Legalize Drunk Driving

My answer is based on personal experiences:

I've lost three people to drunk driving.

The first two were my cousins, I forget how old they were, but no older than twelve or thirteen. I was a baby at the time. They were at my grandmothers house visiting. My nan let them go out of the house to feed the horses which are in the field less than 50 yards away. She told them that they'd be safe, if they didn't go in the road (which they obeyed - and stayed on the grass at the side).

My nan was the first on the scene, as she heard the sound of a roaring engine and screeching brakes. She found both my cousins and a crashed car. They were dead. The driver was drunk and badly injured.

My auntie lost both her daughters that day.

--

My friend died on the same day as the anniversary of his mothers death. He had been drinking with his dad in the pub all day and was very drunk. For some reason my friend managed to get hold of his dad's car keys and left the pub and decided to drive.

He was found a few hundred yards away.. He had been decapitated as he went through the windscreen.

+


For everybody who lost a loved one...I am sorry for your loss. However, the OP should not be chastised for having a "political" view on this subject. Policy is determined (or should be) based on how it effects society at large, without unnecessarily restricting freedoms. Also, all of you who lost someone, you can rest assured that the ones who were guilty would still be punished if drunk driving sans accident was legalized. It may sound cold, but (possibly) all of the money spent on this could be put to use to save more lives on the grand scale. Besides, if anything, this is a valid intellectual exercise. Also, for those speaking of the OP being "political," your emotional appeals in light of your own very personal loss are of the utmost political nature. I do not know why that is not seen, or at least not admitted and/or acknowledged. Or perhaps I do?! Emotions are very useful for unknown, spur-of-the-moment situations, but, in a larger context, can greatly conflict with the reality of actual consequences. But good luck getting people out of their memetic prisons. It is a pre-programmed response of a very specific set of emotions with parallel thoughts attached. A lot of people ride the coattails of memes. Which is why, IMO, at least one of the reasons this world can at times be so ridiculous. People trade the honesty they could have for the power and security that pre-existing notions (or newly popular ones) contain. We all know that 5 years ago and 5 years from now, many in this thread see "reality" quite differently in this context. And it is often in such a way that they feel part of the group and in such a way that supports the status quo of their own situation.

My parents were fundamentalist Christians who subjected me to ritualistic abuse through the Assembly of God church (my opinion). Should religion be outlawed? Lots of med students abuse "smart pills" and then when they quit, their brain is not used to operating in a different way and they are far less effective doctors. Should we outlaw all psychotropics for those training to be in life and death fields? Studies indicate that men are more likely to do this crime and that women are more likely to do such and such crime. Should we impose stricter penalties based on their profiles, ya know, to curb the various "epidemics?" Where does it stop? I don't mean to draw out a slippery slope argument. I don't like them. But you must surely see my point. You know how many suicides there are annually? Let's just say a lot. Now, if some people weren't such douchebags, wouldn't the number of suicides drastically decrease. Let's outlaw douchebaggery.

I am not saying to legalize DUI. I am just adding context. Now continue talking amongst yourselves.

Would you let a drunk surgeon operate on you?

Would you let a drunk person operate a fairground ride?

Would you let a drunk person try and extinguish a building on fire?

Would you let a drunk person fly your plane?

Would you let a drunk person fix your roof tiles?

Would you let a drunk person defuse a bomb?

Would you let a drunk person mind your children?

Why not?

Originally posted by poet1b

Once again, if all you people honestly cared about saving lives, you would honestly support a system that does a lot better at keeping people under the influence from getting behind the wheel.

They don't keep the statistics, but from what little has been looked at, people driving under the influence of prescription drugs are probably responsible for as many if not more accidents than people driving under the influence of alcohol.

Certain prescriptions should automatically suspends the users license, but no one wants to support that.

I'll bet a great many of those calling for the heads of those who drive under the influence of alcohol drive under the influence of their prescription medicines all the time.

