Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[AuH20]

@you and everyone else with a similar opinion-what about distracted drivers? (texting, cell calls, etc) They're statistically as dangerous or moreso, depending on the area you survey.

I think that's opening up a whole can of worms since it's so subjective. At least BAC is a metabolic standard that generally holds water across the population (of course there are exceptions).

 

[osan]

So let's say an individual drinks excessively and then proceeds to turn onto a highway exit and enter a freeway with cars speeding from the opposite direction? (BTW such incidents have occurred twice by me) What should we do with he or she? Slap them on their wrist and tell them to go on their merry way?

There are common standards of decency that is expected out of each other when we drive. There are no do-overs with a 2 ton vehicle at your control. IMHO this isn't on the same moral plateau as an unruly lawn or some flippant government edict. A couple of drinks aren't a big deal, but when you can't control yourself............ This isn't some oppressive burden. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws, but the select assholes ruin it for everyone. With that said, I understand the compelling counterpoints on the other side.

Slight analytic fail.

I do believe the timbre of the thread has been along the lines not of whether you have been drinking, but how impaired you are. Driving the wrong way up an exit ramp poses a clear and present danger to others. That is not the same as driving within parameters even though your BAC is .18.

IIRC, in a previous response I mentioned that while driving "drunk" may not necessarily be a crime, it does not follow that the act may not be intervened upon. You are pulled over for erratic driving and blow drunk. Rather than attempting to ruin your life, put you in the drunk tank or at least confiscate your keys until such time as you pick up the vehicle in a state of sobriety. If you harm another or damage property, drunkenness should qualify as an aggravating factor.

I see no virtue in ruining people's lives over this when they have brought no harm, for such is "pre-crime" and it is alive and well in the world.

I side with freedom over "caution" because the latter always diminishes the former in a progression over time. America is perhaps humanity's prime example of this.

 

[pcosmar]

The question didn't say "OK." It said "legal."

ETA: Good grief! Who bumped this and tricked me into replying to a post from 7 years ago?

The Prohibitionists never quit.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, drunk driving in itself is not a crime.

Only if/when the drunk driver harms someone or damages someone's property has there been a crime.

...and the driver being drunk has nothing to do with the severity of the crime.

If you are responsible for harm to persons/property while driving, you should be liable in exactly the same way whether entirely wasted or judge-sober.

And your liability should be to the victim, to pay some kind of restitution; contra punishment at the hands of the State.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Is drunk walking legal?

 

[mad cow]

Is drunk walking legal?

No,it is not..I have been tossed in jail for it a few times.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

So let's say an individual drinks excessively and then proceeds to turn onto a highway exit and enter a freeway with cars speeding from the opposite direction? (BTW such incidents have occurred twice by me)

I'd a thunk you'd have learned to not drive drunk after the first time...

 

[phill4paul]

Bump for relevance due to the yearly Drunk Driving emotion driven thread.

 

[euphemia]

no victim no crime

You can keep saying that, but if you are impaired, stay home. Just stay home.

 

[Anti Federalist]

blimp

 

[Swordsmyth]

I think that drunkenness should be an aggravating factor IF AND ONLY IF someone is actually harmed by the driver.

 

[Swordsmyth]

IIRC, in a previous response I mentioned that while driving "drunk" may not necessarily be a crime, it does not follow that the act may not be intervened upon. You are pulled over for erratic driving and blow drunk. Rather than attempting to ruin your life, put you in the drunk tank or at least confiscate your keys until such time as you pick up the vehicle in a state of sobriety.

A good point, why must punishment always be involved when simple intervention in the case of a clear public hazard would suffice?

 

[Suzanimal]

Dem lawmaker announces plans to propose bill requiring breathalyzers in new vehicles

The nannystaters never stop. They want to regulate very single aspect of life. Everything must be touched by government. Everything must be meddled with. It's a soft form of totalitarianism. But over time this "soft' totalitarianism accumulates and calcifies into just plane old nasty totalitarianism.

This proposal is being floated in the name of safety. But it reflects a misunderstanding of the balance in a free society between freedom and risk. We should not have to blow into a computer in our car just so we can operate our property.

(From The Hill)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) is planning to introduce a bill next week that would require all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to come equipped with an interlocking breathalyzer device.

The breathalyzer device would force drivers to test their blood-alcohol content (BAC) levels before being able to start the car.

...

https://www.thesorrentino.com/all-n...-bill-requiring-breathalyzers-in-new-vehicles

 

[Stratovarious]

OP;
I dunno' but 60% if vehicular fatalities are caused by sober drivers,
not a lot of concern over those deaths,
seems to me, like dead is dead, my belief is that people should be held accountable for their actions,
not because they had two or three beers but whether they hurt people.
We don't need checkpoints and breathalyzers, we need real cops that watch for
aggressive and incapable drivers, booze , no booze , accountability period.

 

[pcosmar]

OP;
I dunno' but 60% if vehicular fatalities are caused by sober drivers,
not a lot of concern over those deaths,
seems to me, like dead is dead, my belief is that people should be held accountable for their actions,
not because they had two or three beers but whether they hurt people.
We don't need checkpoints and breathalyzers, we need real cops that watch for
aggressive and incapable drivers, booze , no booze , accountability period.

90+%,, are "sober" drivers.

A small amount are due to Catastrophic Mechanical Failure. and some could be weather related..

Most are stupid mistakes by poor drivers. (accidents)

 

[Dr.3D]

Dem lawmaker announces plans to propose bill requiring breathalyzers in new vehicles

The nannystaters never stop. They want to regulate very single aspect of life. Everything must be touched by government. Everything must be meddled with. It's a soft form of totalitarianism. But over time this "soft' totalitarianism accumulates and calcifies into just plane old nasty totalitarianism.

This proposal is being floated in the name of safety. But it reflects a misunderstanding of the balance in a free society between freedom and risk. We should not have to blow into a computer in our car just so we can operate our property.

(From The Hill)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) is planning to introduce a bill next week that would require all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to come equipped with an interlocking breathalyzer device.

The breathalyzer device would force drivers to test their blood-alcohol content (BAC) levels before being able to start the car.
...

https://www.thesorrentino.com/all-n...-bill-requiring-breathalyzers-in-new-vehicles

Oh great, as if there are not enough things to keep a vehicle from working they want another device that will require maintenance.

I suppose when it isn't working correctly, it will make a little engine light on the dash light up except this time, the engine wont even start.

How are they going to keep people from using a small compressor to blow in the tube?

 

[Origanalist]

Dem lawmaker announces plans to propose bill requiring breathalyzers in new vehicles

The nannystaters never stop. They want to regulate very single aspect of life. Everything must be touched by government. Everything must be meddled with. It's a soft form of totalitarianism. But over time this "soft' totalitarianism accumulates and calcifies into just plane old nasty totalitarianism.

This proposal is being floated in the name of safety. But it reflects a misunderstanding of the balance in a free society between freedom and risk. We should not have to blow into a computer in our car just so we can operate our property.

(From The Hill)
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) is planning to introduce a bill next week that would require all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to come equipped with an interlocking breathalyzer device.

The breathalyzer device would force drivers to test their blood-alcohol content (BAC) levels before being able to start the car.

...

https://www.thesorrentino.com/all-n...-bill-requiring-breathalyzers-in-new-vehicles

It won't stop at new cars if this goes through.

 

[AZJoe]

 

[Anti Federalist]

here it is