Should drunk driving be a crime?

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@D.A.M.M

Drunk driving is not a crime! You are not hurting anyone! How can you be punished for something that might happen?

What should be punished? BAD DRIVING!

Would you feel better if your loved one was killed by a driver who was talking on their cell phone or applying makeup? Should this person be punished less than a drunk driver?

Of course the drunk driving laws reduce car accidents and death. So would reducing the speed limit to 20 mph. Should we do that?

Solution: Make it more difficult to acquire a driver license! Stiffen the penalties for bad driving!

Seatbelts save lives. Give me a break! Give me my freedom!

1/10 one point for effort. but 9 subtracted for lack of originality in material, and obviousness of intent.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I miss SmashTheState terribly.

[Marley23]

D.A.M.M., just to make this obvious, you’ve posted to a discussion from two years ago. The OP was also banned quite a while ago. I’ll leave the thread open but you should be aware of that. I also think that almost everything you’ve said was already discussed earlier in the thread, but if you want to support those points or offer anything different, you’re welcome to.

[Saint_Cad]

@phreesh

Let’s not lose the idea of rational argument, here.

Then let’s not discuss drunk driving because support the OP or not, DUI is easily one of the crime that is the most irrationally treated by the legal system. A suspected drunk driver loses many of the rights the suspects of other crimes get. They set up checkpoints that you can get in trouble for avoiding even if you’re not drunk. It may be neglegent behavior to drunk-drive but it is dealt with much more severly than any other negligent behavior assuming you didn’t hurt anybody.

That being said, I do agree with the OP that driving is an inherently dangerous activity but that does not mean that DWI should be treated less harshly but others that a negligent drivers should be treated as severely. After a certain number of accidents, you should be fined and imprisoned on a charge of DWS (driving while stupid) or if you are texting, putting on makeup, eating cereal, etc. you should be fined and imprisoned for DWP (driving while preoccupied). Any argument why those people should not be treated as harshly as a DWI driver?

[Marley23]

@Saint_Cad

Any argument why those people should not be treated as harshly as a DWI driver?

Only this one: you can measure drunkenness and you can’t measure preoccupation. I don’t mind people being pulled over for texting or for doing something that takes their attention away from driving for a significant amount of time.

[Dissonance]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

1/10 one point for effort. but 9 subtracted for lack of originality in material, and obviousness of intent.

Subtract another 10 for obviousness of username. Drunks Against Mad Mothers? Really?

[elbows]

I have a solution that will keep everyone happy and maybe get this zombie back to it’s grave, where it belongs.

How about this;

All the drunk driving laws remain intact as they stand. (Because seriously, it makes a lot of sense!)

Only now, we pass a law that makes drunk driving permissible, but only during the hours between midnight and 2am. Y’know just after closing time. That way drunks can get home from the bars, the safety conscious can stay clear of the roads, and the ‘freedom at all costs’ crowd can bump each other off willy nilly. Everybody wins. Of course there would be absolute zero tolerance for it during any other hours.

[guizot]

@Saint_Cad

Any argument why those people should not be treated as harshly as a DWI driver?

Yes. Alcohol has an inevitable effect on cognitive function (C.F. for example, New England Journal of Medicine, 2005; 352:245-253) and as well as moral judgment (C.F., for example, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, Vol. 39, No.2 242-248).

In other words, by consuming alcohol you are deliberately rendering yourself unfit to drive–whatsoever. It doesn’t matter how careful you are when you drive under the influence. You are not capable of employing your brain adequately to drive–I don’t care if you’re Albert Einstein.

The person putting on make-up, etc., is, to be certain also negligent, but that person has not relinquished their capacity irrevocably. He or she has lapsed in that moment, but that person otherwise cannot be assumed unfit to drive, as can the person under the influence.

[tim314]

This is easily one of the worst ideas I’ve ever seen put forward on these boards. So stunningly bad I can’t even really someone the will to argue with you. Suffice it to say, if this suggestion were enacted, a whole bunch of people would die as a result of drunk drivers who otherwise would have been pulled over sooner. Furthermore, I see absolutely no benefit to this proposal whatsoever. Basically, this ranks up there with suggesting “Hey, lets kill a bunch of innocent people for no reason.” Monumentally dumb idea.

