The Philosophy of Drunk Driving
 

Should drunk driving be illegal? Not according to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

To be honest, I have to agree. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't put into our blood. It's essentially along the same lines as giving harsher penalties for "hate crimes."

The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is not the crime itself, but the intent and the cause of the crime.

Similarly, a person who drives drunk receives a harsher punishment than someone who doesn't drive drunk but does the same harm.

The government does not tell us that we can and can not put in our blood regarding alcohol - it tells us what we can and can not do while intoxicated by said substance. We can sit at home and enjoy a bottle of wine with no trouble whatsoever, provided we harm none.

Your perspective (which you share with Rockwell) could extend to many, many more substances. Be careful what you wish for.

They essentially are telling us what we can or can't put in our blood, it's just that in this specific case they're tying it to a behavior, being driving, irregardless of the actual performance of said driver.

Well, clearly if people can't drive when they're high on PCP, they should also be pulled over and ticketed or arrested.

Current drinking laws aren't doing much to curtail instances of substance use and driving than they couldn't without a culture shift as we've seen with all of the beer commercials telling us to set a designated driver.

If someone is set on driving while high on a substance, no amount of legislation is going to stop them.

It's an interesting distinction to make, though, when you think about it. In any case, the result of a mansluaghter is going to be a dead person, and no amount of punishment would bring them back. Whether inebriated, fatigued, or unattentive, all cases of manslaughter are tied back to incidences of negligence. Why should it matter if the driver is drowsed or generally incompetent?

If somebody commits manslaughter while sober, are they not after all a constant danger to everyone around them?

I understand the cultural distinctions, I'm just saying that they don't mean jack shit.

In the end, being drunk is a liability no different from any other. Looking at it statistically, red cars are involved in the most accidents. Should we ban red cars?

No, it really isn't. The very nature of inebriation is that you aren't making the same kind of judgements you would when you're sober, so a drunk who intends to drive isn't likely to be concerned about the law.

True, and it was a bad example to use. Plenty of factors have direct impact on one's motor skills, however, such as being fatigued or as was mentioned in the article, having sore muscles. Is it honestly that drunk driving is the only thing which possesses a stigma, or is it impossible to profile those kinds of drivers?

If you've noticed the recent ad campaigns against drunk driving, they're not appealing to the safety risk one causes, but fear of police action.

So because we can't easily incriminate all negative influences we shouldn't incriminate any?That's because such techniques are far more effective at deterring drunk driving.

The Government has an obligation to keep the populace safe. Keeping drunk drivers off the road is an obvious part of that.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such they do reserve the right to limit what we can or cannot do while exercising this privilege.

Staying on the traffic topic...

We have red lights, and it is illegal to run a red light. A police officer could pull you over for that. But what if you run a red light and don't hurt anyone? I mean, the law that a person must stop at a red light is not necessarily going to lead to someone not being injured. It is a preventative law.

So, we make it legal to run red lights and only prosecute people when their action causes a wreck.

Sound plausible?

In even the most charitable reading, the author is guilty of sloppy language. By his words, we cannot punish a terrorist for attempting to blow up a building if he fails because we can only punish "insofar as he damages person or property". Even if we reassert some sort of criterion for intent into the proposition, he provides no argument for his conclusion, and the conclusion is disputable. What can be asserted with no evidence can be denied with no evidence.

There seems to be a place for punishing gross negligence in our laws. These blood-alcohol content laws seem to be a way of defining what is negligent enough to be blameworthy.

If he is unable to make a good judgement about obeying drunk driving laws, then I wonder if he will have the same disrespect for traffic laws.

Since you didn't state your conclusion, I am assuming that you want to say, "therefore, there should be no legislation against drunk driving".

When we say that someone is 'intent on doing x', we seem to be saying that nothing will stop them from doing x by the very definition of the word 'intent'. So what? If I am intent on killing Sally, does that mean that we cannot legislate against intending to kill people? Why is driving drunk a special case?

Current murder laws are not working in my home city of St. Louis, which was recently rated as the most dangerous city in the United States. Does that mean that we should abandon our murder laws, too? The number of murders in east St. Louis will not drop without a culture shift, either. But that doesn't mean that the laws should be dropped. What is the different between St. Louis' murder laws and current drunk driving laws?

Your last point is illogical because murder laws are not made by design to prevent the act, but to punish the act.


That seems to be the main point hinged on the article (although I agree with the point about state's rights), that the law should not be allowed to have preventative measures in it, that we should only make harm illegal and not the causes of harm.

