LETTER OF THE DAY: If there's one thing that makes me want to hit something (or someone), it's the cretinous stupidity of those who repeatedly drive under the influence, endangering the lives of those of us who respect other road users and stay within the limits.
There is argument from some that we should have a zero alcohol intake if we go out using our cars.
However, that penalises the responsible persons who find a glass of wine, or whatever else they may enjoy, pleasant with their meal.
There needs be no prohibition for the consumption of alcohol with a meal at a restaurant as, if I may refer to the Bible, drinking is not the sin, drunkenness is.
Fitting immobilizers to the cars of convicted DUI offenders won't solve the problem - the contemptuous and selfish will just borrow a car that has no such technology installed.
If they have lost their licence, something which needs to be recognized as a privilege and not a right, they continue to drive without one.
The UIL/DUI offence should be upgraded to criminal level and a mandatory jail sentence should be awarded at the second offence.
Seeing offenders caught on their seventh offence shows a serious problem that needs to be addressed and harshly.
The courts should start coming down like the proverbial "ton of bricks" on those who put others at risk by their anti-social habits and cease their "slap on the wrist" penalties that aren't penalties at all.
We need not only maximum sentences and penalties, but also mandatory minimums.
If we don't go to incarceration then the second offence should have a set cost of, for example, $1000, rising proportionally each time you're apprehended.
In 18th Century England, there were the stocks and pillories for those who infringed society's rules and that would not be a bad idea in today's times.
Harsh times demand harsh measures and perhaps being shamed in public, which was the intent of the pillory, might put some people back "on the tracks".
Are drink driving laws tough enough?
This poll ended on 16 January 2015.
This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.
I also suggest that, in sentencing that requires imprisonment, an all-encompassing law should be enacted that makes mandatory 75 per cent of the sentence to be completed before parole can be sought or granted.
I have written to state governments of both persuasions advocating the closing of licensed premises, or perhaps the ceasing of alcohol sales, at 10pm but they have, typically, danced around the issue, preferring, in my opinion, to put the revenue gained from longer trading hours over the weal of the community.
I suggest the return of the drinking age to 21 - again they offer this or that excuse as reason why it can't be done.
Of course it can.
All that is needed is the will and spine to strike out the age of 18 and legislate that, in Queensland, you must be 21 to drink alcohol on licensed premises.
It was this way before and can be so again.
- ROGER E. DESHON, Toowoomba