Should Drunk Driving Be Legal?

[brandon]

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.

This is a good point. As I said early in the thread , I drink and drive almost every weekend. However, I almost never drive when I am too drunk. I can set my own limit better then the government can set some arbitrary "one limit fits all" BAC that I can't even measure effectively until it's already too late.

Some unexperienced light drinkers may have trouble driving after only two drinks. While heavier, experienced drinkers may be able to consume 8 - 10 drinks and still drive responsibly. For me, I know if I am stumbling on my way to my car that I should look for another way home.

 

[brandon]

Have you guys ever been driving somewhere, and a few minutes into your trip you realize that you are way to smashed to be driving? This has happened to me once or twice. When this happened to me, I wanted to immediately pull over and get a few hours of sleep in my car until I sobered up enough to drive safely. However, DUI laws forced me to stay on the road.

If I pulled over on the side of the road, at some point in the night the cops would have approached my vehicle to see if everything was alright. When they found me they would have smelled the alcohol, gave me a breathalyzer, and locked me up. Yes, it is a crime to sit in the drivers seat of a car while intoxicated, even if the car is parked and the keys are not in the ignition.

 

[free_mail]

Have you guys ever been driving somewhere, and a few minutes into your trip you realize that you are way to smashed to be driving? This has happened to me once or twice. When this happened to me, I wanted to immediately pull over and get a few hours of sleep in my car until I sobered up enough to drive safely. However, DUI laws forced me to stay on the road.

If I pulled over on the side of the road, at some point in the night the cops would have approached my vehicle to see if everything was alright. When they found me they would have smelled the alcohol, gave me a breathalyzer, and locked me up. Yes, it is a crime to sit in the drivers seat of a car while intoxicated, even if the car is parked and the keys are not in the ignition.

Funny, something like that actually happened to someone I knew a while back. Was drunk, started to drive home but decided against it. He parked at a Taco Bell parking lot, grabbed a late night burrito and passed out. Hour or so later he was being arrested and charged with a DUI.

I'll take my chances with freedom too. As many have said, the arguments against Drunk Driving is the same thing used for Gun Bans and War on Drugs. More control and less freedom for what seems like safety.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Also notice in the article the subtle shift. It used to be end drunk driving. Now it has become end drinking and driving.

"Enjoy the holidays. Have a great time. Just don't drink and drive," he warned.

Marilena Amoni, NHTSA's associate administrator, said drivers need to be held responsible when they choose to drink and drive.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiled the state-by-state statistics to encourage states at the bottom of the rankings to get tough on drivers who drink.

Also notice NHTSAs cited goals are directly related to MADDS.

Very evident in this article is the NHTSAs methodology for related statistics.

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

Thats right. A driver with .01 from drinking cough medicine is a raving drunken fiend that has caused a fatality.

Yes, it's written off as "drunk driving", without taking into account whether actual impairment had occured.

 

[tribute_13]

Absolutely Not

It should be fine for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies. But no one has the right to endanger someone else's body. And if you seriously think that people who are drunk pose the same risk as sober people, you need to grow up. Its completely obvious and observable that alcohol impairs most people's ability to drive. So like I say with all drugs and mind altering substances: It's fine if you want to screw your own body up but you have no right to screw mine up.

 

[brandon]

But no one has the right to endanger someone else's body.

Almost any action an individual takes can have the possibility of endagering someone elses body. Should a person with a gait not be allowed to walk on a public sidewalk for fear that they will step on someone elses foot? Should we criminalize sky diving because of the risk someone's parachute doesn't open and they land on an innocent bystander?

Ok maybe that example is a bit extreme, but I think it conveys the general idea. We don't live in a safe world. Everything we do carries an associated risk, both to ourselves and to others. Do we really want the government dictating what levels of risk are acceptable and what levels are not? Do you think they can accurately calculate the risk involved for every action? Or should the government just force us all to live in isolated padded cells to make sure we never endanger anybody?

 

[revolutionist]

No. It's not a crime. Privatize the roads and let businesses best decide how to handle their roads.

