Letters to the Editor

Letters from Jan. 16, 2008

Feedback

DUI laws need real change

When are we Washingtonians going to get serious about existing DUI violators? The two legislative bills mentioned (CK Reporter, “Two DUI bills our state needs,” Jan. 12) don’t come close to addressing the penalty phase of DUI offenders. When we hear of some driver being arrested for their 10th or 15th offense, there doesn’t appear to be any strict or permanent resolution that would bring about any change of personal behavior for the near future; i.e., why should we be reading about any offence after No. 2 or 3.

I truly believe our courts handling of DUI cases are merely creating another “swinging door.” If we can’t slam this door shut on these people, how can we require our law enforcement personnel to wipe up our roads from the innocent sober drivers killed or injured while the offenders are allowed to repeat these crimes? We are just plugging another hole in the dike!

RON NEEL

Tracyton

Latest effort a waste of resources

I’m writing in response to the editorial in The CK Reporter, Jan. 12.

Let me start by confirming how against drunk driving I am and I would like to see them off our roads as much as anyone. (As well as cellphone usage, which has become an ever worse threat, I might add.)

However, I see this latest effort against drunk drivers as being a waste of resources and manpower which would be better used toward strengthening and enforcing laws against those who are arrested for drinking and driving to make sure they aren’t allowed back behind the wheel as they are now, again and again. This current bill idea strikes me as ineffective and I’d certainly like to see statistics before blindly supporting such legislation.

As good and noble as the MADD organization is, I’m fairly convinced they support anything and everything that comes along that makes any attempt to discourage drunk drivers no matter what it is or what the cost.

That brings me to my foremost concern. “Inconvenience” is not the point. I don’t like the way our civil liberties are being chipped away yet again under the guise of the safety of all of us. That’s what they said about the wire tapping as well. Another case in point is the national identity card being thrust upon us. The argument that you don’t have to worry if you have nothing to hide is the same thing that got many Germans in the fix they found themselves in.

Should we target certain neighborhoods that have had meth houses identified in them in the past and search all houses within a square mile? After all, if you have nothing to hide ... What comes next? Marks on our coats if we have what are deemed as “inappropriate” tattoos?

I am opposed to driving while intoxicated and I think more jail time and public service work and stricter penalties are in order. And, might I add, I am a 57-year-old woman who seldom drinks and I don’t drive if I do and I have no tattoos.

ROBIN STOREY

Silverdale

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Sep 12 edition online now. Browse the archives.