I’m not a raging alcoholic, I don’t drink and drive, but I’ve been stopped in sobriety checkpoints. Readers of this blog know that sober people have been arrested for OUI.

It’s hard to get the real numbers, since if anyone in an accident has any connection with alcohol it’s labeled “alcohol related”. They tell me that cell phone users are as impaired as drunk drivers. I’ve driven with a cell phone, and I haven’t found it to be a particular impairment.

What he should have done was introduced a bill that says DUI offenders aren’t entitled to due process or any other Constitutional guarantee, and they they are to be summarily executed.

People who really believe something are immune to sarcasm.

Perhaps he went into this with the best of intentions, but it’s the wrong way to do it…trying for the subtle point to educate is generally lost on the electorate because they’re not paying close enough attention (or they’ll often misinterpret the intent as you think you may have done). It’s not usually that worthwhile to try with other politicians because they’re going to be most responsive to their electorate…so if the electorate thinks harsh drunk driving laws are a good idea, the politicians are still going to vote for them because it helps them to get re-elected. If politicians want to fix those attitudes they need to take the direct route and hopefully educate the public as to why harsher drunk driving laws often don’t accomplish their intended goals…unfortunately many politicians aren’t willing to take the risk that their positions will eventually cost them their jobs.