SOCIETY PAYS TO BE SOFT ON SOUSES

I was appalled by the Chronicle March 4 Editorial page editorial,
"Bad Idea: Let states, not power-hungry Clinton handle DWI." The
reason our courts do not have a better conviction rate for DWI is
the permissive attitude of our society on individual rights.

I have the right to expect that everyone driving a car is going to be
sober and that I will not be killed by someone who has made a
conscious choice to drink and drive. As our laws stand now, the
punishment for driving while drunk does not fit the crime.

When a person makes the decision to drive while drinking, they already
know the possibility exists they could kill someone with their car.
Because of this knowledge, the punishment for killing a person or
persons with a car should be mandatory death.

We should not "slap their hands" and let them loose on our roads to
kill or mutilate again, destroying more people's lives and futures.

The Chronicle's editorial was nothing short of totally irresponsible.

David H. Pebernat, The Woodlands

The letter from Frank Hazel, March 9, Viewpoints, explains part of the
reason so many people are killed by drunk drivers in this country.
Hazel is against strengthening the law against drunken driving,
because, in his words, "it undoubtedly will get many responsible
drunks arrested."

How ludicrous. "Responsible drinkers" are not out driving around while
intoxicated.

No combination of alcohol consumption and operating a motor vehicle is legal.

If Hazel ever took a defensive driving class, he learned even the
equivalent of one can of beer can affect judgement and reaction time.

And besides, my concern is not to protect the many "responsible
drinkers" on the highway. My concern is for the safety of myself and
those I love against those who would drink alcohol and get behind the
wheel of a car.

Let the responsible drinkers stay at home where they belong. And let's
pass even tougher laws to protect ourselves against those who would do
otherwise.

Jan Ward, Houston