I agree with the law.. but I disagree with portions of it.. first the tax payers shouldn't pay for it.. it should be included in the DUI/DUS (yes even in the DUS) fees that have to be paid if arrested or ticketed.. also I think that if someone has this on their license then they shouldn't be able to drink in bars/clubs period.. the bartender won't be looking it so.. when they check your ID at the door make em wear a wristband that clue the bartenders in and keep them from selling that person drinks... also 4 yrs is a long time.. I think if you make it unlawfull for the person to drink with the tag then it should only be two yrs before reviewed.. if the person drinks and gets another DUI within that time then the fines, punishment ect should be doubled... I also think it should be on the back.. it shouldn't be on the front where it can be seen if cashing a check and so forth.. bars/clubs can be instructed to view the back as well. just my opinion..

Yes, most agree that DUI offenders need to be punished, but this is about where to draw the line. Try this on for size, "YES, by GOD there ought to be a law..." Listen to your government. "You have nothing to worry about if you're not committing this crime. We're only after the reprobates & dregs of society. We can all agree that these people need to be punished & controlled after they complete their punishment." Well, I say, YES, by God there SHOULD be a law... against legislators who draw a tax paid salary and attempt to demonize ANY person that does not fit their 1950's 'family-values' & health crazed stereotypes. Guess what? The next time such a law is passed, it may be your very own bad personal habit that is targeted for punishment, restrictions after your punishment is done & future control of your behavior!

It wouldn't bother me a bit. But then I don't have a drunk driving conviction. I'm not an expert on the situation, but I would guess that for every single DUI a drunk driver gets, he/she probably drove drunk a hundred times without getting caught.

I still think this is dumb and allows an invasion of privacy. And will they make the bartender/attendant responsible if they're not eyeballing your every move? What if they change shifts, do they need to tell the next one on duty?

It might hurt the drunk driver's feelings too.

I think the state should consider going back in time and reconsider becoming a "dry state" and it seems alcohol sales is creating all the problems anyway.

Another law to pass which we ultimately as taxpayers have to pay for. Most bars are looking for the birthdate on a license before serving drinks, and if you look old - they don't ask. So how would that help the bars to determine if you are unfortunate enough to get caught alot.

WELL IF THIS LAW GOES THROUGH, DOES THAT MEAN THE CITY OF VALLEY BROOK WILL CLOSE, BECAUSE YOU CAN BET THAT 85% OF ALL DRUNKS GET CAUGHT THERE. TO ANSWER A QUESTION I SAW DOWN THE ROLL, THIRD DUI IS TO BE A FELONY...HOWEVER, IN VALLEY BROOK, IF YOU HAVE THE CASH YOU'LL NEVER SEE IT ON YOUR RECORD. I MET A MAN ONCE THAT WAS ARRESTED 18 TIMES IN VALLEY BROOK AND NEVER HAD A CONVICTION OR TAKEN THROUGH OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT BECUASE HE PAID THE CITIES FINE AND WALKED. OH WELL, WHATS ANOTHER SPOT ON THE OKLAHOMA DRIVER'S LICENSE IF ANYTHING IT WILL LOOK PRETTY.

I'm guessing that a lot of the people that get caught driving drunk don't even have their licenses after the first offense. People that are genuinely sorry and remorseful for making this stupid mistake won't repeat it and those that are habitual won't have a drivers license to show. It's redundant. James, Chandler - I agree that the sex offender registry should be kept public and it is a valuable resource. However, what purpose does it serve to have the fact that they are a sex offender on their license? The police know if they run the check and they have to register with the police department in the area they live in. That agency is then required to notify everyone in the neighborhood that an offender has moved in. It is again redundant for the sex offender to have their license noted because the people that need to see it already have access to that information and the rest are just busybodies that will discriminate. I truly believe that when people have made a true mistake and paid the price they should not be punished further. Habitual offenders are another story but a license notation won't deter them at all.

You can treat a drunk for many years over & over again & they wont be helped until they want help, so keep your twelve step programs & put this on their license it's a great idea & if you have never had a dui you have nothing to hide because it wont be on your license. Let one of these drunks kill your kid or anyone dear to you & see how you feel about it then . Why wait for another death if this would deter just one drunk driver??

Mr. Inman, treatment-education, not enforcement will work. Quit seeking headlines and try to solve this problem that cost hundreds of lives each year.

