We are not going to stop people from drinking, so the goal is to stop those that have been, from driving. The most effective means of accomplishing this is to create a negative public perception of the act as being socially unacceptable, much as has occurred with cigarette smoking over the past ten years or so.
             We need to concentrate on educating our youth to the dangers of drinking and driving, and make the completion of such education a stringent requirement of obtaining a drivers license. This emphasis on prevention of the problem by changing attitudes would yield the greatest long-term results.
             I believe the existing laws are sufficiently clear and fair enough to effectively address the issue from a legal standpoint. There should, however be some modification of the existing enforcement and penalties in order to strengthen their deterrent effect. The severity of punishment should be to the extent that "non alcohol-dependent" individuals would not be willing to take the risk, and in fact take precautionary actions to avoid the possibility.
             After the first offense, a comprehensive evaluation should be made of each person convicted of DUI, as to whether they fit pre established criteria that indicate a probability they are alcohol or drug "dependent". I don't think the thought of potential consequences has much effect on an "alcohol-dependent" person, and any person identified as such should not be allowed to regain a driver's license without substantive evidence of successful abstinence and recovery. The burden of proof should rest on the offender, in order for them to ever regain a license.
             An individual deemed "non alcohol-dependent" would have their license suspended for a specific period. Both categories would also face jail time and fines.
             Conviction of a second offense would carry an automatic assumption that the person wa
             ...