I wonder what the author's view on conspiracy to commit ____ is (even though that has the added intent of harm, while you can't say the same for drunk driving).

It's probably something that the author wasn't thinking about, because the subject was drunk driving, which doesn't represent the intent to destroy or damage life and/or property. I don't think anybody would be so unreasonable as to say that if you have evidence of conspiracy to break the law, that the persons engaged in that conspiracy shouldn't be charged with conspiracy to commit _____.

Pretty much, yeah. Simply being drunk does not make one a danger to others, despite the impact on their motor skills. It's honestly a case-by-case basis, and the argument presented in the article is that it's wrong to excercise police power in order to punish those that may not actually be representing a danger.

There's another problem to this that hasn't been considered, which is that the severity of a crime doesn't have to be ruled out in sentencing. There's nothing stopping a judge or jury from issuing harsher sentences based on context, such as the offender being inebriated, it's just that legislating inebriation itself is wrong when the driver hasn't actually commited any infringements upon the freedoms of others.

But they're not keeping drunk drivers off the road. Police action can never be preventative, but reactionary.

I also think that using fear in order to encourage observance of the law runs counter to the principles of a free society. I mean, have you seen these commercials? The drivers aren't portrayed as violating any traffic laws, the message is that you will get ticketed for drunk driving. Not that you may depending on your driving performance, but that the police are some kind of empaths which can reach out and detect every drunk driver on the roads, enough so that driving while drunk is analogous to driving in a car whose interior is buried in whiskey or cocktails.

PUHLEASE. Everything we do that isn't dictated as a positive right is a "privilege." Does that mean that our conditions should be legislated against when tied to any action? Keep in mind that you can also be ticketed for being "drunk in public," so apparently leaving the confines of your house and property is also a "privilege" dictated by the government, and you're ok with that?

No it doesn't sound plausible, because traffic laws are punitive, not preventative. Ticketing somebody for running a red light doesn't make anybody safer because the crime has already been committed, and the danger has already been presented.

Drunk driving, in and of itself, doesn't pose a danger to others. The only thing that affects the safety of others on the road is the performance of the driver, and while being drunk may affect said performance, it is only a probability and not a guarantee.

Running a red light is illegal, because the drivers who are observing traffic laws are operating under the assumtion that when they have a green light, they can accelerate without worrying about another vehicle careening down the perpendicular lanes.

People do operate under the assumtion, however, that the actual driving performance of others on the road may not be up to snuff. It's the very purpose of defensive driving.

What you're arguing is basically the observance of the law, while what I'm arguing is the relevancy of said law, not whether or not it's ok to break it.

Yeah, you can wonder, but because one has broken a law does not mean that he is naturally destined to break others.

It'd be a faulty conclusion to make because it would be like implying that the impossibility of preventing drunk driving is the only reason for legalising drunk driving. You'll notice I've used other examples in order to illustrate my point, that drunk driving should be legal. In that case, I'm refuting the notion that drunk driving laws actually "keep drunk drivers off the streets."

Because drunk driving doesn't represent an intent to damage life and/or property.

BlueMikey, take the following example: if someone kills Sally, I will give him a million dollars. If there were no consequences in place for murder, it seems plausible that more people would be willing to take me up on my offer. The negative consequences to the person seem to serve as a preventative measure for those who choose not kill for reasons that aren't humanitarian. For example, no one with high personal moral standards against murder would take the offer, so the law doesn't prevent these people from killing because there are other factors preventing them from doing so.

However, the laws do seem to prevent people who do not have a good moral compass, but rather think only in terms of their own self interest. Hence, if there were no punishments for murder, then earning a million dollars for killing would not seem like such a bad thing to such a person. However, in this case, the consequences outweigh the benefits, so these people do not take the offer.

Hence, it seems that murder laws do have a preventative aspect to them. I have just given an instance of where a murder law does seem to prevent some people from killing. And I deny that murder laws were only intended to punish. I have just demonstrated a plausible example which is not so out of the ordinary that legislators could not have possibly had it or something similar in mind when they thought up murder laws.

Only, murder represents an act of theft from society, in this case a life, which is considered the highest form of theft.

While theft benefits the thief, being inebriated is only a case of robbing oneself of fine motor skills. Therefore, if we were to apply your ridiculous analogy to this situation, legislating drunk driving is an example of the government protecting us from ourselves, which is already a ridiculous notion because one's personal safety should be the choice of the individual.

