It is apparent by the reply comments to a recent Gazette article ( Police detain many innocent to make a few DUI arrests, Sunday, October 28, 2007) that there are two concerns among the citizens that are guaranteed to prompt a hotly debated discussion.

First and foremost is the problem of intoxicated drivers. These idiots cruise our roadways endangering everyone without a care in the world. To save the price of a taxi trip they're willing to risk your life and more often than not do it time and time again. I don't believe there's an easy solution to the problem but it's apparent that our legislature is not willing to address the issue, at least not seriously. I can only theorize that if the first offense warranted a stint in jail for a couple of years that more people would think twice before fumbling to put the key into the ignition. The thought of spending a dozen months in the company of some less-than-stellar thug tends to concern most people.

Why then are the sentences most often passed merely a fine and a few classes in which people are told the evils of driving while drunk? I assume, lacking any credible evidence to the contrary, that the reason is it is a profit industry for the jurisdictions. I hate to think that because essentially that is saying that the income produced from these DUI-related court sentences is so all important that it surpasses concern for the wellbeing of the citizens at large. I'd welcome any explanation to the contrary for if no other exists it would be apparent to all that we are in need of a legislature housecleaning and soon.

The second issue always sure to receive an equal number of opposing viewpoints is that of DUI Checkpoints. For many they are seen as an intrusion into our right to be free from unlawful or unwarranted search and seizure. It is, after all, a temporary detention by law enforcement under the presumption of guilt.

There are those that argue "but if it saves one life," "driving is privilege," and others that tell of how a relative or friend lost their life due to a drunk driver. Still others argue that despite the Supreme Court finding such "constitutional" and therefore permissible that they are anything but. The Court has, after all, been known to make mistakes and render improper decisions.

Most seem to feel that if these DUI Checkpoints were limited to a quick visual inspection of the driver and nothing else, then the public would readily accept them as a welcomed "price" to driving on our roadways. If during this brief conversation the individual appeared intoxicated or the smell of alcohol was present few could argue that further questioning or inspection would not be warranted.

It seems to be the ulterior and constitutionally questionable motive that leads to the public's distrust. The verification of licenses and criminal records, the inspection of the vehicle for mechanical deficiencies, and the more than casual glance into one's vehicle tends to make people question whether the true purpose of the checkpoints is actually DUI enforcement or a "your papers, please" stop reminiscent of a communist-era roadblock.

To compound the problem, there are contradicting studies on the effectiveness of DUI Checkpoints. The organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) is an ardent supporter of the checkpoints and often cites glowing statistics showing their effectiveness. Others show little if any effectiveness and point to the numerous unrelated offenses cited at these checkpoints despite the questionability of the practice.

At the core of the issue is to what extent are we willing to permit the government to restrict our freedoms in order to ensure our safety. Be forewarned though, it's a slippery slope.

If we permit this to continue would they next feel that an unannounced and unwarranted search of our homes is in the best interest of society? Doing so would certainly remove untold numbers of illegal drugs, firearms, and apprehend many wanted by the law. After all, the innocent would have nothing to fear. A recent article from the Los Angeles Times suggests that such is currently being permitted albeit at a residence motel in a high-crime area of the city.

Would we permit people walking on a sidewalk to be stopped and searched by the police without cause merely because they are doing so on a public sidewalk? Such would certainly aid law enforcement in removing drug dealers, prostitutes, and other undesirables from our midst despite a few innocent parties being inconvenienced? It's a practice already employed in part in the high-crime areas of certain cities including our own Denver, Colorado.

Would we later permit all people be subjected to search and inquiry at any time for any reason? Such is already permissible in certain public settings in every State of our country and the "certain public settings" clause is expanding at an alarming rate to include such events as county fairs, concerts, and even public parks in some States.

Clearly a slippery slope indeed.

History has shown us that a freedom lost is seldom if ever reinstated and even some of the recent news from Washington exemplifies that our own government is prone to actions contrary to the public's wishes.

Two old adages come to mind, "power corrupts" and "history never lies."

Intoxicated drivers pose perhaps the most serious threat to us on our roadways and prevention, apprehension and punishment of these offenders should rightfully be a priority of our traffic enforcement officers but as with all policies affecting the public one must consider whether or not the benefits are worth the means by which they are obtained.

Law enforcement needs our help to combat this problem. If you suspect a driver is intoxicated, report it. Your call may save their live and that of another.