Sparky, I am sorry about your loss, but by law a third DUI conviction in a 10 yr. period; irregardless of whom the arresting agency is, is a felony. Unless, charges are deferred and a full expungement is granted by the court (thus taking the arrest record of our your triple I report) the arrest will show up on your record. In today's world nobody can get multiple dui's and not spend time behind bars.

I feel that if one has been caught and have been charged with a DUI once, there are probably over 20 other times they have not been cought. Likely they will continue to do it. Forget squared debt. They are just happy to be done with all the "inconvenience" they had to deal with for getting caught. Now they will drive more "carefuly" when drinking. These people KNOW that it is dangerous and yet they CHOOSE to get into the car and put other lives at risk (I say others because as far as I am concerned they made their choice to kill themselves and it would be one less dangerous person on the road if they did). These people don't care about you and your family. Your mother. Your newborn baby. They are selfish. If it embarrasses them to have it made public that they are morons...then they shouldn't act like ones. If bars and clubs continue to serve drinks to someone they now KNOW has a past DUI, then they now have CHOSEN to contribute and be partially responsible for encouraging the behavior. It may encourage more bartenders to do what they should and refuse service for someone who has had enough. If you are going to be too embarrassed to let everyone know you are a low life...then don't drink and drive. Yeah, I understand forgiveness for mistakes. But we lern at a very young age that driving drunk is dangerous. NO YOU DO NOT DRIVE BETTER AFTER DRINKING (I hate when people swear to that). This is a "mistake" of selfish ugly people. Period. (BTW. I have a family member that got a DUI. I don't discriminate. I told him he is selfish and stupid)

What most people don't realize is that DUI usually doesn't show up on a driving record until they kill someone. The guy who killed my dad, a lady, and her newborn baby had 8 DUI convictions out of the City of Edmond. As long as his dad was able to pay the $1000, it was explunged from his driving record. I have been a vocal opponent of Edmond's "Catch - N - Release" revolving door policy of DUI convictions. I could never get a good answer from anyone at Edmond PD about how many DUI's a person could actually pull off before it was turned over to Oklahoma County District Court. I think that DUI's need to be removed from city court because as long as you have the money, you can have 1000 DUI convictions in Edmond and still be driving like you had none. I could never get Edmond to admit who the most frequent violator is, but I would be he or she has 20 or more Edmond convictions.

Imebecile! I bet scott inman is a bible thumping, hypocritical moron. Two kinds of drunk drivers: those that get caught, and those that don't. Scott just hasn't been caught yet!

As long as you've paid the price there's no reason to advertise it. This is just another way for the government to nose into our lives. Pretty soon we'll have no privacy left. They might as well tape all our sins to our license tags.

HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST THE TAX PAYERS TO HAVE THIS STUPID IDEA BROUGHT TO LIGHT. SHARYN IS RIGHT, BIG BROTHER IS GETTING TO BIG.

The problem with the whole idea that serving your sentence has squared your debt is that drinking/driving and sexual predation are two crimes, in particular, that are often repeated by the offender. So no, serving your jail time, community service, fines, etc. is not enough to square the deal and make everything peachy. And as far as prioritizing goes, it's hard to make use of your insurance when you're dead. People who drink and drive are pathetic and if embarrassing them for the next four years of their lives is what it takes to deter them from continuing a deadly habit, then I'm all for it.

Big Brother is getting TOO Big!! I think this is quite unnecessary.

No, this is an invasion of privacy. They might as well put it on our forehead. There's no reason if someone were to apply for a job for that to stand right out. Let them honestly put it on their job application, if not then they can pay the price.

So.. we'll leave the gaping hole in the system that allows one out of every three drivers on the road without insurance, but turn everything upside down for this? Anyone with a wad of cash can buy a car in the Paris flea market parking lot - no questions asked. Get your priorities straight!

I don't think it should be called an invasion of privacy since it's public record to begin with, but...I also don't necessarily agree that designating it on a DL is a good idea. Will be construed as on-going punishment. Now, the sex offender thing, Jan; I want to know if one's moving into my neighborhood, wouldn't you. That's a whole different ballgame. They should continue the required registry as an offender. I have children to keep an eye on.

FYI--the police already know about your driving record. Bartenders don't look at your license unless you are really young, and wouldn't care anyway. So, the point of this is......what? Punishment. Period.

Considering the reputation of out state legislators, he would probably be the first to receive the desigination. Call it political justice.