There are no benefits involved in driving while drunk, other than possibly encouraging one to observe all traffic laws, therefore laws involving drunk driving can only be punitive.

Accidents happen when you're sober, yes. Accidents are, in fact, irrefutably more likely to happen when your motorskills and decision making capabilities are decidedly impaired.

Sure, there are a lot of people who can drive competently, even with a BAC of 0.08, but that's because of their tolerance.

I don't think you should be allowed behind the wheeel of a motor-vehicle while under the influence of substances such as alcohol. Because there's a direct correlation between BAC and impairment of faculties. I really don't see how you can argue otherwise. The government's not telling you "hey, you're not allowed to put [chemical X] in your bloodstream, you're just not allowed to do it and DRIVE, where there are other people who could be put at risk because of your ARROGANCE and/or STUPIDITY."

What? Do you not realize how many other people you endanger by driving drunk? My stance on the use of substances is extremely lax, but one thing I cannot get behind is the notion of allowing people to operate motor-vehicles while intoxicated.

Clearly it's not the case with the actual purpose of the law. I'm debunking the analogy.

No, I don't think that we should be legislating against drunk driving, because police should only be concerned about the performance of drivers, not their blood alcohol content. You don't need high motor functions to drive safely, I mean, driving a car isn't like stabbing a knife between the gaps in your fingers.

You turn a wheel and push down on a pedal. You're only working with two examples of force.

Beyond that, safe driving is mostly a matter of concentration. How do you think the disabled drive?

I dunno, you'd need numbers for that.

You're also describing situations that are impossible for people to avoid with normal reflexes. Avoiding those kind of accidents involves many elements of chance, and the danger being presented isn't the one caused by the drunk driver.

Which is funny, because being drunk typically affects your performance.

I don't think you understand how much some of these things are determined by chance. A momentary distraction, say you're paying attention to the wrong car, and then you get blind-sided. There are people around here who drive in blind spots, so I know a thing or two about asshole drivers.

Yes, reaction times do help accident avoidance, but it also doesn't mean that the intoxicated are incapable of reacting to and avoiding a possible accident. I can't really tell you how they can do it, because I've never driven while drunk. We need somebody who would actually be willing to admit to it, and I don't doubt there are a few members on this board who have gone out, partied, and then thought they had to drive themselves home.

When you're pursuing this line of reasoning, you're also essentially arguing that drunk driving legislation is supposed to protect drunk drivers from themselves, because in all of the incidents you're bringing up as examples, the drunk driver isn't the party presenting a danger.

Am I the only person who understands the concept of probabilities?

Which explains the situation perfectly; in a free society, we deal with results and consequences, not intents and possibilities.

I have made the case against drunk driving laws, but also seatbelts and cell phones, which I think violate our right to drive. Of course, I'm also libertarian++.

Whoever said that driving was a 'privelege', not a right, please do read more about what makes a 'right' a right. The basic three rights (rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) incorporates a lot of other rights. From the comment you made, it sounds like you're liberal; you're using the same tactics conservatives use (There's no right to sodomy!).

Of course, there is a practical side of things and an idealistic side of things. While they are both equally important (ideas spur the actions, after all), we cannot do random actions if we wanted to make the US a more free society. Let me tell you: destroying income taxation right now would destroy our society. We need to work on other aspects, first.

Frankly, making drunk driving a non-issue by the government is pretty low on the list.

Still, it takes courage, sometimes, to acnowledge some of the absurdities in our society, even when unpopular, and I'm happy this article was written.

Driving is a privilege. Seatbelt laws and possible cell phone bans only impenge on one's freedom to drive, but it doesn't classify as the violation of a right. In order for driving to be a right, it would have to be a positive one. I.E, you would be guaranteed the ability to drive irregardless of any past violations.

No it won't. Societies have always functioned without government. If income taxation were to be repealed, and revenues would have to be gained in other forms of taxation, then they would be allocated to the areas that have the highest demand, being utilities and law enforcement. Municipalities don't tax income, yet they're somehow capable of running sanitation, cleaning streets, and paying for police.

You aren't sounding like a very good Libertarian at this point.

Bradylama, my analogy specifically compared the preventative aspects of murder laws to the preventative aspects of drunk driving laws. I was responding what I perceive to be your general conclusion: if a law is not able to prevent the act from happening, then it is a bad law. I am merely pointing out that in general the conclusion does not hold regardless of whether the law is intended to prevent murder, drunk driving, or walking down the street. The analogy was meant to provide a counterexample to the general claim. If you do not think that you made such a claim, then I'm glad we are in agreement.

