How can we prevent drunk driving deaths?

Recent events have caused me to evaluate some statistics.

10,000 people are killed each year in the US as a result of drunk driving. Approximately 30 people each day. Approximately half of these people were innocent, e.g. not driving drunk themselves but killed by someone else who was. Purely for comparison purposes, the number of people killed in random gun violence (e.g. not gang or crime-related violence, domestic violence, etc.) is about 250-500 depending on the year.

On a larger scale, approximately 100,000 people are killed each year in alcohol-related deaths, compared to just 30,000 people in firearm-related deaths (of which over half were suicides).

People are responding very strongly to the recent mass shooting, with demands for new, strict gun laws to minimize the chance of this happening again. And I have to admit, out of all the mass shootings that have happened recently, this is the first one that’s really affected me emotionally, and made me reconsider my support for gun rights. But in the course of researching statistics and crime rates, etc. related to gun violence last night, I was amazed to discover just how deadly and dangerous alcohol is in this country. I mean, we get all bent out of shape about gun violence, and yet there is absolutely no national-level debate about alcohol control!

Conveniently, many people in various threads have proposed useful regulatory schemes for improving gun control. I’ve taken the liberty of adapting these schemes for the purpose of alcohol control instead. Since alcohol and guns are not very different, I think this is a reasonable proposal (or at least, as reasonable as the original gun control proposals), since both alcohol consumption and gun ownership are primarily recreational activities, not necessary for life, that a large fraction of the population partake in harmlessly, but which nevertheless cause widespread harm as a result of the actions of a few. Of course, guns do have a practical application (self-defense), whereas alcohol is purely recreational. In any case, just like every gun is potentially dangerous, every bottle of alcohol is potentially dangerous and must be treated as such! Think of the children.

I have a bit of experience with alcohol, but I’m not a crazy alcoholic - I don’t collect wine or anything nutso like that - so I think I’m qualified to propose these rules!

So, my proposal:

  1. Require that every purchaser and consumer of alcohol have an alcohol consumption license, issued at the discretion of the local police chief and reissued annually. The minimum age for an alcohol license should be 35 - people younger than that don’t have the self-control to handle alcohol well and contribute to the most deaths. As a condition of an alcohol consumption license, you must participate in a biennial mental evaluation by a substance abuse counselor who will verify that you are well-qualified to consume alcohol and will not pose a threat to society due to alcohol abuse, as well as a Federal Alcohol Safety Program Seminar every 5 years teaching you cork safety, proper storage techniques, etc. The license cost will be approximately $250, the biennial review $500, and the safety program $1000, although your local jurisdiction may charge additional fees to cover the cost of administering this program.

  2. The alcohol license should specify what kind of alcohol they are allowed to consume, e.g. beer, red wine, white wine, tequila, etc. In order to obtain the license, you should have to certify that you are not consuming the alcohol solely to get drunk, but because you appreciate the taste and subtlety of that particular type of alcohol. A limited number of people who could prove they need to consume multiple types of alcohol would be able to get a special license for this purpose.

  3. Alcoholic beverages should be limited to 5% alcohol by volume. We don’t need “rapid-fire” alcoholic drinks that is simply more dangerous and gets you drunk faster. 5% ABV should be enough for anyone.

  4. To minimize the chances of alcohol ending up in the hands of an unlicensed user, every user of alcohol should be legally obligated to store their alcohol in a secure container, under lock and key. Each alcoholic beverage should be sold with an interlock keyed to the purchaser’s fingerprint. Each alcohol user would be held strictly responsible for the consequences of any use of their alcohol by unlicensed users. The government would set up a website so that you could check the ID, license status, fingerprints, etc. of people you invite to your house for dinner.

