I was quite serious about drunk drivers paying my way through school, and I was quite serious about the devestation caused by drunk drivers which I have witnessed. Quite frankly is see no justification on their part which even comes close to the damage they have caused to the people they have killed and injured, and to the families of these people whom they have destroyed. Any rational decision concerning how to deal with the problem must take the harm into consideration, and the harm can only be considered if it is brought forward, rather than tucked away and marginalized. The original post entirely avoided any mention of the devestation caused by drunk drivers. There was no attempt whta so ever to put forth balanced consideration of the harm caused by drunk drivers.
Reference to the use of emotional rhetoric by me and to the need for risk analysis have been alluded to by other posters. Well, let’s step back and have a closer look, for the one merges into the other.
Reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour, as suggested by one poster, would have a devestating effect on the economy. Strictly enforcing drunk driving prohibition would have no significant effect on the economy. The 25 miles per hour issue is at worst a straw man, and at best argumentum ab incovenienti. Both mere rhetoric.
Next, it has been suggested that my position is emotional, and thus should be discounted. This is argumentum ad hominem. Again more rhetoric. If posters find my factual references to dead children emotional, I suggest that they should ask why they find it so. This is no argumentum ad captandum or argumentum ad misericordiam, holding up a Timmy in association with something unreleated. This is a very real problem of massive proportions.
But in defense of rhetoric, here is the interesting bit. When a drunk is hauled up in court, who then uses rhetoric? The drunk’s lawyer. Yup. I otta know, for about a quarter of my work is criminal defence. Let’s face it, when done well, rhetoric works. Without rhetoric, even the best arguments are ignored or swept away.
So I really must ask, who is using what rhetoric here? I am quite comfortable in defending the statements I have made, and have used irony in my previous post simply to drive home the point without becoming turgid. I certainly will not back away from using rhetoric to sway others, but please note that the rhetoric is used as a supplement to a very rational position, and not as mere smoke and mirrors.
If, however, one wishes to absolutely objectify the matter, then let’s have at it. Take the annual number of deaths and serious injuries caused by alcohol involved motor vehicle incidents. Then take the annual amount of alcohol consumed and give it a meaningful number in terms of drinks. Determine the ratio. How many drinks by a driver is a life worth?
Then look at RIDE programs concerning the frequency and duration of stops. Weigh this against the number of drunks taken off the road temporarily or for extended periods, and determine the number of lives this saves and the number of serious injuries this prevents. Again, find the ratio. How many minutes of delay is a life worth?
Finally, let’s look at the artificial construct of “rights” and weigh it against tens of thousands of deaths in the US annually. A right is only a legal entity; it is not a physical entity. It is not a person. A right simply helps codify a value system. The oversimplification of rights based positions in this thread have missed a very basic point. Rights do not stand individually. They stand as an integrated system, so talking of a right to drive based on subsidization through taxes, or the right to not be stopped based on a constitution or on common law, is entirely meaningless until it is put withing the greater context, which includes the overriding right to life itself. In short, it comes down to the question of determining the degree to which the saving of life justifies the temporary limitation of enjoyment, be it enjoyment of drinking, enjoyment of driving, or enjoyment of not being occasionally stopped.
I remind you that the original post posited that persons should not be arrested for high blood alcohol content, but instead only should be arrested after having harmed someone. I find this position patently absurd, for it completely ignores the basic fact that unless drunks are kept off the road, then people will die in great numbers. Yes, this statement on my part is a rhetorical argumentum ad absurdum, but pointing out that the original post entrely ignored the ruined lives caused by drunk driving is a solid and logical argumentum ad rem. I simply brought the discussion back to reality by providing typical examples of the outcome to which the position set forth in the original post would lead.
If posters object to the reference to dead children, then rather than complaining about such references, they should consider if such references are factually correct, relevant to the matter at hand, and stated in proportion to the matter at hand. If my references are factually correct, relevant and proportional, as I contend, then I suggest that the concerned posters should look at their own difficulties in rationalizing fundamentally unjustifiable positions.
In short, don’t marginalize the devestation caused by drinking and driving, for this is no more than false rhetoric. Instead, look at the whole picture. Look the devestation in the eye, as I did for a number of years, and then prove to me why such devestation is preferable to the alternative posited in the original post.