If someone is so inebrated that they cannot judge that driving drunk is probably not good for him, then I highly doubt that they are capable of obeying the traffic laws which they agreed to when they passed their drivers test. It's called gross negligence, and it doesn't matter what our intent was in that situation or not. I don't care if no one gets hurt or not, there should be laws against firing several hundred rounds into the air in the middle of New York on New Year's, even if their intent is only to celebrate the coming of the new year. Their actions are needlessly putting other people's lives in danger.

I don't think the argument assumes that it is the only reason. I am arguing that it is not a reason at all. If the behavior is detrimental to society, then we cannot sit back and do nothing, even if the current laws do not have the intended effect of preventing the act. The unsuccessfulness of the laws could prove just as easily that we just need better laws. It does not prove that we should just get rid of the laws outright. The only good reason I can think of to get rid of all DD laws is if drunk driving is not harmful. However, that very point is up for grabs, so talking about the effectiveness of the laws as preventative measures seems entirely irrelevent.

Your other examples, such as muscle soreness and fatigue while driving may therefore only prove that we needed to restrict those things, too (and I know for sure that fatigue is restricted to some degree). Even if we granted that all things that can impair driving must be restricted, that still doesn't prove that they all must be restricted to the same degree as drunk driving is. Until I see the numbers on how many people muscles soreness kills in car accidents every year, I am more hesitant to place as heavy-handed restrictions on it as we do on drunk driving.

I should have been more specific.

What I was really attacking was the concept that: that which is not a right can be regulated and destroyed as often as the government wants. Rights are positive and very broad; we have a right to liberty, not to walking down the street. That doesn't mean that walking down the street, however, should be unduly regulated in any way, which is why curfews are generally illegal.

I hate when people argue that because driving is not a right, but a privelge, our freedom to drive should be completely under the jurisdiction of whatever the hell the local (or federal) government wants from us.I have libertarian ideals; I don't prescribe to what the party wants.

Besides that, I also mean that income taxation being repealed would allow nothing but what a government should be funding. We live in a society where government does a whole lot more than what it should be doing. Repealing income taxation right now without other forms of taxation materializing (like, what was that damn fair tax, 28% sales tax?) we would be bankrupt in a heartbeat.

Like most libertarian-minded people, you seem to be forgetting the distinction between what is ideal and what is currently practical. I'm all for abolishing income taxation for obvious reasons; I'm not for doing it tomorrow and ignoring everything else. It is a problem that can and should be saved for the far-off future.

No, I understand them too. You can reduce the probability of car accidents by cracking down on drunken fools. I'm not saying drunk drivers are the only ones causing motor accidents, but there's enough of them on the road to make a difference.

As for probabilities, how high of a probability of someone/something getting hurt must we see before we restrict drunk driving?

In Germany, interestingly, it is illegal to run out of gas on the street. The police could arrest you for it (!) However, you ARE allowed to drive if you are drunk, as long as it is a reasonable driving. For example, you can consume like two glasses of beer and you would still be allowed to drive, however, don't drink a couple of glasses of vine because that wouldn't fall under the category of "reasonable" anymore, if you understand what I mean ^^

I didn't. Just because a law does not prevent behavior does not mean that its existance can't coincide with accepted norms of justice. It's like saying that capital punishment doesn't appreciably prevent crime, but may still be considered necessary as an implement of justice.

What I'm saying is that the idea that the law prevents crime is false.

However, driving while drunk, and firing into the air represent two different actions. If you shoot into the air, those bullets have to come down somewhere, and your actions represent a danger to people within a mile's radius. Driving drunk doesn't present any immediate danger, but driving wrecklessly does.

Also, because one has broken the law does not mean that they are incapable of acknowleging the fact that they have broken said law. For instance, if one is drunk and doesn't have a designated driver, one will feel compelled to drive himself regardless of the law. There's not much alternative in areas like mine where there aren't 24 hour taxi services. It may be an example of a lack of personal negligence, but doesn't represent an act of malice.

Not legislating against drunk driving isn't a case of "doing nothing" because the concerns of drunk driving are involving driving performance. Poor driving should still be legislated against, but drunk driving does not equate to poor driving performance as a rule.

The only way you could conceivably "do something" to prevent alcohol-related behavior is through prohibition of the substance in question, and a century of history regarding that measure has established its ineffectiveness.

