention is a far better way to reduce this risk then the threat of punishment if they get caught.

Oh Please

I am a liberal and I am in favor of the strictest possible DUI penalties. One violation, no license -- ever. You will pay a ruinous fine, you will never be insured, and you will never drive again. And if we catch you, you will really wish we hadn't.


In Norway, anyone caught driving with any alcohol in the blood receives a six month jail sentence and revocation of their driver's license for life.

To many people this may seem over the top, but Norwegians live with it and find other ways to get around when they have drunk alcohol. They take a bus, a taxi, or just walk. And the low number of highway deaths in that country is proof of the wisdom of the laws.

There is no reason why we can't impose the same restrictions.

To Anon | 10:19

There IS an answer to the problem!

The answer is to incentivize the enablers and promoters. Let the free-market, entrepenueurial juices flow!

Enablers like bar owners could insist drinking patrons show proof of a taxi or non-drinking buddy ride home. Distributors could enforce the rule by refusing to sell to high-risk establishments. Distillers and brewers could divert a tiny percentage of their billions in blood money profits to a fund used to police the rules and rehab the drunks.

Or, better yet -- let THEM, the enablers and promoters, come up with their own foolproof, yet cost-effective ways of protecting the innocent from the carnage that enriches them.

They're smarter about this than I am, being much closer to the problem.

At any rate -- the solution is clear and simple. It only requires us liberalize dram shop laws to incentivize the industry to do the right thing.

It would also be politically easy if it weren't for the dirty money injected into politics by the "hospitality industry."


It would be wonderful if we had specific laws in place that would guarantee no more DUIs would occur. It would be heaven if we could all leave our homes, knowing for sure we will all get to where we are going safe, but that's not possible.

The fact is, all the DUI laws in the world would stop certain people from getting blasted with booze, then getting behind the wheel of a car.

If you were to commit premediated murder and get caught, there's a pretty good chance you will either spend the rest of your life in prison, or you will face the death penalty. Laws don't get much stricter than that. But nevertheless, murders are still committed every day.


OOPS! I meant to say "won't stop." Sorry.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments