Legalize Drunk Driving

"Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To" (murdersofa) 08/01/2016 at 19:45 • Filed to: opinion, article, drunk driving, controversial

0

41

Note: This article was originally posted on Liberty.me and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . I am not posting this as my opinion, I simply found it interesting and am wondering what my fellow Opponauts made of this, if nothing else, thought-provoking piece.

Most people have been there: a few drinks at a restaurant or bar and then into the car to get home. Am I over the legal limit? Hard to say. Is my driving impaired? It doesn’t seem to be. But what if I get stopped? Will I lose my license, go to jail, and be disgraced in front of the community? It’s a frightening prospect.

What’s especially strange about this is the reason I fear. My arrest and punishment would not be for driving recklessly or for endangering other drivers. It would be because I failed a test of something that is not materially related to my actual driving.

The law is arbitrary and shifts with the political season. The perpetrators can’t really be sure if they are over or under the limit. And we all have vast experience with people who drink surprising amounts of liquor and drive all the time, but never get in accidents and do not seem to be driving in an unsafe way.

Then there are the frequent cases in which cops arrest people for DUI who are stopped for something else, like a burned-out tail light. I’ve known of people who have been arrested in their own driveways, having gotten home safely and harmed no one. They are arrested and imprisoned, a humiliating and terrible experience for anyone to go through.

Clearly, this DUI enforcement has been a boon to the police but has it really curbed drunk driving? You might consider staking out your local bar, following how much people drink, and observing how many get in cars after. I’ll just state what most everyone knows but hardly anyone says: drinking and driving is a national sport in the U.S. In the vast, vast majority of cases, no harm is done.

Murray Rothbard once told me that he thought drunk driving should be legal. I was stunned and shocked that anyone would say such a thing. But over time, I began to see his point. It is not outrageous at all.

He was exactly right.

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not reckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

But you say that drinking is associated with bad driving. Well, enforce the laws against reckless driving. Many more people drink and drive than drive recklessly. Some people drive even more safely after a few drinks, correcting for their delayed responses. We do this all the time, e.g. after a workout, when we are sleepy, when we are angry, whatever. Human beings adapt with rationality.

And you know what happens on New Year’s some other holiday. People always say “be careful, there are lots of drunk drivers out there.” Just the prospect alone makes everyone drive more defensively.
Regardless, the law has no business criminalizing associated peaceful behaviors rather than real crimes against person and property.

For example, grudges are associated with murder in the sense that a vast number of murderers are carrying a grudge. Do we make grudges illegal? That would be crazy and unenforceable, even if there were some chemical way to measure what constitutes a grudge. But we make driving under the influence illegal though it is roughly the same thing. It targets an associated condition rather than the crime itself.

Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.

And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue.

As Radley Balko has !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! :

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.

Berang > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 19:50

6

This man is right. They’re always pulling drunk people over for driving exactly normally.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) is dead, long live Bman76 M. Arch > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 19:52

5

Our laws are already much more lenient than the rest of the world

sooo... nah.

nermal > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 19:52

18

Fuck this guy.

It’s not about taking away your freedom by “criminalizing the chemical makeup of your body”. It’s about preventing your dumb drunk ass from killing somebody else.

Drink until the bartender shuts you off, then take an Uber.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 19:57

1

Better idea - criminalize letting someone leave your establishment without knowing they have a ride home. The only reason I don’t get a stink eye for drinking the big beers at my local brewery is because I live literally a few blocks away and walk there. Boom. Don’t drink and drive. Drink and walk. You might even get a little healthier along the way.

E92M3 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 19:58

3

My first boss lost his wife, and 2 little girls to a drunk driver at 2:00 in the afternoon on a weekday. The guy that hit them head-on had already had 2 DUI’s, and unfortunately he survived. If it can prevent one more family from going thru what he did, it’s worth it. The law didn’t save his family, and it could of just as easily been someone texting. It has taken multiple offenders off the roads thru jail time, and thru losing their licenses. There will always be people who drive on a suspended license though. Everyday a drunk driver is in jail that’s one day they aren’t on the roads. We got enough impared, uneducated, and reckless drivers already.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > nermal 08/01/2016 at 20:00

8

Typical libertarian blabber. Just leave it to the market and everything will be fine!