That's a dangerous distinction to make when you're arguing for legislation, because it already admits that the actual impact of blood alcohol content is dependent on a case-by-case basis.

I'm also not saying that inebriation doesn't affect reflexes, but that lowered reflexes do not also discount the possibility of a drunk driver being capable of focusing on the surrounding conditions and anticipating an accident.

And yet, drunk drivers aren't the only ones running red lights. Drunk drivers aren't the only ones who have driven into oncoming traffic. You're arguing for the legislation of a condition that does not guarantee the negative action, instead of focusing on the action. Would it not be just as simple to charge drivers for the action and handle the severity of punishment depending on the context in which he performed said action? If people simply received harsher sentences for performing poorly while inebriated it would have the same net result.

I'm not saying that they should be on the road. What I'm saying is that when you make condition illegal instead of one's actions, you're basing laws on probabilities, irregardless of any actual danger that they pose. I think that's wrong, and I don't think it's a trend that should be encouraged, as is the case with cell phone usage.

You might as well also argue that the elderly shouldn't be able to drive because of the condition of being old. I understand that in the case of the elderly one's condition is not a matter of choice, but if we're legislating based on probabilities, society should be prepared for the likelihood of illegalising any number of behaviors based on condition, irregardless of choice.


TOO MUCH TALKING

No, rights are positive and negative. Negative rights guarantee that one's freedoms won't be infringed upon, while positive rights guarantee entitlement.

The Libertarian party is full of hacks, and to be honest I was being nice. You don't seem like a smart Libertarian.

You're also equating the desire to end something (income tax) with the ignorance of practical alternatives. No Libertarian other than market anarchists are actually advocating that the government should immediately cease taxing income without a shift to another system.

I agree with everything that woman above me just said but I have to ask a question in between: what is 0.08 what is the unit?

I just told you my issue and presented an alternative.

Axiom: if someone's set on doing (something illegal), no amount of legislation is going to stop them.

That is only halfway true since there is no higher type of legislation than your own conscience - which is by the way also the last instance - contrary to public belief - which will always still be able to stop you (even if the crime is just about to happen, there's still a chance your conscience will show the better side of yours). Of course, in most cases, the positive result is zero to none.

See, I like where this is going. Since there is no higher instance than your own conscience, why shouldn't laws be abolished altogether? If your own conscience doesn't stop you, what will?!

Additional Spam:
Of course, the problem with that idea is that laws aren't supposed to prevent shit in the first place, they're just a part of mechanism for isolating undesirable individuals from the rest of the society, am I right or am I right, guys?

The law isn't meant to be kind of an ultimative catalogue where you can find the answer to every question which is like "what am I allowed to do or not", "is what I am doing illegal or not" it is just an orientation. In fact, it is impossible for it to be like that since you will never encounter a situation where what you are doing can 100% be checked with the law. Eventually, it's only your conscience that tells you what you should do and what you shouldn't.

If I am drunk and sit into my vehicle, I might be not aware whether what I am doing is illegal or not. My conscience can tell me that I should not drive home now, though. Which means, in the end, your conscience can tell you what the law isn't able to.

Laws were and are made to avoid total chaos. Humanity would turn into anarchy without laws.

Anarchy isn't chaos, though chaos may be dependent upon anarchy. It's the difference between do-as-you-please, and do-as-you-should, in which one's actions are performed within the context of personal values and societal norms and taboos.

The NHTSA cites nearly 30 studies which say that it does.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...Laws-08BAC.pdf

Ah. So do you disagree with what the author of that article said, mainly "the law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property?" And, could you point my to what your second point is addressing?

The fact is, the largest plurality of motor deaths in our country belong to drunk driving incidents. Again, at what point is correlation between drunk driving and accidents considered high enough before we consider it to be harmful? If I am a cop and someone is so inebriated that they are having trouble walking straight, why should I have to wait for him to start driving recklessly before I have him arrested? Or should I wait for him to disobey some minor traffic violation, such as cutting in between lanes, and punish him for that small offense and only that small offense?

I'd like to know what your definition of a 'rule' is. There seems to be an awfully high correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving. How high does the correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving before we can see the former as a good sign of producing the latter?

I have to question the totality of those studies. How much can the drop in fatalities be attributed to the .08 laws as opposed to the License Revocation laws and public education efforts? What sociological efforts did they put into confirming that the .08 law was a direct cause? ALso, clearly, if you revoke licenses you're going to lower the amount of negligent drivers on the roads, and thus reduce fatality rates.