People taking many allergy medications, and anti-depressants should not be allowed to drive, but they are.

People who make long commutes in order to afford that big house with the pool are also very dangerous on the road, as dangerous, if not more than people driving under the influence of alcohol, but nobody wants to punish them.

I would support such a system if one reveals itself to me -

But I very much disagree with you on the effects of alcohol, I think you are incorrect mixing in the issue of prescriptions and long hauls, I have only seen 1 person on a sleeping pill even act remote close to the many drunken people I have encountered in my day. People on prescriptions or driving long haul are not apt to crap their pants or hit people they love...

You are usually square and very fair with your approximations in my experience, however I cannot believe you
are trying to discredit and separate Alcohol and its blood related, intoxicating effects.

Am I misunderstanding you or something?

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


I’d like to take a moment and clarify that the title of this
thread is:

“Legalize Drunk Driving”

Not:

“Have a drink at 8pm and drive home at 12am totally sober, which is not drunk driving.”
“I know my limit and therefore do not drive drunk and so this isn’t even what we are talking about.”
Or “Legalize drinking and driving where no one get’s hurt and we all sing koombaiya(sp)"

There is a difference!!!

There is a HUGE difference between having a drink at a bar at 8pm, leaving at 12am and truly being sober and getting smashed to the point where you cannot walk straight let alone drive a car successfully 2 miles.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Most certainly not.

Why?

Because I do not trust the judgement of a drunk person when they are drunk.

This discussion is moot. Does anyone here, pro or con, believe that drunk driving will ever be legalized? In a contest between ATS and MADD, who do you think would win? The fact is, drunk driving will never be legalized. If you put this to a vote, what do you think the result would be? 10,000 to 1? More? Let's just say that those who want to legalize drunk driving are a very, very small minority.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Only an inebriate who has already pickled their brain would think doing away with DUI laws is a good idea.

reply to post by worlds_away


I thought this thread was about the hypocrisy of the laws on Driving Under the Influence. Maybe we can get the op to clarify this. That is why I came here.

I notice you don't comment on your opinion of people driving under the influence of prescription medications, or commuting long distance.

How can people who passionately claim to be against DUI of alcohol, not be as equally passionate about keeping people from getting behind the wheel who are UI of prescriptions drugs that impair their abilities?

People who want to only concentrate on one problem, while ignoring the other, even though they are the same problem, are hypocrites.

reply to post by Gnarly


I don't know what meds you are on, but I hope you don't drive on our public roads.

People who wish death on others should not be able to operate a vehicle on public roads.

reply to post by poet1b


Driving under the influence of pharmaceuticals or drugs other than alcohol is illegal in many states.

Some States (Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) have passed “per se” laws, in which it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable level of a prohibited drug, or its metabolites, in the driver’s blood. Other State laws define “drugged driving” as driving when a drug “renders the driver incapable of driving safely” or “causes the driver to be impaired.”

In addition, 44 States and the District of Columbia have implemented Drug Evaluation and Classification Programs, designed to train police officers as Drug Recognition Experts. Officers learn to detect characteristics in a person’s behavior and appearance that may be associated with drug intoxication. If the officer suspects drug intoxication, a blood or urine sample is submitted to a laboratory for confirmation.

Source

~Heff

reply to post by worlds_away


I know what the title is. Sorry if I was obtuse. But it was deliberate, I assure you. Besides, I know Lew Rockwell, used to work with him. BTW, War Eagle!!! If people understood the intent of The Mises Institute, they might just see things a little less drunkenly. They call themselves NOT a political think tank, that they are not interested in affecting policy. I think that they understand quite well that political "truth" emerges from a sea of dialogues. They just want to add memes from a libertarian slant into the mix so people see a more complete diamond and not one mere facet if you catch my drift. And one of Lew Rockwell's personal beliefs is not that DUI should be legal anyway, but that the limit is too low. Ya know, change it from .08 to .13 of something. This guy does not take what he writes at face value alone, and neither do any of his employees. They are playing a metaphysical game, albeit one that would theoretically help society's views move along to more closely align with those of their own, or in the very least add more seats to the table of discussion.

