Legalize Drunk Driving

I opened this out of pure amusement, but the truth is the OP makes some valid points. Unfortunately, none of these points are strong enough to knock me out of Real World, America.

I am a fierce proponent of individual freedoms. When it comes to illicit drugs and even those that are legal, I believe it is no one's business but my own as to what I put into my body...but there's a second part to that...it is no one's business but my own as to what I put into my own body, provided that I do not harm another person and/or infringe on their own personal freedoms...namely, to live.

Whatever validitiy your points may have, no realistic, logical person could be in favor of such a change. There are PLENTY of people who would BEGIN to drive drunk if there were no penalty for it. Christ, I probably would've done my own share had that been the letter of the law in my wilder days.

No argument you make can change the simple, basic fact at hand: Driving drunk is stupid. I couldn't care less if people felt the need to ingest something that will possibly kill them (I smoke far too many cigarettes to argue that point), but when it comes to endangering OTHERS, that is where the line is drawn. The one point you'll never find facts to decry, is that drunk driving is EXTREMELY dangerous - both to the driver, and anyone who comes into his or her path.

I'd hate to side with the establishment on anything, but let's get real here. It's a great law...one that is NEEDED. Cheers.

reply to post by poet1b


Why would you assume that I am alright with people on prescription meds or anything else that would intoxicate someone to the point where they would have difficulty driving?

When I have just ranted for 12 hours about driving drunk?!? To me there is no difference! Why haven’t you brought up senior citizens that are not capable of driving yet their families or doctors do nothing about it? See how that works? Are you willfully ignoring that issue?

I agree that some of the laws surrounding drunk driving/driving under the influence may not be ideal or work all the time. Does that mean I think that driving under the influence should be legalized?

No.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Sorry to hear what you have been through, I have had quite a few good friends die in automobile accidents, or get seriously injured. Some of them were due to alcohol, but most not. Many were due to teenagers driving vehicles that they did not have adequate experience to drive.

As to the choices you offered, it all depends on your definition of drunk. At .08

If I had the choice between a good surgeon with a good record who has had a few drinks, and got called into surgery, or the sober on call guy who has a horrible record, I'll take the competent surgeon.

If you have ever been to a carnival, and rode the rides, chance are you were on a ride operated by someone under the influence of possibly several substances. As little money as these people get paid, that is about the best they are going to get.

I don't really care how sober the person is trying to put out the fire.

Apparently, back in the day, flying under the influence was quite common. I am more worried about non drinking religious fanatics.

I think you would find, that if tested, most roofers are under the influence of something. Once again, it is a pay scale deal.

Something tells me that diffusing bombs and drinking tend to often be associated.

Better someone who has had a few drinks than a catholic priest.

reply to post by mnemeth1


There tryin to teach u a lesson DONT DRINK AND DRIVE

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.

*Yes it is possible, but it is also POSSIBLE that what he says right before can happen as well.*

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.

*We have tried to made it safe for the rest of us who are not complete morons to drive down the roadways without fear of drunk drivers.*

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.

*Not my problem, you make the choice to do it, you make the choice to get caught and pay for it.*

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.

*Actually this is in place to deter drunk driving. Anyone with any common sense knows it's not the smartest idea to drink n drive. So you get caught, you get busted.*

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.

*Are you 1% serious? I have a club for you to join if you are. You must consider that this IS NOT a harmless action. If said person needed to purchase medication, health care, or any other number of life saving or extending goods or services then they should have the common sense to not drive drunk. I DO NOT feel sorry for them.*

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.

*Any decrease is a good decrease when it comes to this issue. Maybe, just maybe, if someone decides to make this decision and gets caught, they might not do it again. That decision could SAVE YOUR LIFE ONE DAY OP.*

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.

*OK OP, everybody and their damn dog knows that alcohol affects your judgement, reaction time, reflexes and numorus other things involved with your dome. When adults make decisions my 7 year old wouldn't even make, they should be punished to the highest extent. I would like for YOU to present your case to the family of someone who has lost their life due to this "adult decision". I had 2 friends in high school that made this decision. They decided to race another person while they were drinking. They went out to a road both drivers knew like the back of their hand. My buddy smoked the other guy, but "forgot" about the 90 degree corner at the end of the road. He tried to make the turn going way to fast and rolled his truck. This threw my other friend out, and the truck rolled over him. He was trapped under the truck for about 30 minutes and died at the scene. 1 friend dead, the other who will live with this the rest of his life and he's not the same guy he was. Everyone who saw the driver that night said he just kept repeating "where'd that corner come from? I didn't know it was there." I've talked to him about that night, he told me he didn't know how he didn't remember that corner. He went around it every day to get home.*