I do disagree, because there are actions which present a clear and immediate danger to lives and property. Improper use of a firearm, for instance.

The question of criminality shouldn't be relegated to damage to life and property, but should also extend to behavior that threatens the freedoms of others. Simply because somebody's freedom hasn't been violated does not mean that punitive actions shouldn't be taken.

As for the second part, I was addressing:

Even with the current laws in place, people shouldn't be arrested simply because they can't walk straight. They have to express intent to drive, and take appropriate actions to drive in order to justify an arrest.

To clarify, yes, I do believe that if an officer is aware of a drunk driver, he should wait for the driver to commit an infringement. At which point, the driver can then be issued a punishment in accordance to the severity of the crime, which is in this case violating traffic laws while intoxicated. The actual law being broken is the traffic one, but the severity of the punishment is dependent upon the context in which the crime was commited. I feel that's a reasonable compromise.

In the end my argument represents a compromise between greater freedoms and security or the illusion of it. I can understand if society places a higher value on its general safety than greater freedoms, but I have to disagree in principle.

If every drunk driver was involved in a crash, then I would be supportive of BAC laws. As it stands, though, I think it's an impossible figure to measure, because you would first need to get people to admit that they've broken the law and allow themselves to be monitored while they're breaking it.

This thing you're doing. Stop it. No, don't argue, just stop it right now.

why it doesn't seem to occur to you that drunks avoid accidents by chance, I don't know.

Do you often just dismiss sources that disagree with you a priori? Why don't you read their research methodology, and then come back and complain about how incomprehensive they are.

And then, after they break a small traffic infraction, you book them for that small traffic infraction and send them on their way like you would any other violator? Or do we have to wait for someone to get hurt or killed before we actually charge them? And that would make our drunk driving accidents per year numbers go down...how?

Wow. That's messed up. I'm really sorry for wasting my time in this conversation.

It's been my understanding that laws are generally put into place to prevent undesired behaviours. This is accomplished by making the punishment for being caught high enough to disuade people from doing it.

The notion that one's drunkeness has to be measured on a case-by-case basis instead of the baseline already established only makes it easier to put people at risk. The broad enforcement of laws instead of a case-by-case interpretation makes law enforcement much more feasible in general. It may not always feel fair, or right, but it is a practical solution.

I agree that driving drunk only increases your odds of driving poorly, instead of being a one-way trip to an accident, it is still practical to outlaw it. If I feel that I can reach around to grab something from the backseat and steer with my butt, doesn't guarantee that I'll be in an accident, but I shouldn't be allowed to just give it a shot. What about driving with my eyes closed? I mean, I might make it, right?

So while, in an abstract way, I like the idea of having the kind of freedom suggested by Bradylama in this thread, I don't think it'd work out for the best. Society on the whole has decided that it wasn't worth the risk, hence the laws governing it. And I like the alternative presented in judging all trafic cases with a heavy modifier for one's being drunk or not, it'd be hard to argue for. Instead of the catch-all 'no drunk driving' situation, we'd have the jail-time *if* you get caught situation. I propose that unless the penalty for being charged with having done X while driving drunk is extremely high (15 years prison time?), the catch-all solution would do more to prevent incidents.

It's funny, I kinda like the argument about firing into the sky. I mean, there is a chance that you won't hit anyone/anything that isn't yours, right? It's just a case of probabilities.

I didn't notice anything in the report that hinted at their methodology, unless you expect me to root through thirty different studies.

Are you just selectively ignoring what I'm saying or what?

Fuck you too.

Essentially, so is reckless driving. The difference between drunk driving, reckless driving, and the bullets, however, is that drunk driving only increases the likelihood of there being a danger. With bad driving and the bullets, though, the danger is immediate.

Considering you had questions about their methodology, what they controlled for etc yes you are expected to look past the abstract first. Unless you're in the 'google is hard' camp.

stop doing this thing that which you are doing

I guess my time is too precious to research for other people's arguments. How will internet debate survive this!? :(

Really interesting argument. Honestly. But thinking it over, I have to disagree.


I don't see what's wrong about forcing people to avoid seriously courting danger for others. It is money-and-life saving pragmatism. It is illegal to put yourself in a situation where there's a damn good chance you'll kill someone else - tough shit.

You can't fly a plane untrained because there's a good chance you'll fuck up and kill someone - even if you inist "you can handle it." You can't build an unsafe bridge and wait for the collapse to get charged. You can't place a loaded gun in your nursery and let negligence charges wait until a child successfully shoots themselves.