This


But as far as public roads at the moment are concerned, it should be left to the states. I personally think that drunk driving should be prohibited, but it should be through the guise of reckless driving. If a police officer sees that you pose a clear and present danger to the road, he can pull you over and make you stop driving. It shouldn't be BAC based.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

How does your state rank in attorney density?

This is a statistic that is a very good indicator of how much your state is supporting the growth of government in all its aspects, but in particular the justice system, criminal & civil.

Of course the primary reason there are wildly diverging opinions on this issue even within our 'Liberty' group is because of different points of view of the principles involved; but the other side of the coin is that we reside in different states, and the general enforcement of this and many other prohibitions varies wildly across the country, perhaps to a greater degree than many of us realize. Att'y density correlates to those enforcement levels quite accurately as well.

Needless to say there is no compatibility between small, limited gov't and high atty density. High att'y density is a sure sign of the over-regulated, authoritarian state. My state has gone a bit batshit crazy in growing its justice system to immense proportion, particularly in comparison to neighboring states in the region- so this is a statistic I've been watching closely for a good number of years now.

Active & practicing att'y numbers courtesy of the American Bar Association's marketing research people; population estimates courtesy of the US Census Bureau. Links at the bottom. Density calculations courtesy of Microsoft Excel.

RANK.....STATE................ATTY'S*.....POPULATION**.....ATTY DENSITY
........Dist. of Columbia.....46,689..........588,292.................7.936%
1......New York...............150,542.....19,297,729.................0.780%
2......Massachusetts........42,501.......6,449,755.................0.659%
3......Connecticut.............19,013.......3,502,309.................0.543%
4......Illinois......................61,259.....12,852,548.................0.477%
5......New Jersey..............39,384.......8,685,920.................0.453%
6......Minnesota................21,944.......5,197,621.................0.422%
7......California...............148,399.....36,553,215.................0.406%
8......Louisiana.................16,965.......4,293,204.................0.395%
9......Colorado..................18,894.......4,861,515.................0.389%
10....Missouri....................22,602.......5,878,415.................0.384%
11....Rhode Island..............4,055.......1,057,832.................0.383%
12....Maryland..................20,996.......5,618,344.................0.374%
13....Pennsylvania...........46,065.....12,432,792.................0.371%
14....Vermont.....................2,183..........621,254.................0.351%
15....Alaska........................2,385..........683,478.................0.349%
16....Washington.............22,276.......6,468,424.................0.344%
17....Oklahoma................12,357.......3,617,316.................0.342%
18....Florida.....................59,953.....18,251,243.................0.328%
19....Hawaii.......................4,126.......1,283,388.................0.321%
20....Ohio........................36,644.....11,466,917.................0.320%
21....Michigan..................32,131.....10,071,822.................0.319%
22....Texas......................73,505.....23,904,380.................0.307%
23....Oregon....................11,344.......3,747,455.................0.303%
24....Montana....................2,844..........957,861.................0.297%
25....Wyoming....................1,537..........522,830.................0.294%
26....Delaware...................2,526..........864,764.................0.292%
27....Nebraska...................5,117.......1,774,571.................0.288%
28....Alabama...................13,231.......4,627,851.................0.286%
29....Georgia....................27,227.......9,544,750.................0.285%
30....Kansas.......................7,855.......2,775,997.................0.283%
31....Kentucky..................11,876.......4,241,474.................0.280%
32....Virginia.....................21,183.......7,712,091.................0.275%
33....Maine.........................3,594.......1,317,207.................0.273%
34....New Mexico................5,267.......1,969,915.................0.267%
35....Wisconsin.................14,448.......5,601,640.................0.258%
36....West Virginia..............4,618.......1,812,035.................0.255%
37....New Hampshire..........3,309.......1,315,828.................0.251%
38....Tennessee................15,199.......6,156,719.................0.247%
39....Nevada.......................6,105.......2,565,382.................0.238%
40....Utah...........................6,215.......2,645,330.................0.235%
41....Iowa...........................6,959.......2,988,046.................0.233%
42....Mississippi..................6,723.......2,918,785.................0.230%
43....Idaho.........................3,330.......1,499,402.................0.222%
44....South Dakota.............1,761..........796,214.................0.221%
45....Indiana.....................13,564.......6,345,289.................0.214%
46....North Dakota..............1,345..........639,715.................0.210%
47....North Carolina..........18,966.......9,061,032.................0.209%
48....South Carolina............8,961.......4,407,709.................0.203%
49....Arizona.....................12,793.......6,338,755.................0.202%
50....Arkansas.....................5,700.......2,834,797.................0.201%