reply to post by mnemeth1


Hell no. Go play gran turismo on your playstation sober, then down a 40oz and go try again. now imagine there are people walking across the road, stand on the side of the road and in cars all over the place.
Often people who are heavily intoxicated can barely walk let alone drive.
If they are becoming too costly for everyone and the keep repeat offending they should be taken to a firing range and shot. I am sorry but they are a ticking time bomb and if we can not afford to keep locking them up this is my honest solution.
There is no excuse, I come from the country where a taxi home is not an option but if you are drunk catch a ride with a sober mate, go sleep on park bench or if you dont have any options dont drink - it's that simple.
People need to take responsibility for their actions before their judgement is impaired.

This is the stupidest proposal ive ever seen, even with you supporting facts it defies logic.

Here in the UK you can have up to 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood before its classed as "DUI", this equates to roughly 1 - 2 pints of regular strength lager depending on body mass. If you fail the test, it's court and say goodbye to driving for 12 - 18 months (first offence), no compromise (except if the offence was committed in a medical emergency, or the driver would be unable to earn a living, and even then that is down to the judge // magistrates discretion), and a fine of about £400 (?$600). The fine can be increased to a maximum of £5000 and even a 6 month prison sentence.

The fact is the law is there to protect innocent people of the arseholes who do drive when drunk, and risk endangering other peoples lives. It is a good law, and IT IS a crime to do it, regardless of what YOU may think.

Too many people, especially children, have lost their lives because Johnny Tosspot decided he didn't want to pay for a taxi after a night on the piss.

If I suspected anyone of drink driving, even my best mates, I would report them straight away to the police, not just for their safety, but the safety of others.

Legalise drink driving, pffft, stupidest thing I've heard all week.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is misleading like no other. The 10k - 50k Thousand dollar price tag quoted is not from fines, but from the cost of paying a lawyer to successfully fight the DWI charge in such a manner its liskted as a seperate crime and usualy the person is allowed to keep his license.

Cost will vary from state to state, and will vary from municipal to County (2 different court systems). The city I work in the fine for a first time DWI is $500.00 max. Their drivers license is confiscated for driving while intoxicated however its administrative, and not criminal (meaning they can successfully challenge the DMV/SecStates office to keep their DL in order to work, food, emergencies etc. Even if they violate and drive when they are suppose to there is little LEO's can do.

I have worked my fair share of DWI traffic stops, DWI's and fatality accidents.

Driving while intoxicated should not be legalized or condoned.

Easy fix to everyone so you dont lose your money -
Dont drink and Drive
Drink Responsibly
Designated Driver
Stay at the place you are drinking at.

At what point has our society decided the actions of a few should over ride common sense and the laws that criminalize the behavior? If you canot afford 10-50k dollars, then dont break the law.

If you do, the 10k-50k cost is nothing compared to prison time, or having to live everday with the knowledge you killed a mother, father, brother, sister, child, grandma -

All of wich opted to be responsible, and in the end were killed because someone else was not.

Legal or illegal...it's going to happen regardless. Personally, I think we should aim to fix the problem itself (i.e. individual willingness to get behind the wheel while under the influence) rather than the consequences of that willingness.

Conversely, I think that we could get more mileage out of government program that focuses on the hard facts of DWI/DUI. Center it around a target age group (say14-18) with the program being about the victims of DWI/DUI and their plight. Really hammer it home. I'm sure you could open a few eyes this way.

Originally posted by thektotheg
I am a fierce proponent of individual freedoms. When it comes to illicit drugs and even those that are legal, I believe it is no one's business but my own as to what I put into my body...but there's a second part to that...it is no one's business but my own as to what I put into my own body, provided that I do not harm another person and/or infringe on their own personal freedoms...namely, to live.

As a LEO I 100% agree with this. I beleive the Government does go to far with regulating individual freedoms, and I do my best in the course of my duties to be firm but fair. The one issue that gets to me though is DWI/DUI, placing others at risk.

Sadly, this argument will be lost on many people.

reply to post by poet1b


Testing positive for drugs DOES NOT EQUATE to being under the influence. Smoke a few joints. You will test "positive" a few weeks later. Cocaine! Test positive the day after. Heroine. Test positive a couple days later (or thereabouts). 100% of drivers had beating hearts at least before the accident. We should ban beating hearts, but not the bleeding ones. They are tooo cute.

Originally posted by immortal coil
Legal or illegal...it's going to happen regardless. Personally, I think we should aim to fix the problem itself (i.e. individual willingness to get behind the wheel while under the influence) rather than the consequences of that willingness.