The hazardous situation doesn't have to manifest itself to be wrong - wrong enough to legistlate against, if it's dangerous enough.

I actually think you can put a loaded gun in a nursery and wouldn't get charged unless someone got hurt or killed.

Drunk driving = bad driving.

If you chose to drive recklessly (criminally recklessly), you'll be charged. If you drive drunk, you are driving recklessly even if you don't feel it to be so. It's a seperate charge, but same principle applies.

I don't see how one can support the freedom to drive drunk without also supporting driving with blatant disregard to other's safety.

Because possessing a blood alcohol content above a .08 does not make one a reckless driver. I can only repeat this so many times before I wonder if any of you are listening. BAC can only ever raise the likelihood of one being a danger to others, it doesn't act as a guarantee.

Yeah, it sort of does. If there is no danger, then what harm or potential harm is there being commited?

Actually, no. I don't agree with the concept of "freedom from ___". There are only "freedom of" rights, really. "Freedom from hunger", ack, ridiculous.
Amazing considering you, what, read two paragraphs I wrote. If you mean I wasn't being a good libertarian, well, that's what I said from the beginning. If you mean I wasn't smart, well, your opinion. Maybe I'm being too nice in letting people online dictate to me my beliefs.
No, I'm not equating anything. Most libertarians I come across are. I make the point, perhaps, to someone not familiar that most libertarian party members are kind of crazy.

Curiously, are you a libertarian? You seem like it from virtually all of your posts (and quoting the Mises Institute) but you seem to mock it at the same time. But, you know, that might just be because mockery is big here.

You mean like the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, and the freedom from unreasonable searches?

I'm not dictating your beliefs, I'm just telling you that you're wrong.

Most libertarians aren't even party members. Libertarians with a capital L refer to a rank and file, while libertarians are merely ideologues that usually vote republican.

I am, but there are crazy libertarians like there are crazy liberals and conservatives. In his New Year's Resolution for 1976, Murray Rothbard wished that the survivalist and free soiler libertarians would actually go off and live in the mountains or start their own country so that they wouldn't be a part of the movement that actually wanted to change things in the real world.

I can still see a justification for this sort of thing, however. It's an added punishment to curtail preventable accidents.

I don't know if the point I'm trying to make is clear, though. Yes, it seems wrong that two people making the same mistake and causing the same problem (i.e., a fatal car accident) should get different sentences. But considering one of them made a bad choice which could have prevented the accident, it does make sense to have an additional disincentive for willingly making a choice that causes high risk to others.

Economically speaking, it's an externality. Drunk drivers are more likely to incur a cost to others (in addition to themselves). A penalty for drunk driving works to shift the cost of that externality back to its source. Of course, whether or not it actually works is entirely debatable.

Additional Spam:
Let's not forget Stan Jones.

People who are hot for child porn are at a greater degree of becoming future kiddy-touchers, although it's not a guarentee.

You need to stop this now. I don't know what you think you're doing, but it needs to be put out of its misery.

Additional Spam:
Your time is too precious to read a study or two, but you have enough time to raise a tempest in a teacup over the tyranny of drunk driving laws.

I keep telling you to stop why aren't you listening to me. I only have your best interests in mind, now that it's obvious you're operating under the influence of hysterics.

Look bitch, cut this retarded shit. I don't give a fuck what you have to say at this point, especially when all you can do is tell me to "stop it" and debunk my statements with ridiculous hyperbole. Cut it out.

Because I don't care. I've mentioned several times that this is a matter of principle for me, and people are free to disagree. Yes, I don't think I should have to research other people's arguments for them, and no I'm not going to "stop it" because it will make you think less of me. I'm tired of this shit you're pulling.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You need to stop this, Brady, for our sake as well as your own. It's gone well beyond appearances. People are starting to notice, I don't think that's something you want.

Hopefully what they notice is that I react negatively to being condescended to.

Maybe if you didn't compare drunk drivers to those complicit in child rape and didn't act like my fucking mom, I wouldn't seem so "hysterical."

No, you still would. that's the only explanation I can think of when someone makes a thread proposing dropping drunk driving laws and then insist that everyone around you comes up with evidence that you then ignore.

I don't know what crawled into the vag and I dont' want to know, so just stop this

A large body of scientific research indicates that people will act more recklessly, will react more slowly, and will be distracted more easily when they're tired or drunk (especially both). The physiological and psychological effects on people are well understood. Accidents occur when people don't react properly or quickly enough, or put themselves in a place where it's physically impossible to react quickly enough (like exceeding the tolerances of your car or your grip on the road). If you wish to deny either of those facts, you may as well say it's faeries and leprechans keeping you safe on the highway.