........TOTAL...................1,148,465...301,621,157.................0.381%

*http://www.abanet.org/marketresearch/2008_NATL_LAWYER_by_State.pdf
**http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

 

[mellamojuana]

Whew! Am I ever agog!!!???

Forgive my lack of quoting posts made here, and the written works of people who have spent much of their lives in study of the effects of ethyl (alcohol) on the human body, and /or the relationships of accidents and impairment caused by imbibing. My ancient, slow, and moody computer won't allow much play.

I haven't read every word of this thread, but I get the sense that people who choose to drink and then drive feel harassed, singled out for unfair punishment, and generally rained on. I've been pulled over numerous times for everything from not having headlights on while it was raining--I had moved and didn't realize the law in the new state--to a "busted" tail-light. I have never once been caught drinking and driving because I am a teetotaler. I decided in high school that not drinking was one of the easiest, least expensive, most responsible, smartest things I could do for myself. Once when I was pulled over, it was obvious that the officer was smelling my breath which reeked of vanilla ice cream and cone. He looked at my hand holding a drippy cone in miserably hot weather and intoned, "Well, I see why you can't drive!" He was actually rather nice about it, but I decided then that I would do my best not to eat and drive again. I realized that I could easily have an accident while I'm taking care of my growling stomach.

Cellphone use is with earpiece. I just can't afford an accident.

Yes, I'm free as everyone else to eat and drive, or drink booze and drive. I prefer to reduce my risks as much as possible because I know now from reading this thread that it demands all my skill and experience to be a good defensive driver. I have to take care not only of myself, but also have to watch out for the other vehicles in one to five other lanes whose drivers may be distracted or impaired to some degree, whether staggeringly drunk or just buzzy enough to have a slowed reaction time, or just a little uncoordinated enough to--oopsy daisy--wander a tad into my lane. I never have liked the sound of metal car against metal truck, or any other combination.

I feel sad--someone had better rush to condemn my emotions--that women, who have lost a baby, child, or adult son or daughter to death because of a liquid drug that caused some degree of impairment of the driver of the vehicle that ended their loved one's life, and who have responded to their grief by trying to prevent other mothers and families from experiencing such trauma, have their actions called "crap" by some liberty-loving individuals. Those who would be free to drink alcoholic beverages indiscriminately do not want to afford liberty to deeply hurt and grieving mothers to organize to try to keep people from dying.

MADDs' reducing the rate of deaths caused by driving while impaired/intoxicated from 60% to 41% is spoken of as a failure. (I hope I'm remembering accurately; I won't go back with this cantankerous 'puter.) And, indeed, it is a dismal lack of victory, except for the 19 people of 100 who didn't die because of someone else's booze, and for the families, loved ones, and friends of those who didn't die because of MADDs' active grief. MADD began as grassroots, just as this forum did, just as activism regarding bailouts did. Somehow, I can't see that as manure. If MADD is now quasi-government, then those who object to that can contact them and Congress.

Please enjoy Happy, Safe, and Drugfree (liquid & otherwise) highway travel during Advent, the solstice, Hanukkah, and Christmas Holy-Days.

 

[phill4paul]

I feel sad--someone had better rush to condemn my emotions--that women, who have lost a baby, child, or adult son or daughter to death because of a liquid drug that caused some degree of impairment of the driver of the vehicle that ended their loved one's life, and who have responded to their grief by trying to prevent other mothers and families from experiencing such trauma, have their actions called "crap" by some liberty-loving individuals. Those who would be free to drink alcoholic beverages indiscriminately do not want to afford liberty to deeply hurt and grieving mothers to organize to try to keep people from dying.