Conversely, I think that we could get more mileage out of government program that focuses on the hard facts of DWI/DUI. Center it around a target age group (say14-18) with the program being about the victims of DWI/DUI and their plight. Really hammer it home. I'm sure you could open a few eyes this way.

Many states already have a seperate manner to deal with minors. If you are a minor and get stopped and you have alcohol in your system (my state for people under 21 its called 0 tolerance - .02 is the limit instead of .08.) However instead of it being a criminal offense, its all administrative to allow the person to correct the mistake, take some classes, community service etc etc. Our local schools do a great job of the simulated drunk driving accidents on the school parking lots, using students who are transformed into broken, mangeled bloody bodies in the accident.

The simple fact is some people are just not going to care, with the argument most commonly heard is im not drunk, or i can handle it. Police do not just guess when it comes to someone driving under the influence. Intoxicated people have slower reactions / slower time processing brain information. They dont know they are floating back and forth across fog / lane lines. Inconsistent speed, wide right turns, short left turns etc.


The kicker is though the ones who are not 1 or 2 time offenders. I had a miniture pursuit the wrong way on the highway with a DWI driver. Thank God he stopped (well, drove into the median and was stopped). The guy was prior persistent and this was his 7th DWI (3 gets you your felony and uaully lifetime revocation of your license).

These are the ones that scare the piss out of me.

I'm not sure about legalizing or decriminalizing it, though I do agree the law itself does seem to have a bit of a Minority Report goal.

However, I think that a more effective approach would be for insurance agencies to offer large incentives to anyone who installs a breathalyzer-needed-before-ignition mechanism in their car (perhaps paid for by government grant?)...or a law that mandates this replacing DUI laws.

That's just my two cents. I got a DUI a few months ago (pulled over on my street whilst avoiding a pothole, which was the annoying part). I had done it many times previously but haven't done it since, so for that I owe the experience. However, the existence of the law never stopped me from doing it before, while an actual inability to drive under the influence of course would have.

That's why I think the pre-driving breathalyzer would be more effective. That and the avoidance of any fines or insurance rate increases (which I'll only be fined around $1,500 as opposed to the OP's figure of $10k-50k).

reply to post by byteshertz


The proposal can't be that stupid as it was intended to provoke discussion and enter new facts into that discussion. The purest intent was not to make DUI legal, even though that argument is posited. It is to spread contrary ideas and to let them mate with other ideas birthing even newer ideas. This was the intention of Lew Rockwell. And I assume it is the intent of the OP as well. Sometimes people need to think of things contrary to what their gut might think. Do I think DUI should be legal? No, no, and no. Do I think the discussion is healthy? Yes.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I understand what you're saying - the whole pre-crime prevention argument makes sense to some extent, and when it comes to other issues it holds a lot more water, but when it comes to drinking & driving people are very sensitive and for good reason.

However, I will agree that the police will do anything to get you a DUI.

I was given a DUI after being pulled over for something that I did not do. After I took a breathalyser (and passed), did the road side test (and passed), and then allowed him to search my car I end up getting a DUI.

Why? Because he finds my prescription medications and gives me an ultimatum - either take a year suspension on my license or submit to a blood test.

Well, since I had no illegal drugs or alcohol in my system I obviously had no other choice than to submit to the blood test.

Well guess what? I allegedly took too much of my prescribed medications and therefore was driving under the influence of a controlled substance.

Was I high? No. Did I abuse my medications? No. Was this all a bunch of crap to make me pay the state, a lawyer, and dish out personal time for community service (which by the way, is not anything like helping the needy or anything)? Yes, yes it was.

The DUI laws are far from perfect and to be honest I can't see there being a law that would be perfect and fit every situation dealing with driving while intoxicated by any substance. However, the money raked in from DUI's alone is ridiculous, and DUI's are one of those situations where people can say "I didn't do anything wrong" and not be completely BSing you or anyone that they say that too.

When I actually went to court for my DUI there was about 53 (I believe this to be 100 percent accurate actually) other people in the room with me - all they did was announce all of our names, the judge says this and that, we stand up and agree we are pleading guilty (everyone say yes at the same time), and then we get in a line to get our fines, and then another line to setup our probation and payment plan.

Everyones fines ranged from approx. $1500 - $3000 (mine was around $2200).

So do I think drinking and driving is bad? Hell yes. Do I think you should drive while intoxicated on any substance? No. Do I think the system takes advantage of the laws that we currently have? Hell yes.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by immortal coil
Legal or illegal...it's going to happen regardless. Personally, I think we should aim to fix the problem itself (i.e. individual willingness to get behind the wheel while under the influence) rather than the consequences of that willingness.

