Everyone knows I have been opposing Drunk Driving Laws for the last couple of years. I think such laws are unfair discrimination - there are people who can drive safely and well when drunk. Also, there is no reason to think a drunk person must necessarily behave in an unsafe way. It is probably more likely, but if probability was an issue here we would also have to arrest young people and skinheads for driving (both of those groups seem to be prone to recklessness in my experience).
Now I just found an article written back in 2010 by Mr. Radley Balko of reason.com. I know from experience (although I don't drive) that people often focus on how many drinks they can have before driving, which is a quote in the Balko article by a police officer. Mr. Balko is giving the practical side of the argument which I give in theory. All reckless driving should be punished (when evidence of reckless driving exists), not just drunk driving. I can't count the times I've seen people drive like crazy. Dangerous driving has nothing to do with drinking. By allowing the conclusion that driving while drunk is punishable, we allow what is in actual fact a prohibition. If driving when drunk is not okay, why is drinking alcohol ever okay? It's dangerous either way isn't it? A drunk man is more likely than a sober man to commit murder or just beat someone up, isn't he? So why allow alcohol at all?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The reason drinking is OK in general is because law is based on a black and white view. On average, a drunk guy is dangerous to a degree but a drunk 18 wheeler driver is more dangerous, wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't agree. It depends on the person and the situation.
ReplyDeleteI work on the doors and I have seen many dangerous sober little women and almost harmless drunken big dudes.
ReplyDeletelook for statistic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research