MADDs' reducing the rate of deaths caused by driving while
impaired/intoxicated from 60% to 41% is spoken of as a failure. (I hope I'm remembering accurately; I won't go back with this cantankerous 'puter.) And, indeed, it is a dismal lack of victory, except for the 19 people of 100 who didn't die because of someone else's booze, and for the families, loved ones, and friends of those who didn't die because of MADDs' active grief. MADD began as grassroots, just as this forum did, just as activism regarding bailouts did. Somehow, I can't see that as manure. If MADD is now quasi-government, then those who object to that can contact them and Congress.

I don't call the emotions of someone who has lost a child to a drunk driving fatality "crap". However, I do think that their judgement concerning drinking and driving can become clouded. Even the mother that started MADD now condemns this organization as neo-prohibitionist.

"MADD was founded in 1980 by California realtor Candy Lightner. That year, Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver with four previous arrests for drunk driving, including one only two days earlier. She was angry, and rightfully so.

“Through MADD, I found a way to deal with my anger,” she wrote in her memoirs, “a way to address a serious social problem that had taken my daughter from me.”

Then something happened. In October of 1985, MADD’s board of directors, largely salaried male executives at that point, fired Candy Lightner. They claimed she was making excessive demands on the budget, she claimed it was a coup d’etat by radical prohibitionists who had infiltrated the organization.
Disturbed by the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general, the founder of MADD later joined the liquor lobby, declaring, “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. (The .08 legislation) ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.”

As far as the reduction in fatalities I attribute the largest part of this number to the introduction of safety laws. Safety belt laws and more importantly safety airbags were introduced during this period.

I don't disagree that there should be a law regulating driver impairment. I do however feel that current laws are draconian. They disregard three Constitutional rights and are based on skewed statistics.

For a less emotionally driven and rational response to DUI laws check the National Motorists Association page:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/

 

[mellamojuana]

Give & take on this thread = great

Thanks, phill, 4 additional info. I wish we didn't have to even think of having this discussion. I certainly understand other viewpts more deeply now.

IF the laws as they are actually keep some people from drinking & driving, or from being drunk and attempting to drive, then they do serve some purpose. We can never know how many non-deaths there were, etc.

A friend of mine says, "I think people should drink only at home." And that's a person who paid dues, getting caught both drinking & driving, and drunk & driving.

 

[phill4paul]

Thanks, phill, 4 additional info. I wish we didn't have to even think of having this discussion. I certainly understand other viewpts more deeply now.

IF the laws as they are actually keep some people from drinking & driving, or from being drunk and attempting to drive, then they do serve some purpose. We can never know how many non-deaths there were, etc.

A friend of mine says, "I think people should drink only at home." And that's a person who paid dues, getting caught both drinking & driving, and drunk & driving.

I agree, Mellamojuana, that this has been an interesting thread. It allowed me to do a lot of investigating into this matter.

The thing that gets me more than anything are the checkpoints. A blatant disregard for the Constitution. I've read articles on this subject were police officers' bemoan the negligible effect they have on DUI.

However, they are a great revenue generator across the board. I went through a check-point the other week and was informed by the officer that I needed to sign the back of my registration form. He told me there was a new law going into effect that charged a $50 fine if it were unsigned. Sigh.

Add to that the inclusion of the U.S. Marine Corp and CHP teaming up in San Bernidino Ca. and we are looking at a police state.

 

[dannno]

I don't call the emotions of someone who has lost a child to a drunk driving fatality "crap". However, I do think that their judgement concerning drinking and driving can become clouded. Even the mother that started MADD now condemns this organization as neo-prohibitionist.

"MADD was founded in 1980 by California realtor Candy Lightner. That year, Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver with four previous arrests for drunk driving, including one only two days earlier. She was angry, and rightfully so.

“Through MADD, I found a way to deal with my anger,” she wrote in her memoirs, “a way to address a serious social problem that had taken my daughter from me.”

