Legalize Drunk Driving

Lew Rockwell slams the criminal State for criminalizing non-crimes.

What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government’s “Breathalyzer,” there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

There is no other crime more damaging to the middle class than that of drunk driving.

The costs incurred for a single DUI are enormous, no matter if you hurt someone by your actions or not. This 2006 article places the total cost of a DUI around 10,000 to 50,000 dollars. That is an enormous amount of money for someone making 50,000 dollars a year to cover. It may take half a decade or more for the average person to recoup the losses incurred.

This article places the number of annual DUIs in the US around 1,396,888. If we assume an average cost of 15,000 per DUI, that would mean the public is forking over 20,953,320,000 dollars a year to lawyers, insurance companies and the State.

Is the public made more safe? Obviously the law does next to nothing to deter drunk driving. Just like drug laws and gun laws, DUI laws are another form of “pre-crime.” They are laws that attempt to prevent actual crime (hurting someone) from occurring.

Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong.

The State does far more damage to the public through the outlawing of literally harmless actions than it prevents in potential damages and lives lost. We must consider that the money taken from a DUI offender may have been used to purchase medication, healthcare, or any other number of life saving or extending goods or services.

When calculating how effective DUI laws actually are, one must consider ONLY THE MARGINAL DECREASE in drunk driving that occurs by having the law in place – this number is relatively small. Most people who drive drunk think they are OK to drive, thus the law itself does nothing to deter them from driving at the time they make the decision to get behind the wheel.

The public must be treated as adults and be given the adult responsibility to decide on their own if they are capable of driving without hurting themselves or anyone else. The State should not play the role of the nanny looter.

reply to post by mnemeth1



I think with this thread........you've peaked.

Congrats

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes. Lets tell people that it's A-Ok to endanger someone elses life..

That's a great idea.

reply to post by mnemeth1

NO....Just No

Wow, you have issues if you think you should be allowed to drive after consuming alcohol.

reply to post by mnemeth1


S & F
The industry of jails , judges , lawyers are very happy.
Is the same has the speed limit, why there is a speed limit when the autos come out of factory been able of do the double of the speed ? Why they don't make autos that don't go more than 60 mph ?

You know, alot of times I look at certain laws and think "Why? Why is this even a law, it has no true purpose other than to con people out of their money." Drunk driving laws are not one of them. Yeah, I agree that they do cost alot of money, but that is money well spent in my opinion. Have you ever seen, or heaven forbid, ridden with, or even worse, been a drunk driver? It may very well be the absolute dumbest thing that anyone could possibly do, let alone one of the most dangerous. Sure, we should look at other ways to reduce the numbers of drunk driving, but looking at those numbers...do you really want all those people driving around you drunk? I sure as heck don't. One solution I have always thought was a good idea...maybe it isn't but I think it is...have mandatory breathalyzers in all vehicles, and require a pass before the vehicle will start.

I had a friend that died because of some moron driving under the influance...

A buddy of mine had a 7 year old daughter that was literally splattered between a car and his house by some drunken idiot and all he walked away with was a huge headache.

ill make sure to pass this on to him

As I somehow would think it would be good, because it is a lot of money for a average person.

But...

That statement won't last very long I'm for sure.
The reason why it is illegal is because they try to prevent it.
Prevent all the damage it COULD cause. But yes, people will still drive around drunk, but still not as much as if it was made legal to drive while drunk.

And for the part of 'being grown up', well, we have seen many dumb accidents where people have been killed because some idiot drive around with a way to HIGH % in his/hers blood.

That being said, yes of course many people can still drive after getting a little too many beers than normally recommended. But there are still people around who can't see the difference.

reply to post by MightyWizard


Because Little Suzy doesn't pay attention ahead of her ball when it tumbles in the street and if a guy is drunk and doing 60 MPH through the street while Little Suzy is going to get her ball.. Well Little Suzy isn't going to be in one piece anymore.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Yes. Lets tell people that it's A-Ok to endanger someone elses life..

That's a great idea.

It is not OK to endanger someone else's life.

If they hurt someone, steep penalties should be applied.

However, if they don't hurt anyone, they haven't actually committed a crime.

Originally posted by Mathoryn
A buddy of mine had a 7 year old daughter that was literally splattered between a car and his house by some drunken idiot and all he walked away with was a huge headache.

ill make sure to pass this on to him

The DUI laws sound like they did a lot of good.

I'm guessing you're against the "reckless discharge of a firearm" law as well? That keeping people from shooting guns off whenever and where ever they like in order to prevent the possibility of an innocent person from being killed, is wrong?

I agree, but in a country where they'll give you a ticket for not wearing a seat-belt, what can one reasonably expect?

Also, I'd like to state for the record that I don't think it's a good idea to drive drunk and that I'm not actually advocating doing it, merely that the act of driving drunk is a victimless crime. There are potential victims, yes, but there are potential victims in every action that one takes. I just don't think that we should be punishing people for things until they actually do harm to another.

Originally posted by HelionPrime
I'd reply in graphic detail about exactly how my friend was killed in a car driven by someone over the limit, but I might get modded.

F#cking dick head.

Killing someone is murder.

Laws against murder are good.

Driving drunk while not hurting or damaging anyone else's property is not murder - in fact its not anything at all.

reply to post by mnemeth1




So lets say a suicide bomber tries to blow up a building and no one dies. Then its ok since no one was hurt thats not a crime.. Brilliant logic, no one got hurt no one will get hurt. That's how people die.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
...Punishing someone that hasn’t hurt anyone or damaged anyone else’s property by their actions is wrong...

So by this logic me selling meth to elementary students should be perfectly legal, right? I'm not damaging their property or hurting them, it's their choice of what to do with the drugs, so It's their action that brings the harm. I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your statement.