Over and over again this doesn’t take into account the fact that humans and corporations act in selfish self-interest, and there are externalities resulting from peoples’ actions. In fact this is sold as a beautiful part of its design. Well, there are other people – a vast majority of people out there who don’t want to participate in your drunken idiocy. If you want to get drunk and throw the dice with your life, go ahead – but don’t involve other innocent people in it.

We as a society have decided that we want nothing to do with it, and while it may not be perfect, it undeniably limits and at least puts specific punishments and repercussions to actions that are deemed undesirable for society as a whole – so if your selfish self would rather live in a different place where such laws don’t apply, please apply for residency at Galt’s Gulch. I’ve heard that project is coming along splendidly.

I don’t care how much money I’d be awarded in court if someone drives drunk, kills a loved one, and I’m able to fight them in court. I’d rather they know there are stiff penalties against such actions and hopefully not do so at all. This all comes down to the belief that you can put a price tag on everything in life, a basic premise that I wholly disagree with.

*there ARE certain things, like the ridiculous war on drugs that could certainly use a healthy dose of de-criminalizing. If someone sits home smoking pot all day, and the likelihood of it putting other innocent people in harm’s way are miniscule, yes – please let’s stop putting people in prison for really silly reasons. But driving a 4000lb metal tank in an impaired state where you could hurt other innocent people who didn’t choose to participate in your little exercise of freedom goes firmly on the list of things that people should get thrown in jail for.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:02

2

Some/all of these may be applicable /thread

The Lurktastic Opponaught > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:03

5

From the perspective of academic debate, this is an interesting view point and could be effectively argued from either side.

From out here in the real world, the idea leaves quite a lot to be desired.

Finally, there are several informal logical fallacies in the article that completely destroy the author’s credibility. This could have been a nuanced and interesting article. It came off as a snotty priviledge piece that merely argues to replace one cause and effect model with another. It’s an ineffective argument.

1111111111111111111111 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:05

1

Well there are some good points there. I guess the only reason I can see in favor of the duii .08 is that it would stop a habitual offender eventually doing some damage. But honestly it’s not that strong of a point.

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:07

2

Reckless driving is sort of objective, hard to prove, and carries penalties disproportionate to the risks of DUI. We have non-invasive means to test BAC, alcohol has been proven to impair driving, and harsh DUI laws unequivocally make roads safer, so I don’t see any issue with the status quo.

I would like to see a zero tolerance policy for BAC, but I think this would lead to too many false positive breathalyzer arrests making enforcement a nightmare. Either drink or drive. I don’t think there is a sliding scale where you’re safe after 3 drinks but not after 4, your just more dangerous.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > The Lurktastic Opponaught 08/01/2016 at 20:08

4

I was on high school debate team and this article gave me a boner because this is the sort of thing that would have resulted in the entire class screaming at each other. Those days were glorious.

Xyl0c41n3 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:10

9

One of my cousins was killed by a drunk driver.

The son and daughter-in-law of a couple my parents are very good friends with were killed by a drunk driver. She was 23 and their deaths were her THIRD DUI.

A good friend of my brother’s was killed by a drunk driver while cycling with a buddy. The man brought novice cyclists into the local riding community and helped them learn how to ride safely in a county that has one of the highest DUI rates in the entire state. He left behind a wife and two young children. His killer? Was so plastered when he hit the cyclist, that the impact caused the cyclist to cartwheel into the bed of the truck the drunk was driving. The drunk then went to go eat breakfast and to call people to help him get rid of the body, all while still drunk.

Drunk driving laws aren't about unjustly regulating the composition of a person’s blood, they're about criminalizing (not stiffly enough, IMO), reckless action that puts the lives of others at risk. Your personal freedoms end when they have the capacity to harm other people. Death harms other people.

The Lurktastic Opponaught > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:11

2

I’m glad I’m not the only one. That was a target rich environment.

yamahog > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:16

7

From 2013 to 2014, fatalities in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes decreased by 1.4 percent (10,110 to 9,967 fatalities). Alcohol impaired-driving fatalities in the past 10 years have declined by 27 percent from 13,582 in 2005 to 9,967 in 2014.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Vie…

There is no evidence to suggest that laws have nothing to do with this decline, as your source claimed:

Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice.

If you’re (general “you,” not you personally) trying to make a point that enforcement alone has not been adequate enough to get every single drunk off the road, the solution is not to just make it legal.

Spridget > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:17

8

This is utter bullshit.