  5. Each alcoholic - I mean, alcohol user - will be limited to 5 bottles of alcohol stored in their home at any given time. Any more than this is excessive, and 5 bottles should be more than enough for purposes of entertaining, dining, etc. “Collectors” would be able to get a special license for having more bottles if they really need to, but this would be subject to additional requirements (such as a DUI interlock on your car), on-site visits, etc. I’ve seen people with whole rooms dedicated to their alcohol collection, with hundreds of bottles - an “arsenal” of alcohol, if you will. Just ridiculous, and completely unnecessary. Sick, really. Why would anyone need so many bottles?

  6. The size of wine glasses should be strictly regulated. No wine glass larger than 5 oz will be permitted. By requiring people to “reload” more often, we will make it harder for them to get dangerously drunk.

  7. Some bottles of alcohol “look” more dangerous than others. Wine bottles are nice and pleasant to look, but bottles of hard liquor like, scotch, whisky, etc. often look like something an alcoholic would drink. This, for instance. Bottles that look like this would be banned.

  8. The manufacturer of each alcoholic beverage would be held strictly liable for the crimes committed by the consumer under the influence of said beverage.

  9. Violation of all these regulations will be strictly punished! Criminals will be obligated to follow them because the tighter regulation will diminish the legal supply and this will make it harder for criminals to get drunk…or something like that!

Obviously these rules will not lead to a total cessation of alcohol-related deaths, but by making it bureaucratically more difficult to consume alcohol, hopefully we will reduce the total number of alcohol users and make such deaths less likely. Over time, hopefully our society’s dangerous widespread acceptance of alcohol use will fade.

Anyone who objects to these rational measures is obviously a cold-hearted alcoholic bastard who is unwilling to sacrifice his freedom for the safety of all society. Alcohol is unnecessary and not needed, and you should be glad that you are allowed to consume it at all given that some people abuse it and cause untold, horrible carnage every day.

I am welcome to other rational suggestions! I am especially interested in suggestions based on proposals for gun control schemes mentioned somewhere on the board that I’ve missed.

This is all silly. Guns are for killing people; alcohol is not. They are not comparable. Regulating guns is more like regulating chemical weapons than like regulating alcohol; and you’ll note that you can’t go to the corner WMD store and buy a canister of sarin.

Adopt Norway’s method: If you’re found to have been driving drunk, they take your driver’s license away and you never get another one.

There is remarkably little drunk driving in Norway. Lots of drunk walking, however. Lots and lots and lots.

This is rather silly and you know it. People on the fringe are calling for the banning of all firearms, the excluded middle would just like some laws with some teeth.

You’re obviously not looking for a serious answer, but I have one - make drunk driving laws hurt. Very badly, like first offense means real jail time and the loss of a license for several years. Second time, jail for ten years and permanent license revocation, and loss of voting rights and heavy fines.

Also, change the cultural acceptance of drunk driving. Make it shameful and stupid.

You know…this laws might work for people with illegal guns as well…

The ongoing automation of cars will probably have a huge effect on reducing deaths due to drunk driving over the next decade or two (along with non-drunk driving accidents). I’m sure there will be something in cars that prevents drunks from getting behind the wheel, in addition of course to the car driving itself. I’ve heard there will technology to try to prevent collisions within 5 years. Of course, it won’t stop drunk people from wandering off on foot.

Oh, but they are comparable. Not a direct, 1:1 comparison, but reality is never like that. Think outside the box! Think of the children!

Guns can kill people. So can alcohol. But most people use their guns recreationally, for hunting, target shooting, etc. just like they use alcohol recreationally, without harming anyone and without intending to drive drunk.

But regardless of most people’s intent, significant harm does come from both guns and alcohol (a factor of 3 more deaths from alcohol, specifically). And since neither are essential, I don’t really see any rational reason to not regulate the shit out of either of them! Freedom? Are you kidding me? Alcohol isn’t even in the Constitution. Why should my safety, and my children’s safety, be put at risk for your enjoyment of alcohol?

Recreational use is not the one guaranteed by the Second Amendment, at least according to SCOTUS. If gun owners only used theirs recreationally, they’d presumably all be stored unloaded in safes, or at shooting ranges, rather than in a nightstand.

