S. D. Attorney General Urges 24/7 DUI Monitoring Program

January 22, 2008

  • January 22, 2008 at 2:23 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As with the other blog in todays edition, the only way to stop these idiots is to impound their vehicle. First offense should be 6 months; second offense 1 year. Third offense make it illegal to own a vehicle and impound any vehicle the drunk drives. Is anyone else tired of catering to the deviants in society? Why are the courts and the legal system trying to trivialize everything? Until these people perceive a SERIOUS consequence to their deviant behavior nothing will change.

  • January 22, 2008 at 3:50 am
    former farmgirl says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    PUH-LEASE! These people aren’t deviants, they’re just DRUNK. Besides, deviant just means they don’t conform to your (and MADD’s) personal moral code. And besides that, when you take away their cars, you’ll have plenty of time to cure their “deviance” in the social service system, cuz they won’t be able to hold jobs anymore – there ain’t no public transit in SD. And besides that…have you ever been there? Staying drunk is pretty much the least distasteful and depressing option, frankly.

  • January 22, 2008 at 6:38 am
    KLS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the drunky drunks have to drive so effing badly (and amazingly enough, some do hold down jobs) then limit their vehicle speed to 25 mph.

    That way they can’t get on the highways, and having to find alternate routes will give them time to seriously consider entering rehab…

    Plus, if they do hit another vehicle, hopefully it will reduce the potential damage caused?

    Pedestrians and cyclists are unfortunately out of luck with this option. Regardless of speed, if a car hits a person injury is nearly inevitable.

    But it beats an ineffective slap on the hand.

  • January 23, 2008 at 7:54 am
    DWT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So can we assume from your comments that you beleive people have the right to drive drunk? Drive without insurance? Drive without a license?

    That’s one of the problems with our great society. We think that a slap on the hand and an encouraging word will fix everything. That is until that drunk, uninsured motorist or driver under suspension hits you or a loved one and then we’re up in arms as to why government can’t keep these people off the roads.

    Well here’s a surprise, it’s not governments job… it’s the peoples job to determine the penalty and unless we are ready to take a hard stand, nothing is going to ever happen.

  • January 23, 2008 at 10:56 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    here’s the problem i have w/that statute:

    1) why does the county have to implement the program and spend more tax dollars?

    2) in many states, they have made it mandatory to have in place a breathalyzer in the car for habitual offenders – at their own expense. in most cases they have to have it installed for at least 5 yrs.

    3) just because i go in and breathe, what makes you think i am going to drive my car! same goes if after installing the breathlyzer. way around this, is require them to be allowed to drive a vehicle that has one installed and driving a vehicle without can be just as costly as a dui.

    4) or the ultimate: give him a license that is marked as an habitual offender with red flags, that will not allow him to purchase alcohol and force the various vendors to pull id’s on all individuals purchasing alcohol.

    i think #3 is the better end of the bargain. because it really does not stop them just by going to the local county office. what if you wanted to take a vacation? or if you were to drive someone else’s vehicle?



Add a Comment

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

*