Sure, it may sound nice from the perspective of the “all laws are bad, we need no government” libertarian viewpoint, which is essentially the Republican Green Party equivalent. But out here in the real world, it’s bullshit. In 2012, 1/3 of all people killed on the road were killed by drunk drivers. In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in drunk driving accidents, and 290,000 were injured. Drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion per year. You can’t rely on the honor system to keep drunk drivers off of the road; and you can’t say that “some people drive safer after a few drinks.” That’s like saying “some suicidal people are less likely to commit suicide if they have a gun, noose, knife, or pills.” Sure, it’s technically true if you look at the small picture, but when you look at the forest for the forest and not for the trees, it’s nonsensical.

Xyl0c41n3 > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 08/01/2016 at 20:17

1

That actually is part of the law, at least here in Texas. I’ve sat in on Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission workshops that specifically talk about a vendor’s responsibilities. There are penalties for establishments that are found to have been complicit in letting a drunk leave, or not cutting them off.

It may not end up in criminal court, but it definitely does put them on the hook in civil court. Plus, if they were found to be in violation, TABC yanks their licenses.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:37

6

What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian

See, this is why libertarians don't get invited to parties.

Nauraushaun > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:38

1

Don’t we already do this? In Australia you’re allowed to drive with a blood alcohol content within 0.05. Effectively, it’s legal to drive while drunk - as long as the law deems you’re not too drunk .

wiffleballtony > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:39

1

Just as soon as we legalize shooting guns into the air as celebration.

iaintafraidofnoghost > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 20:42

3

It’s like this guy has never picked up a paper in the last three decades. Drunk driving is on the decline. Mostly because the penalties are harsh. A $15 cab ride is way better than the thousands in fees you could pay (let alone avoiding the opportunity of taking someone’s life).

http://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/…

Sam > yamahog 08/01/2016 at 20:43

9

This is why Gary Johnson is not the guy that everybody thinks he is. The Libertarian platform endorses this exact stuff. “’X’ set of laws don’t stop 100% of crime and result in people imprisoned for no reason, so the solution is get rid of all laws regarding X.”

yamahog > Sam 08/01/2016 at 20:48

0

yuuuuuuuuuuuuup! we have a hardcore NO STEP ON SNEK dude running in the Republican primary against our incumbent idiot “I believe in natural family planning and no sex ed” state rep. I’m tempted to vote for the libertarian to make things easier for the Dem candidate in the fall.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > Honeybunchesofgoats 08/01/2016 at 20:52

1

Extremists from either side are equally intolerable

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > yamahog 08/01/2016 at 20:57

0

This presidential race makes me all kinds of depressed. You can’t even figure out who’s the lesser of the evils, and even if you do you’re still voting for evil. Would you rather slowly murder 100 baby humans or 100 puppies? It’s ridiculous.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > The Lurktastic Opponaught 08/01/2016 at 20:58

0

YEAH BUT SHOULD WE RAISE TAXES TO BOOST RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!?!??!11?!?!!?!?!

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > Xyl0c41n3 08/01/2016 at 21:00

2

“Your personal freedoms end when they have the capacity to harm other people.”

This. So much this. Conversely, personal freedoms shouldn’t end *unless* they have the capacity to harm other people *or* infringe their personal freedoms.

yamahog > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 21:00

6

...it’s pretty easy to figure out, especially with that godawful VP pick. I’m not the biggest Hillary fan, but I’m a fan of not imposing Trump’s weird Muslim issues or Indiana-level legalized LGBT discrimination and STD outbreaks (due to defunding PP) on the rest of the country.

Honeybunchesofgoats > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 21:00

5

I totally agree. I don’t really think of libertarians as extremists though. Just often very childish in their reasoning.

My point is that this is a person old enough to have spoken to Murray Rothbard about drunk driving (he died over 20 years ago), but makes an argument so silly that it wouldn’t pass in a freshman writing course. I went to a university with a large number of libertarians, and they 1) all have silly arguments like this and 2) desperately need to share them with you.

deekster_caddy > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 21:03

0

The thing is, it’s something that’s been proven over and over to affect the way you can react to anything. Those tenths of seconds in reaction time matter when you are about to run over a pedestrian because YOU ARE ON THE SIDEWALK (which you wouldn’t have been had you not been drinking and driving in the first place). Unfortunately people have been proven to be too stupid to control themselves without the threat of heavy penalties and public shaming.

