Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
Who gives a phucqk about the poor slack piece of chit that got the ticket. It is about the thousands that get phuqcked up by those of the same ilk that stubbornly refuse to simply separate driving and substance use. BTDT. Been diverted twice and your statement is 180 opposite of what I experienced in the "system". The day will come with no second chances and sooner the better. Deniers of the profound negative consequences of impaired driving have zero ground to stand on. Cheers!
First, I'm not sure who you're talking about when you refer to "profound negative deniers." Hopefully not me because I'm not one.
My post was a simple reply to your contention that "it's not about money." It is about money for the companies that run "the system," and IMO it's a huge conflict of interest to give an organization the power to decide who stays in the system and for how long when they have a vested interest in the way of financial benefits for keeping people in the system.
Last, maybe I'm interpreting your post wrong, but did you just say "who gives a [bleep] about the poor slack piece of chit that got a ticket," and then follow that up with "I got the ticket twice??"
