Blogs Car Info Our Show Deals Mechanics Files Vehicle Donation

Don't drive drunk in NJ

…unless you want a very high assurance of jail time in the event that you kill someone. Thank goodness that our esteemed governor finally put his Krispy Kreme donuts down long enough to agree with the legislature on this bill:

I agree

If you kill somebody, because of your actions, there should be prison time

This coming from somebody who drove drunk MANY times, over a long period of time . . . but as I’ve mentioned before, I changed quite some time ago, and don’t do such things any more

I had nobody to blame but myself. The crowd I was hanging with weren’t exactly role models, either. But ultimately, only I was to blame. I made my own decisions. Nobody forced me to drink and drive drunk

Waiting for someone who drives drunk to kill someone before imposing jail time is closing the barn door after the horse is gone.


What do you propose?

I . . . for one . . . never got busted

Would you have drunk drivers turn themselves in, before something happens?

That’s not a likely situation

If you want to wait until they get busted, how much jail/prison time is appropriate, assuming nobody is hurt? For example, they fail a field sobriety test, and no accident involved.

Or how about this scenario . . . based that article . . . EVERY driver has to pass a breathalyzer test before the engine will be permitted to start, no exceptions whatsoever. No preferential treatment. Equal treatment for all. Everybody has to prove they’re not drunk. But how would you make sure that the proper person is blowing into the breathalyzer?

Just another joke. 3 years for killing someone, probably getting paroled after 1.5 years…? Why not stiffen sentences from the first drunk driving ticket, 2nd ticket one year mandatory jail. These days one can read over and over how many get 5,6 and a dozen tickets without serious consequences.

Why are there parking lots around bars?

1 Like

I propose we stop charging drunk drivers with DWI or DUI, and start charging them with attempted murder. The ones who get away with driving drunk will still get away with it, but he penalties for those who haven’t killed anyone yet might be stiff enough to act as a deterrent, and create a bigger incentive to call a taxi.

Even though I also feel that many repeat convicted dui drivers get too many chances, I don’t agree with your proposal

I am not making any excuse for drunk driving . . . I had none, as I’ve already mentioned

So some hypothetical husband who went out with his wife to dinner, and had 2 glasses of wine with his dinner, instead of 1, over the course of 1-1/2 hours, and is now legally dui at the random checkpoint should be charged with attempted murder?

How about charging everybody carrying an unlicensed firearm with attempted murder, while we’re at it.

That wasn’t a serious suggestion, by the way

I feel there is no one-size-fits-all solution


There are not enough jail cells in Chicago or Baltimore.

You say you’re not making excuses, and then you describe a scenario where you attempt to justify it.

If you extract all the superfluous information form your scenario, you can make this a simple matter. If the person was driving a motor vehicle and has a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, none of the other excuses matter.

As to your gun analogy, I can responsibly own a gun without it becoming a danger to anyone else, so your analogy is fallacious. Driving drunk is more akin to pointing a loaded firearm at an unarmed innocent bystander. Just because you didn’t pull the trigger doesn’t mean I’m going to let you off the hook for pointing a loaded weapon at someone.

Trust me when I say this: Having two close friends whose loved ones were killed by drunk drivers, I obviously take it more seriously than the confessed serial drunk driver with whom I am debating. One of my friends lost her mother to a drunk driver. The other lost his father to a dunk driver. To them, driving while drunk looks a lot like attempted murder.

Did you somehow miss the part that it wasn’t a serious suggestion . . . ?!

1 Like

It is not simple and never will be. Whether you or I feel good about the outcome of a trial for DUI is immaterial. The way you seem to put it, people accursed of DUI have no excuse and must be locked away for a decade or two. Everyone deserves their day in court, and the way you put it, it seems that you are trying to short circuit that process.

1 Like

If you want to take the moral high ground, have at it

You seem to know what’s going in my head better than I do

You could make a lot of money with one of these :crystal_ball:

I already told you in previous discussions that I no longer engage in such behaviour. But that doesn’t excuse my previous actions. Whether you believe me or not is up to you.

You know what . . . if you by chance do NOT believe me, go ahead and call me a liar, if you feel like it. I’m a big boy. I can take it. But just remember this . . . just because you believe something, doesn’t necessarily make it so

You can lead this discussion. It’s no longer fun, when somebody tries to pin you down and put words in your mouth. Congratulations! :clap: This particular discussion has now lost one valued member of our online community, thanks to you. I don’t know if that was your goal, but the end result is the same :thumbsup:

I agree. This isn’t about making me feel good. What makes you think this is about wanting to make myself feel good about the outcome? There is nothing about imprisonment that makes me feel good. I see imprisonment of the guilty as the lesser of two evils, the better of two bad outcomes.

I never said that, or anything even close to that. In fact. both of these statements of yours look like straw men.

I agree everyone deserves a day in court, and I would never want to short circuit that process. I simply want to change the crime they’re charged with. What is so difficult to understand about this that makes you come at me with three straw man positions that I would never agree to?

@jtsanders, you’re better than this. You don’t need to redefine my argument to make it look unreasonable and make it easier to attack. If there’s something I haven’t covered that you’d like me to discuss, feel free to ask.

…and I never said that you currently engage in this behavior. I referred to you as a serial drunk driver because you confessed to repeatedly engaging in the crime, not because I think you still do it.

That’s the way I read your previous post. You could have explained your position more fully to correct misconceptions, but instead you went overboard in your response. That makes me wonder again if you have a lot invested in this emotionally.

1 Like

You get all that from this?

When I go back and reread that, I think I explained my position well enough. I explained it in plain English as plainly as possible. Again, if you have questions about what I wrote, feel free to ask. I’m happy to answer as many questions as you want to ask.

Let’s stop pretending you read any of your purported emotional outburst in my previous post, and admit you’re projecting your emotions onto me.

We’ve known each other a long time, and up until now, we’ve treated each other with relative respect. If you keep trying to put words in my mouth, that’s going to end.

Oof, it’s getting a bit heated. DUI is so stigmatized (rightly!) I think everybody should be cautious before commenting. db acknowledged the poor judgment he’d used, and even behind a username on a screen such an admission left him exposed. Respect that. (Note I’m not saying respect the behavior - db said as much himself.) I think that the death toll must also be respected. Whitey mentioned he’s known jtsanders a while and that each has consistently afforded the other respect. Perhaps that benefit of the doubt should be extended until conclusively proven otherwise. To do that, everybody should slow down and ask questions first (about the argument, not personal character).