That’s because they know that they have no need to fear punishment, true punishment. They know that those like me who would willingly and gladly dish stuff out, are shackled by certain restrictions that they are not under.

They know this and they feel comfort in it. They are protected from the law, by the law, with the law. First Amendment rights, after all.

GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.

From a Sutter Home wine.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I grew up in a neighborhood without bars or drinkers.
The only place I ever saw anyone drink was at a wedding or Bar Mitzvah and even then it was moderate drinking. The only drinking we did at home was wine during Passover.

I am not a teetotaler, but the state controlled liquor stores would go out of business if they depended upon my meager purchases to keep them in business.

The ‘Cheech and Chong’ years have come and gone and hopefully, so will all the junk science. Maybe if they place a carbon footprint on booze……?

My church was very big in Prohibition, and still requires teetotalism along with no smoking. Yet, our medical people (we’re also very big in health care of all kinds), pastors, and others have LOTS to say about smoking, including lobbying government to limit it in various ways – taxes, bans, etc. – but, when it comes to alcohol, the story is entirely different – nothing much.

There is one doc at the medical school who dug around in the literature and came up with plenty to show that all of this stuff about ethyl alcohol being associated with longer life is a crock – terminally (embarrassingly) flawed studies are the only ones cited – but otherwise nothing much.

I guess it’s just cultural – I remember (was it?) the ’70s, when cocaine was common and virtually accepted, although illegal. I mean, jokes, music, movies, etc……despite the negative effects personally and societally. Now it’s completely different, and one could never get away with what was common back then.

When I was a kid, there was MUCH more negativity about DUI than now in the general culture, and certainly in my church. Today, members on the left coast are moving rapidly toward eliminating (not officially) the proscription on beverage alcohol (citing, by the way, the junk science saying that it’s really healthier to drink moderately than to abstain). It parallels what I see in society generally – BIG emphasis on smoking, which is really a rather more benign vice, and nothing but approval for alcohol, which exacts such a toll on many individuals, including innocent bystanders, plus the costs to society.

Puzzling. I am also noticing that this thread isn’t attracting a lot of action……

I have no idea as to why legislation has not been done. It’s certainly been done with cell phones and driving at the same time. It will probably have to start as a ‘grass roots’ push, then shove, then start shoving with an elbow.

Maybe, there are more ‘drinkers’ in DC than smokers and therefore the lack of will. The stats have been at the same level for many years on drunk drivers.

My Dad used to tell about one of the Scandinavian countries where there simply was NO problem with drunk driving — virtually EVERY group chose a designated driver, because a DUI cost you your license for a year for the *first* offense, and it was mandatory.

Driving without a license during that year, or a second offense afterward meant loss of the vehicle and a year in jail. Penalties escalated and there was no way to ameliorate them – do the crime and do the time.

We could save a LOT of lives….for the price of a small amount of inconvenience. Why don’t we?

P.S. Details of Dad’s story may not be correct, because my memory isn’t nearly as good as his was.

When I was in elementary school a friend was killed in a gun accident with his older brother. There was no crying in our classrooms, nor discussion of his death. It was a different generation, a different era. Stiff upper lip and muddle through, old chap.

I do recognize that I, for one ,would have been better off had there been some discussion of it. Acknowledged or not , the devastation was there.

NOT ANY on a bottle of wine, beer, or alcohol. Not that this would stop anyone from drinking the liquid but a warning that says:

If the contents of any container and driver are found together in a vehicle (and as Earl suggested):

“first one, five years on the second, and 20 years on the third”

Oh, no juries after the first offense, just a judge who hands down the sentence.

I’m betting that Moms like the ones you describe were among the jurors who were “understanding” each time our “six-DUI” creep appeared for judgment….and the leniency he got was because their imaginations were good enough to tell them what MIGHT have happened on one of those occasions when you weren’t along to drive them home…..

No one sees themself as an evil person, and no one wants to risk going to jail for what they consider a “slip-up”. It is that that inhibits their willingness to hold another person responsible for what they can view as a similar action…. After all, it’s not the same jurors making the judgment each time this freak appeared in court, and I’m betting that information about his prior record was barred from the proceedings, so letting him off each time he was in court didn’t seem so terrible. It’s the cumulative effect that’s killing us.

It’s likely that a most drinkers really are responsible about their driving, and combining those folks with those of us who don’t drink, we ought to be able to put people who offend in this way somewhere they won’t threaten us the way they do. But, we don’t do it…..why?

Maybe no one you know is in the group I’m talking about….but it’s still happening…..and, to be honest, the rest of us are going along. Why? Because it’s easier than getting active….because most of us don’t know one of the 20,000 to 25,000 people annually killed by drunk drivers….because we are likely to be attacked and called names if we start agitating for serious penalties….because…..

You tell ME why we don’t actually *apply* even the insufficient penalties currently in place, not to speak of more draconian ones that are consistent with the mayhem caused by this crime….Why don’t we?