Then something happened. In October of 1985, MADD’s board of directors, largely salaried male executives at that point, fired Candy Lightner. They claimed she was making excessive demands on the budget, she claimed it was a coup d’etat by radical prohibitionists who had infiltrated the organization.
Disturbed by the shift from attacking drunk driving to attacking drinking in general, the founder of MADD later joined the liquor lobby, declaring, “I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. (The .08 legislation) ignores the real core of the problem. If we really want to save lives, let’s go after the most dangerous drivers on the road.”

As far as the reduction in fatalities I attribute the largest part of this number to the introduction of safety laws. Safety belt laws and more importantly safety airbags were introduced during this period.

I don't disagree that there should be a law regulating driver impairment. I do however feel that current laws are draconian. They disregard three Constitutional rights and are based on skewed statistics.

For a less emotionally driven and rational response to DUI laws check the National Motorists Association page:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/

Yep.. you give the government an inch and they take a mile.

There's gotta be a better way to deal with this problem. I would say legalize drugs. I wouldn't recommend driving intoxicated, but alcohol is the only drug that really messes you up to the point where you are falling over, yet coherent enough and confident enough to start a car. It literally messes with the liquids in your ear that help you balance. Alcohol has to be one of the worst substances to drive on out of everything. People drive fast, swerve all over the road.. it's a mess.

Legalizing drugs would definitely cut down on the number of drunk drivers, and increase the number of people driving stoned or on other drugs. Studies done in Australia and Europe have concluded that moderate use of cannabis actually makes those drivers safer because they drive more carefully. Large doses of cannabis may have some effect on reaction time, and I don't recommend driving after ingesting a lot of cannabis, but a stoned driver isn't going to drive crazy or fast, they are going to drive slow and cautiously.

Driving on cocaine is about as bad as driving on DayQuil. Seriously. I would be worried about people on meth who have been up for several days, but still not as much as a drunk driver.

 

[Dr.3D]

Some unexperienced light drinkers may have trouble driving after only two drinks. While heavier, experienced drinkers may be able to consume 8 - 10 drinks and still drive responsibly. For me, I know if I am stumbling on my way to my car that I should look for another way home.

After only three drinks, I usually have problems driving. If I drink three 22 oz. beers, in a one hour period, I feel like I really shouldn't be driving. When someone asks me how much I had to drink, I tell them I only had three beers.

It is strange though, if I only drink one beer, my blood alcohol level is above the limit for me to drive. Go figure.

 

[Matt Collins]

Reason Magazine has an article about abolishing drunk driving laws:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

 

[phill4paul]

Bump for alternate thread relevance.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Bump for alternate thread relevance.

Yah, it'll get this one thrown in the sub dungeon.

I wonder if any of us writing in this thread back in 2008 would have figured it would have gotten to this:

As much of an Eeyore type of personality I am, I did not see that coming.

Even more foolish was my idea that, even if something similar to that came along, Boobus would finally resist.

Boy, was I fucking wrong.

 

[phill4paul]

Yah, it'll get this one thrown in the sub dungeon.

I wonder if any of us writing in this thread back in 2008 would have figured it would have gotten to this:

As much of an Eeyore type of personality I am, I did not see that coming.

Even more foolish was my idea that, even is something similar to that came along, Boobus would finally resist.

Boy, was I fucking wrong.

Amen, Brother. Wonder what another 8 years will bring us? I'll wager total sobriety for any driver through built in control mechanisms. The breath ignition system is making a killing off the DUI industry but just imagine how much they could make off mandatory installment in all new autos.

Edit: I definitely see .05 in the next 8 years tied to highway funds.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I don't endorse drunk driving. Legality of it is irrelevant to my view of it. If a cop can't do anything about a drunk driver then I'll yoke his ass out of the vehicle myself at the next intersection. Sue me. I've done worse.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Saying it's ok for someone to drive drunk is like saying it's ok for someone with a twitch to point a gun in your face.

I wouldn't let someone without a twitch point a gun in my face. I would, however, be just fine with sober people driving. The simile does not work.