What's cheaper?

The cost of calling a cab, or the cost of a DUI?

I don't pity anyone busted for drunk driving. They get what they deserve, IMO.

If drunk driving was legal, then sobriety could never be used as a cause of accident. They technically weren't doing anything wrong, so you coudln't hold them accountable.

You: "I'm sorry officer, I have no idea why I slammed into that van filled with children. It was just an accident."
Officer: "No problem. Accidents happen every day. I just wish we could do more to avoid them."
Mom: "But he was drunk!"
Officer: "And?"

reply to post by Janky Red


I am not sure what we disagree on about the effects of alcohol?I don't think people should be able to drive above a certain BAC. Alcohol certainly makes it easier for people to do very stupid things, I just don't think punishment is the best answer, especially for people who have not actually done anything wrong, and the current system does exactly that.

Making a mistake should not be a crime. Getting behind the wheel when you think you are sober is a mistake, not a crime. The current system does not prevent DUIs, it only profits off of a system put in place to create a game of Russian roulette when it comes to DUIs.

People on prescriptions or driving long haul are not apt to crap their pants or hit people they love...

Yes, they do, and far worse. I have seen people on prescriptions drugs act far worse than anyone who has had a few beers. It is not as obvious, but when you know what to look for, you see it.

In our world, where driving a couple of tons of metal through our communities is pretty much a requirement to function in our economy, a great deal more could be done to reduce accidents, but we have a system designed not to reduce accidents ( or crime for that matter ) but to create profits.

Standard vehicle equipped breathalyzers would be a good way to start, along with automatically suspending peoples driver's licenses who are prescribed certain drugs.

The thing is, doing these things that should be done would trigger major changes to the system, and that is what people don't want to face, so they use drunk drivers as scape goats.

reply to post by Lilitu


Maybe he or she doesn't think it is a good idea. Maybe he or she wants to stretch the parameters of the discussion. Or maybe he or she is just an inebriated fool with a dill pickle in the old noggin. Nevertheless, there is at least an argument to raise the limit. But I don't have the stats to make that argument now. Jumps back in hole surrounded by wobbly bobbly pickle heads. I do love the monosyllabic, cheerleader-like utterances from young drunk women and the men around them who are too drunk to get it up. I'll have a coke and sprite please!

reply to post by xEphon


BS times 1000. It is called vehicular manslaughter. It is called vehicular manslaughter. It is called vehicular manslaughter. Don't pull something out of the back door without having something, anything, even just a thought, backing it up.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is the best thread, EVER.

My guess is, the OP is a lawyer, and is trying to poll the general populace to see how dumb we really are. He is succeeding. He has refuted all comers to my satisfaction. Well done. I'm convinced.

It is a problem. A bad one. And, bad things happen to good people. However, it should not be against the 'law'.

reply to post by Hefficide


Nice link. Did you notice this statistic?

One study found that about 34 percent of motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland trauma center tested positive for “drugs only;” about 16 percent tested positive for “alcohol only.”

Twice as many under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol.

I noticed that they didn't have any stats on people over the age of 25 on prescription drugs.

Personally, I think there is too much judgment call in the system. They aren't honestly looking at doing something about people driving under the influence of prescription drugs.

reply to post by poet1b


I would totally agree with that. As I've mentioned earlier, as well, I feel that the threshold for being considered "drunk" is too low.

In this sense DUI laws are being used as a cash cow for local governments. The fines are ridiculous and the standards too low. But as far as the "victimless crime" thing goes, I cannot buy into that. I would absolutely agree with normalizing the standards of "impaired" to a rational level which included drugs and prescription medication... Even to include things like fatigued driving and distracted driving, as long as those standards were rational as well.

~Heff