(Rep. Jim) Clark, who was convicted of DUI himself 10 years ago, isn’t the only Idahoan concerned about the huge number of drunken driving cases that appear in courthouses throughout the state every day, or the number of automobile collisions caused by people who risk their own and others’ lives by driving when they shouldn’t. It seems no penalty is great enough to deter some people from such recklessness. But a law with no enforcement mechanism is worse than no law at all. It only encourages disrespect for laws in general, and the people who write them/Jim Fisher, Lewiston Tribune. More here.
Question: Would you support a bill like Jim Clark’s to prevent repeat DUI offenders from getting alcohol, if it meant you’d have to show your ID every time you bought beer, wine or booze?
Rosalind on March 13 at 11:11 a.m.
Yes! I’d support even more strict laws like those in other countries:
1st: Fines, Jail Time, Temporary License Suspension
2nd: Permanent loss of license
3rd: Prison
Arch_Druid on March 13 at 11:15 a.m.
I think you’d have to show a copy of your DUI arrest record. Or Clark would have to initiate a Brady bill for alcohol sales. For those of us who don’t buy alcohol unless we use it in cooking, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. For those inclined to make their own, it also wouldn’t matter one way or the other. There are recipes LOL! for making both wine and beer.
Cis on March 13 at 3:04 p.m.
This will stop them as much as it stops, teens from getting booze.
Transplanted_Texan on March 13 at 9:19 p.m.
Well this youngin’ shows his ID everytime anyway. :P Fischer’s point is well taken, as are privacy concerns, but the ID pain-in-the-neck reasoning wouldn’t stop me.