The drink driving laws are a form of tyranny

[financeguy]

In November 2000, Clinton signed a bill passed by Congress that ordered the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states passed new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

The feds have declared that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

Legalize Drunk Driving - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

 

[Vincent Vega]

Mises Institute. I guess that explains the writer's opinion pretty well. In school we often had to write argumentative texts' for and against something. From the level, this one doesn't seem that much higher. I can't really follow the "logic" the author applies here.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Is this guy fucking serious?

 

[MooMoo!]

lol whut.

 

[BVS]

This author is an idiot, and you might want to look up the word "tyranny".

 

[AliEnvy]

Bloody lobbyists.

 

[cobl04]

Is this guy fucking serious?

obviously still cut his dad didn't let him drive drunk to a party 20 years ago.

 

[Salome]

laws are a form of tyranny

 

[HyperU2]

I wouldn't say Tyranny but I agree that the drunk driving laws are out of control.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

The saddest thing is, these laws do not even want to stop repeat offenders, they are only there to make money. Not only do they not stop drunken driving, they probably hope you do it again so you can give them more money in fines, counseling, getting your license back, etc. not to mention the profit the insurance companies make! My Dad was frustrated he had to pay 40 bucks a week to go to classes were a 'counselor' was a girl less than half his age who basically gave them busy work and then sat there playing with her cellphone. It's a joke. Don't even bother to try to bash me, I've heard this info unanimously from everyone I ever knew who got a DUI, as well as my insurance agent.

The localities and counseling programs are getting rich off DUI fines. Sadly the ones who suffer most are the families of the drunk, who have to often give up their grocery money to the fines, and have to drive the drunk around at their own inconvenience. Since it never stops anybody, it's just useless. Whatever they're doing, it's not working.

 

[bigjohn2441]

The saddest thing is, these laws do not even want to stop repeat offenders, they are only there to make money. Not only do they not stop drunken driving, they probably hope you do it again so you can give them more money in fines, counseling, getting your license back, etc. not to mention the profit the insurance companies make! My Dad was frustrated he had to pay 40 bucks a week to go to classes were a 'counselor' was a girl less than half his age who basically gave them busy work and then sat there playing with her cellphone. It's a joke. Don't even bother to try to bash me, I've heard this info unanimously from everyone I ever knew who got a DUI, as well as my insurance agent.

The localities and counseling programs are getting rich off DUI fines. Sadly the ones who suffer most are the families of the drunk, who have to often give up their grocery money to the fines, and have to drive the drunk around at their own inconvenience. Since it never stops anybody, it's just useless. Whatever they're doing, it's not working.

laws are ALL about money. the powers that be are less interested in our saftey as much as there are about securing their power and making money.

 

[BVS]

The saddest thing is, these laws do not even want to stop repeat offenders, they are only there to make money.

Repeat offenders lose their license or can spend jail time, how else would you go about trying to stop them?

not to mention the profit the insurance companies make!

How exactly do insurance companies profit off drunk driving?

Since it never stops anybody, it's just useless. Whatever they're doing, it's not working.

Kind of hard to prove, don't you think?

 

[BVS]

laws are ALL about money. the powers that be are less interested in our saftey as much as there are about securing their power and making money.

I know, what's that all about, we should be able to drive 70 in front of a school with a bottle of Jack in our lap!!! This is the land of the free, damnitt!

 

[toscano]

I wouldn't say Tyranny but I agree that the drunk driving laws are out of control.

Really ? How ?

Here's a thought, don't drink and drive.

 

[INDY500]

Tyranny? No. But misplaced prudence and advocacy over commonsense, yes.

I have no problem whatsoever with laws penalizing those that put everyone at risk by maneuvering a ton of metal on public roads while impaired. But at what blood level is alcohol impairment no worse than impairment by prescription pain or anxiety medication, over-the-counter anti-histamines or just plain old lack of sleep and fatigue?

Instead of widening the net, I feel narrowing it would result in more saved lives. Concentrating on repeat offenders or those stopped with blood alcohol levels well above 0.1%

 

[maycocksean]

so the .08 limit was just abitrarily set by the government? There is no research indicating a dangerous level of impairment at that blood alchohol level?

Because if that's the case, then yeah I agree the laws should be changed.

On the other hand if .08 indicates a level of impairment on level with drowsiness, as INDY suggested, then I think the law should stand. I've gotten drowsy while driving and some pretty scary things have almost happened.

 

[BVS]

But at what blood level is alcohol impairment no worse than impairment by prescription pain or anxiety medication, over-the-counter anti-histamines or just plain old lack of sleep and fatigue?

Well some prescription drugs are already a part of this umbrella.

 

[toscano]

so the .08 limit was just abitrarily set by the government? There is no research indicating a dangerous level of impairment at that blood alchohol level?

Because if that's the case, then yeah I agree the laws should be changed.

On the other hand if .08 indicates a level of impairment on level with drowsiness, as INDY suggested, then I think the law should stand. I've gotten drowsy while driving and some pretty scary things have almost happened.

Alcohol affects everyone differently

Just don't drink and drive, then it won't matter if you're .02 or .12

The government doesn't set the limit, the state does

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Just don't drink (or ingest drugs) and drive is a good personal philosophy to live by. If people took that personal responsibility then we wouldn't need these laws. But people don't, so we do. Not a "tyranny" that I object to, at all. Just don't do it, there's no need to. People can always stay home and drink, take cabs, get rides..all sorts of options there.

 

[maycocksean]

Just don't drink (or ingest drugs) and drive is a good personal philosophy to live by. If people took that personal responsibility then we wouldn't need these laws. But people don't, so we do. Not a "tyranny" that I object to, at all. Just don't do it, there's no need to. People can always stay home and drink, take cabs, get rides..all sorts of options there.

But then there's those folks who think they drive "better" after a few drinks.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yes there are plenty of delusional people in this world

 

[deep]

Some people hold their licker differently.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Some people hold their licker differently.

Yes-but show me one person who can be proven to drive better after a few drinks. Driving test completely sober and drug free, driving test after a few drinks-whatever those drinks are.

 

[deep]

I just know people that are more dangerous at .06

than other people I know - that at 1.2 would appear and drive as sober as a church mouse.

 

[BVS]

Some people hold their licker differently.

 

[bigjohn2441]

I know, what's that all about, we should be able to drive 70 in front of a school with a bottle of Jack in our lap!!! This is the land of the free, damnitt!

i meant laws that deal with substances. obviously driving completely shitfaced 70 mph in front of a school is a danger to other people. but driving while drinking 1 beer is against the law?

well, not here in the Virgin Islands

 

[INDY500]

Personally, in the past few years I've become more worried about drivers distracted by electronic devices than those impaired by alcohol.

 

[bigjohn2441]

^indeed.

drinking a beer while driving is a big NO NO, but driving while texting is no problem.

 

[toscano]

^indeed.

drinking a beer while driving is a big NO NO, but driving while texting is no problem.

Umm, quite a few States have outlawed driving while texting.

And that means ALL texting, not .08 texts.

 

[HyperU2]

Now that you can get a DUI on a bicycle it's obvious they've gone overboard in their need to make money.