[jayjay]

@tim314

This is easily one of the worst ideas I’ve ever seen put forward on these boards. So stunningly bad I can’t even really someone the will to argue with you. Suffice it to say, if this suggestion were enacted, a whole bunch of people would die as a result of drunk drivers who otherwise would have been pulled over sooner. Furthermore, I see absolutely no benefit to this proposal whatsoever. Basically, this ranks up there with suggesting “Hey, lets kill a bunch of innocent people for no reason.” Monumentally dumb idea.

Do a search on SmashTheState (the original OP)…this isn’t even his worst idiocy.

[FinnAgain]

Ahhhh Smashy.
An object lesson in the dangers of the Dunning-Kruger effect coupled with huffing paint.

[Kozmik]

@Rigamarole

I guess you’d be OK with pilots getting drunk and then flying airplanes too?

Or sleeping on the job?

[Guinastasia]

@jayjay

Do a search on SmashTheState (the original OP)…this isn’t even his worst idiocy.

I liked the one about starting a fire with a bunch of mirrors to kill a cop. (Or something like that)

[CommonSense1983]

Legalize Drunk Driving | Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

[Edited to replace plagiarized column from another website with a link to the column.]

[kidchameleon]

What if the driver is a zombie?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@CommonSense1983

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is wrong. There are plenty of things that are and should be illegal, not because they are sure to cause damage to people or property every time someone does them, but because they have too high a probability of doing so.

(Note: I am responding only to this particular comment. Most of the rest of this thread is several years old, and while I may have read it when it first appeared, I did not reread it prior to this post.)

[guizot]

@kidchameleon

What if the driver is a zombie?

That is just so clever I could kill myself.

@Thudlow_Boink

(Note: I am responding only to this particular comment. Most of the rest of this thread is several years old, and while I may have read it when it first appeared, I did not reread it prior to this post.)

The problem isn’t that this is a zombie thread, but that CommonSense1983’s points have already been rebutted. That much I can remember without rereading it.

[YogSothoth]

@CommonSense1983

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

Of course they should. What kind of statement is that?

[Dr.Colossus]

@SmashTheState

By simply turning the ignition on your car, you have effectively put a bullet in the chamber and spun it. Yet nearly everyone here probably believes that this is an acceptable risk.

except pointing a gun at someone that may or may not have a bullet in the chamber serves no potentially positive or utilitarian service. where as driving a car isn’t an inherently harmful act for the sake of killing or hurting someone. it is a useful act of which tolerates mitigating risks.

for your analogy to be apt, you’d have to compare driving your car into a crowd of people or some other needlessly violent and useless act. either that, or you’d need a gun pointed at someone to transport them to places with top-tier efficiency.

not to mention “getting in your car and weaving across roads” is illegal if you are drunk or not, alone on the highway or not.

i saw on another site info about drunk-driving apologists. because cars don’t kill people. people in cars kill people. i guess there’s an advocacy contingent for every terrible idea. i suppose it shouldn’t be surprising.

edit: wait a second, was this thread revived due to the cracked article? methinks yes.

[outlierrn]

@YogSosoth

Of course they should. What kind of statement is that?

+1, why shouldn’t they? A democratic govenment is supposed to be executing the will of the people, are you(CS1983) disputing that drunk driving laws are supported by the majority?
Try this analogy. There are no traffic laws, no lines, no signs, no rules, no enforcement. Could you still drive to work, sure, but it would take a lot longer and you’d have to drive slower because of the chaos that would ensue. It’s better if everyone agrees to have their actions constained *a little *to increase the safety and efficiently of traffic *a lot *. It’s what’s meant by freedom through law.

The Bill of Rights ensures that liberty will not be deprived except by due process, do you think that traffic laws are unconstitutional? Do you think only drunk driving laws are unconstitutional? How so?