[Kozak]

I absolutely disagree with you on this issue. First the law only applies if you have a suspended or revoked liscense. No first time offender or "social" drinker will fall under this. You have to be a pretty serious alcoholic in most states to have your liscense suspended or revoked.

Second, the POINT of the suspension is to keep those fools off the road where they are a mortal threat to others. I see people injured by drunken drivers almost every day on my job. Frankly, I would make driving with a suspended liscense while intoxicated a jail quality felony. Enough is enough.

[chitownman]

If you are correct - then I agree with you. But from what I was told by various people, this law also applies to "first time offenders" for DUI's. The person's license doesn't necessarily have to be suspended to get your vehicle confiscated. Nor do you have to be thumbbing you nose at the judge, as the article suggests.

[raygun]

Lets make no distinctions, 100,000 people die anually as a result of physician mistakes.

The amount of people who die as a result of firearm accidents is 3 orders of magnitude (most likely as many factors) less.

I really couldn't tell you what the alchohol releated fatality figures are. In any event they are immaterial. Convince me that the traffic stop for speeding, or failure to wear the safety harness, or license plate light that was burnt out that resulted in a alchohol related infraction is something that a free society is willing to indulge.

Y'all know that there's now way in hell that the person who runs somebody over while drunk (most likely killing them) is going to jail forever. I know that there's been lively discussion on this forum about unalienable due process rights of individuals apprehended as a result of suspiscion of terrorism.

Supposing that I'd just drank several bottles of vodka. Or suppose that I'd just injected heroin into my bloodstream. Even if any of that could be ascertained scientifically, if I didn't run anybody over, and it could be demonstrated that I was not reckless or endangering anybody but myself, should I be considered to be no more than a common criminal. Perhaps when the crime becomes so common, but that's beside the point. My perspecive is that when I can't fly the jetliner, when I cause damage to others, then I'm at fault. At that point I'm a threat to society and society's legal/police force has jurisdiction. Wow what a concept, only prosecute those that actually cause damages to others. While one mightn't be prohibeted from driving (or flying) after injecting heroin, if anybody doing so incures any damages their ass is grass (in a big way and there's no government recourse).

[#3Fan]

No first time offender or "social" drinker will fall under this. You have to be a pretty serious alcoholic in most states to have your liscense suspended or revoked.

Not true. A first time offender can get a revoked liscense for 1 year if caught out of state.