I don’t like the idea of being so specific about BAC and whatnot, but if there is no threat of punishment a lot more people would drink and drive. I am in favor of DUI punishments in most of these scenarios, no matter how good of a driver you are.

I am libertarian for a lot of things, but there needs to be some safety guidelines for the general public or we will be the chaos society. Don’t tell me whether or not I can have an abortion (I can’t, because I can’t get pregnant anyway), but I am in favor of things that protect the masses, like vaccination and stiff DUI penalties. However, I should be allowed to smoke as much pot as I want as long as I’m not affecting anybody else (or driving).

Xyl0c41n3 > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 21:08

1

There's always a trade off in figuring out exactly where that line lies.

The Lurktastic Opponaught > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 21:10

0

False dilemma.

That’s a paddlin’.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > yamahog 08/01/2016 at 21:52

0

I’ve actually no idea what the VP picks are or why one is different from the other.

What are your thoughts on Johnson? I’m a fan of what little I’ve read of his economic policies. Less military spending, more incentive for corporations to move operations domestic (which is nice if it works but I highly doubt it will work), etc. Also seems to be in favor of a smaller government if I interpret stuff properly. Of course, not all sunshine and rainbows by any stretch, but seems to have more positives than our two main race horses at this point.

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > Xyl0c41n3 08/01/2016 at 21:57

1

True. And I actually read a fascinating book on the subject but my memory is terrible and I can’t recall the title.

yamahog > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/01/2016 at 22:45

4

Trump’s VP pick, Indiana’s Gov. Pence, is very bad news. He signed their RFRA (legalized discrimination against LGBT folks), is staunchly anti-abortion (he defunded Indiana’s Planned Parenthood and signed a feticide law that allowed a woman to be sentenced to 20 years for inducing a miscarriage), he defies the 14th Amendment principle of birthright citizenship, he is a climate change denier, he does not believe in evolution, he has said “smoking doesn’t kill,” he is pro-TPP, and he basically fills in the Tea Party shaped gaps in Trump’s MechaConservative suit. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Penc…

I’m also not a fan of Sen. Tim Kaine, the Dem running mate, because he supports the Hyde Amendment (prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion, therefore eliminating coverage and severely restricting access for people on Medicaid, in the Peace Corps, etc) but at least his voting habits are pro-choice.

Libertarian policies generally run contrary to a lot of my personal ideals, because naked capitalism will always come at the expense of the poor. And in this election, I’m definitely not gambling on a third party. Never Trump.

Out, but with a W - has found the answer > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/02/2016 at 05:25

0

Am I over the legal limit? Hard to say.

Which is why they should introduce zero-tolerance. Had alcohol? Don’t drive, simple as that.

Anyway, we’ve got regular anti-drunk-driving campaigns and targeted traffic stops here, so I’ve always found the US a bit strange when it comes to DUI.

duurtlang > Nauraushaun 08/02/2016 at 06:10

0

0.00 is not realistic. 0.05 is only 1-2 drinks, depending on body size. You won’t be significantly impaired at <0.05.

Bourbon&JellyBeans > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/02/2016 at 07:59

1

Wow, this author is making a GIGANTIC strawman out of this issue.

“What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body.”

No. Otherwise, being intoxicated would be illegal under all circumstances. The author spends so much time making drunk-driving laws appear to be a boogeyman that they lose the plot. Driving is a privilege, not a right. When you drink and drive and break the law, you lose that right, sometimes for a long time. Grow up and be responsible. This kills people. Does this guy not get that? He wants to legalize something that actually kills people and does no service to society. Huh.

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > Xyl0c41n3 08/02/2016 at 09:40

0

So much this! Drunk driving should be less of a crime on the first offense but face MUCH more extreme penalties on the second offense. And by MUCH more, I am talking about life in prison, death penalty, never allowed to drive again no matter what. Those sorts of things. It always seems like the bigger problem is the people with multiple DUIs than they made a bad choice once. Eventually, self driving cars should surely solve all of the drunk driver issues. So I highly welcome it as long as I can still go drive in the mountains and the track in my human driven vehicle.

yamahog > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/02/2016 at 09:43

1

PS - just wanted to mention I really appreciate the respectful discourse going on in this and other comment threads on your post :)

Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To > yamahog 08/02/2016 at 11:50

0

haha, no problem. It’s far easier than arguing.

Tohru > Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To 08/02/2016 at 12:54

1

I’d pick the humans. Puppies are cute and pure of heart.