Conversely, I think that we could get more mileage out of government program that focuses on the hard facts of DWI/DUI. Center it around a target age group (say14-18) with the program being about the victims of DWI/DUI and their plight. Really hammer it home. I'm sure you could open a few eyes this way.

Many states already have a seperate manner to deal with minors. If you are a minor and get stopped and you have alcohol in your system (my state for people under 21 its called 0 tolerance - .02 is the limit instead of .08.) However instead of it being a criminal offense, its all administrative to allow the person to correct the mistake, take some classes, community service etc etc. Our local schools do a great job of the simulated drunk driving accidents on the school parking lots, using students who are transformed into broken, mangeled bloody bodies in the accident.

The simple fact is some people are just not going to care, with the argument most commonly heard is im not drunk, or i can handle it. Police do not just guess when it comes to someone driving under the influence. Intoxicated people have slower reactions / slower time processing brain information. They dont know they are floating back and forth across fog / lane lines. Inconsistent speed, wide right turns, short left turns etc.


The kicker is though the ones who are not 1 or 2 time offenders. I had a miniture pursuit the wrong way on the highway with a DWI driver. Thank God he stopped (well, drove into the median and was stopped). The guy was prior persistent and this was his 7th DWI (3 gets you your felony and uaully lifetime revocation of your license).

These are the ones that scare the piss out of me.

Definitely agree. Although it's my opinion that if you're going to educate someone it's best to do it while they are young an impressionable. That was pretty much my reason behind the 14-18 group. Plus this kind of program could be cooked up similar to the way DARE was and be taught to grade school children.

Moreover, people that don't care and lack respect have any number of ways to be a drain, burden, harm on society without the aid of an automobile & alcohol. Not saying that there shouldn't be steep consequences for people that do so, just food for thought.

reply to post by RulerOfAll


Respectfully having the Government pay for interlock devices in vehicles is a bad idea (It can be court ordered to be installed in convicted offenders vehicles though). The Government needs to get out of peoples lives, and this does just the opposite. Whats to stop them there? Whos is to say they want to install black boxes in all vehicles (coming down the pipeline), sensors that allow police to know you are speeding (being discussed and researched by some in washington).

Its the slipperly slope argument.

The best and most simple answer is Do not Drink and Drive. If you do, you should be charged, and if found guilty and convicted, you should be required to pay the price.

This is not a hard concept for peope to understand. Changing the way this works though because people cant afford the cost involved, with due respect to to others in the thread, is a chicken #s way out of this. The point behind fines and punishment is to deter and prevent the behavior. Absent this, its going to be carte blanche for people to drive drunk because nothing will hapen to them.

I wish people like the guy in the article would represent those people who suffered from somone else choice to drive drunk, and stop trying to change a law for those idiots who want to drink and drive.

If they cant afford the cost of punishment, maybe they should not spend their money on buying enough alcohol to get drunk and to drive their vehicle.

It reminds me of people who dont buy food for their kids, or clothes what not because they are not well off, living pay check to pay check. However, they dont have an issue with buying their cigarettes or alcohol.

The word in this whole thing is PRIORITIES.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A drunk that you pass on the road who is doing 10 under the speed limit while not veering into you is not the same thing. He did not place you in imminent danger.

What about the drunk who stops just over a rise, in the middle of an Interstate, waiting for the signal light to change? (Yep, I've had one of those) As long as no one else is on the road, he is not endangering anyone. But, that is never the case. He is literally a bomb waiting to be detonated.

By your previous suggestions, he should be ticketed for the traffic violation and released? To do what, travel further down the road and again endanger the lives of innocent people? You know what happens then? The cop and the city, county or state are sued for not taking action to prevent the catastrophe, having already observed evidence of the drunk driver's impairment. And that costs you more of your precious money.

i've gotten a dui, and i'll say this. you never think you're going to get caught or that it's affecting your driving until it happens. i'm sure for the people who mow down children or get in a head on collision its the same thought process. drunk driving DOES cause harm, and it IS dangerous. there's no way to tell how many lives are saved by these laws when it makes someone call a taxi or get a friend to drive them because they're scared of the ticket. so i disagree.

that being said. i think .08 is a good number and it should no go any lower. i know there's movements to make it .06 or even .02 in some places. that's just ridiculous. if the government ever goes to that level i'll be fighting with you to raise it back up to some more reasonable level. but where the law is right now, i gotta say i like it.

Criminalizing drunk-driving is simply preventing a more dangerous crime from happening. I agree with the fact we should fine it, and that it should be illegal, although 10-50,000 does seem a bit much. It should also vary from county-county based on population density and demographics.