This is what causes the indisputable statistics that alcohol (often combined with fatigue and inexperience) is one of the most common factors in wrecks and fatalities on the road, even though most of the people on the road are sober. Alcohol reduces the very functions that are most necessary to avoid accidents, in tight situations, and often leads to putting yourself in those tight situations more than you otherwise would.

A small amount of drinking is a small amount of difference in driving habit, but the legal limit is a place where the vast majority of people will have noticeably altered driving habits. Court challenges to the law have failed (or caused it to be altered upward in some cases) because of that. It's not a totally arbitrary limit.

(It's also illegal to drive if you can't stay awake at the wheel. Are you going to claim that's not a danger to others? A lot of people doing it anyway isn't a good excuse. People are very good at rationalizing their behavior in order to get home faster, and to save their pride.)

Look, I shouldn't have to explain myself to you. I've orchestrated my arguments, very specifically in this thread. It's not my fault that your selective interpretation of shit I never said is making you think less of me.

What's crawling into my "vag" is that people (not all) keep addressing points that I didn't make. I never said that being drunk doesn't cause accidents. I never said that the studies were wrong, I questioned their science which wasn't mentioned in the report.

I'm not going to sit here and be demonized for shit I didn't say. You're turning this into the Denicalis drama all over again, so stop telling me what I can or can't argue.

Did you point out any studies that defends the point you have made? I looked over your posts, but all I saw was cockamime bullshit retoric coming from you alone.

That you defend your laziness with 'I question the validity of these studies, but that's all the effort I make' is fooling exactly no one. I can't understand why you don't listen when you're being talked to.

Denicalis drama? Don't drag me into this. You haven't threatened to ban lurker yet, so it's hardly your usual bullshit with me. This is Brady-Lurker drama. You're being utterly inept about something that doesn't involve me this time, leave it that way.

Yeah, God forbid I recall an event that was caused in part by you. You'll notice I'm not invoking you for any fault in this. This is between lurker and me.

I shouldn't need a study to illustrate that probabilities are not guarantees, and no I'm not going to root through 30 studies for an uknown number that may be scientifically sound. That the report was already using "science by consensus" should be enough to put the burden of proof on the consensus.

No, but you damn well better back up your claims when you suggest getting rid / severely overhauling a whole country's worth of traffic laws on the basis of pedantic nitpicking.

How can I back up a claim with a study that I know would be based on criteria that's impossible to measure? Are there any countries that don't have BAC laws? Can you run a survey where people are honestly going to answer that yes, they do drive drunk despite the law?

perhaps such studies don't exist because the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Why doesn't this tip you off?

I figured it out. I told you to stop it, you wouldn't listen, and now I'm on to you.

You're a fucking terrorist.

Between getting rid of the drunk driving laws and advocating a return of the gold standard (sup depressions) you want to destroy America.

get the fuck out hajj

I don't think anyone's denying these facts. What Bradylama's argument stems from is the belief that something is only really a crime if it deprives someone else of life, liberty, or property (perhaps with some rare exceptions).

While driving with a BAC of 0.8 certainly increases the likelihood of someone committing a "crime" (i.e., destroying property, or harming someone), it should not in and of itself constitute a crime. In many ways, driving while under the influence of alcohol is identical to driving without proper sleep -- yet how many millions of people would be charged under a law that penalizes driving while tired?

My natural tendency is to lean towards Brady's style of thinking. Nowadays, too many laws are about prevention of "crime" (again, using the above limited definition) rather than the punishment or rehabilitation of those who actually commit harm to others. On the other side of the fence, there are those who feel that any steps to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place are far better than attempts to punish criminal ex post facto.

I gravitate more towards the middle on issues like this specific one, where there are significant externalities.

Well, it was fun while it lasted, guys. Looks like we can't destroy America through the internet. We have to destroy it instead.

I don't even care if the studies do exist. I doubt that they do because I don't think it's possible to perform a study that will get people to honestly admit that they've broken the law, especially one that carries as huge a stigma as drunk driving. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't stopped studies like the 1998 WHO study which concluded that second hand smoke has no discernable negative effects. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't silenced global warming skepticism.

I think it's clear that this thread has lost any sense of direction it may have had.

Therefore, it's closed now.