This will be a plausible solution when we spend more than 1% of our transportation budget on public transportation and pedestrian facilities (which we don’t right now).

Remember Prohibition? People didn’t like alcohol taken away from them so they evaded the law. It’s hard to have really strict regulation against something that’s currently legal. There are strict alcohol laws in some states; I don’t know what the driving death stats are in those areas.

I’m not calling for the banning of all alcohol! I would just like some laws with some teeth, as opposed to the current situation in which anyone over a certain age can just walk into a liquor store and buy alcohol without any limitations, restrictions or oversight whatsoever.

No; as far as I can tell the vast majority of people buy guns with the intent to kill people. In self defense in most cases, but still to kill.

Because unlike banning guns, banning alcohol doesn’t work. And because alcohol isn’t a weapon. And because someone drinking a hundred feet away isn’t putting me in danger.

Or, when everybody is willing to say “You know what? I’m not going to drink and drive.”

This has the advantage of being free. Kind of hard on the liquor and car repair industries, though.

We tried regulating the shit out of alcohol: it was called Prohibition. It didn’t work all that well.

One problem with overly draconian restrictions (on anything), aka regulating the shit out of something, is that the more unreasonably restrictive you make the regulations, the less inclined people are going to be to go along with them.

Just out of curiosity, what is the percentage of folks that either drive without a licence, or convicted of same. The way you wrote that sounds like the folks over there simply accept their fate, and comply with the sentence.

Declan

There are numerous countries in the Middle East in which banning alcohol has “worked”, so I don’t accept your assertion that gun restrictions work and alcohol restrictions don’t. I am not asking for a total alcohol ban, just some simple, reasonable restrictions compared to the wild west situation we currently have. All in all, a modest proposal, I think.

I don’t think restrictions on alcohol in the US would be any harder or less feasible to enact than restrictions on guns.

And statistically, someone drinking alcohol 100 feet away from you is a greater threat than a gun owner 100 feet away, as outlined in the OP.

However with guns it doesn’t matter much if people “go along with them”; the point of anti-gun laws is to keep them from being used on other people. If someone hides their guns under a slab in the basement, that’s almost as good as melting them down. But if someone drinks alcohol in their basement, then Prohibition has failed.

I wonder. Drunks aren’t particularly known for anticipating the consequences of their actions. If the chance of killing or seriously injuring themselves or someone else doesn’t deter them, what makes you think the chance of jail time, let alone loss of voting rights, will?

For drunk driving: Yes; and we as a society have already made some progress in this direction.

For guns: It’s silly to talk about changing the cultural acceptance of shooting up an elementary school. Is there anything we can reasonably change the cultural acceptance of, that will make gun violence less likely?

I’d just like to say it’s completely dishonest to ignore the other ten thousand gun deaths just so it compares favorably to alcohol.

Also, alcohol can be created in a shed by a Cletus with a family tree that looks like a spiral staircase.

Machining black market handguns is slightly harder and requires more skill.

Reasonably? No; America is too dominated by the gun culture, so the slaughter will go on while the sociopathic gun fetishists fondle their weapons and tell themselves they are “defending freedom”. As cultural changes go, making guns socially unacceptable to own would help, but that isn’t going to happen any more than serious gun control is.

I am responding to this again because it is such a bizarre statement.

Statistically, if you are in a public place and see a random person legally drinking 100 feet away, you are far, far more likely to be killed or injured by that person subsequently drunk driving, than you are to be shot by a random person standing 100 feet away legally carrying a gun.

Obviously, if you know the gun-wielding person and have been having an affair with his wife or something, the statistics are different.

Please refer to paragraph #3 in the OP.

[/quote]

Yes, but alcohol is constantly consumed and thus always needs to be replenished, and the danger comes from its frequent (over)use, but guns and ammunition can last for decades with proper care, and the danger comes from the constant potential of use. So even though guns are harder to make, I’d argue it balances out.