Recently I have come across positions arguing the decriminalization of drunk driving. At first thought, I thought the notion was absurd and defied common sense. Then I realized it actually made sense–why let the government say you can’t drive while drunk only because it might lead to a true crime (killing someone)?
But my position was countered by a friend of mine. She told me that would make sense, except for the fact that drunk driving is different because:
It poses a threat not just to you, but others, therefore violating the no harm to others principle. Wearing seatbelts should not be mandated because the lack of wearing them poses a threat only to you.
It consists soley of negative potential; nothing good can come of drunk driving. This is why arguments such as “guns should be illegal because they can be used in crime” are not the same as arguments against drunk driving. Guns can be used to fight crime as well, but drunk driving can never be used to help anyone.
Any thoughts on this controversial yet interesting issue? I have no conclusion as of yet.
Actually, driving drunk does not pose a threat to anyone. Swerving, excessive speeding, failure to react to changing conditions on the road or give other drivers and pedestrians enough room are threats which can occur while driving drunk or fatigued or texting, etc. The stigma of “drunk driving” is a superstition.
OK? Nothing good can come of BASE jumping, either, there is only negative potential (possibility you might die). The fact is that the positive reason a responsible would drive while inebriated is because he had a drink with friends over dinner or at the bar and transporting himself back home after this entirely normal form of social interaction is vastly cheaper than any other alternative. Yes, I think that if you are operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner, you have a duty to pull over and seek alternative transportation and I do believe that the public police should have the power to force you off the road (since we’re stuck with public police on the public roads for now…) but anything beyond that is sheer aggression and a very ugly form of vindictiveness motivated by the sanctimonious attitudes of the still large segment of American society which supports de facto Prohibition.
Drinking with friends is a benefit to those friends and to oneself. That’s why people do it. To get home, you’re going to have to drive… and unless you’re made of money, that probably means driving yourself. If you’re completely smashed and you can’t safely operate a vehicle, then you’re going to have to ask a friend to drop you home, stay the night, sleep in your car, call a cab or ride the bus. The police should have the power to force you to the side of the road, but no more.
It [drunk driving] poses a threat not just to you, but others
Yes. So does sober driving. So does picking your nose while driving. So does preparing a dish with eggs or meat. Etc.
lack of wearing them [seatbelts] poses a threat only to you.
False. If your body is ejected from your vehicle due to momentum, it can cause damage and injury to others.
drunk driving can never be used to help anyone
That’s ridiculous. It is a means of transportation.
The police should have the power to force you to the side of the road, but no more.
There’s no telling what a free market would do. If I owned a road I might decide to be against drunk driving, and insist that users of my road be contractually obligated to pay fines and sit in a cage if they are found to be driving drunk. Or if I owned a bar and a nearby roadway, I would probably not oppose drunk driving on that road. In any case, something cannot be a crime unless there is an actual victim.
“Any thoughts on this controversial yet interesting issue? I have no conclusion as of yet.”
Private ownership of the roads. Legitimate owners set the rules of the road / contract.
If they want to stipulate drunk driving over a limit on their roads is a contract violation and they’re going to inspect and enforce that… so be it.
That’s going to piss off alot of people i.e the purpose of transportation A to B ASAP… and when you’re setting up road blocks, that’s not exactly a smart business model… especially when THERE IS COMPETITION… and the drivers can literally give you the finger and drive on other roads.
As per the current situation - drink driving is a victimless crime. The problem is government ownership quite simply.
It’s also no longer really about stopping “drunk” drivers at all. It’s about stopping anybody with an arbitrary blood-alcohol ratio. I had to spend 16 hours in a concrete unroofed cage and pay about $150 bail for being 0.02 over the “legal limit” of 0.24, which as far as I can tell, is about 3 beers. This is in South Africa, mind you, where there are actually plenty of -real- criminals to be sought after…
But if it is a government owned road, doesn’t it make it ok for the government to determine the rules of that road? Under our current system of course, not including how private roads would change things.
As many have observed, the question of drunk driving boils down to legitimacy of government. If one believes that taxes are voluntary or otherwise just, then the government owns them legitimaly, as it does own everything obtained from these funds by means of voluntary exchange.
Even under our current system I don’t like it since I don’t like all these preventative measures. If there was an accident and you were negligent enough (wasn’t sober, wasn’t paying attention, whatever), then you’ll receive more seirous punishment, but that’s it. I’m sure there are plenty of people who drive more safely when they are drunk than others when they are sober, why do we need to punish them more?
I personally believe that legalizing drunk driving will encourage the development of self driving cars or more features that will autocorrect your driving habits.
Drunk driving ‘can’ be dangerous, but it is one of those things that should be left up to the descretion of the driver to decide if he is well enough to drive. This will obviously allow more accidents to happen. However, I think traffic officers will probably still pull you over if you show signs of reckless endangerment and should take away your keys and have you call a friend to pick you up. The punishment aspect is what I think should be changed.
My DUI cost me about $5000 not counting my lawyer’s fees. Probation alone for 2 years costs $2600, and I was unsupervised after 6 months (meaning I didn’t have to check in with my PO).
Anyway, the point I want to make is that DUI’s bring in tons of money for counties and municipalities AND they have significant ideological support through MADD and public education initiatives. Catching “real” criminals is dangerous, costly, and all around hard work. I know Clayton said something about how the most cops should do under the current setup is remove dangerous drivers (and I agree), but the whole purpose of DUI enforcement is really about making money and punishing offenders.
With regards to a private system of roads, I wouldn’t be too surprised if drunk driving remained taboo enough that enforcement remained aggressive. I think a similar thing would happen with indoor smoking. Sure, the property owners will get to decide, but popular opinion has already shifted in polite society: its not ok to smoke indoors (unless its a real backwoods dive bar).
People have a right to react to a certain level of threat, driving drunk, to me and most of society, constitutes a threat against others and so I believe that it should be stopped, I agree with your friend, and as has been said there’s no way private roads would allow drunk driving, just because the government is illegitimate and doesn’t own the roads doesn’t mean that if it does own the roads, libertarians should advocate no limits on drunk driving. If there is the state, then at least it might be used to get some positive things done.
My take on this is similar to my take on the speed limit. Granted the faster you go, the more dangerous things get, we should be able to have roads where speed limit is completely arbitrary. Let’s say I want to fly down Route 66 at 159 mph b/c I want to get home for my wife’s pot roast dinner. Why shouldn’t I be able to? We should have certain roads where the speed limit has a minimum but no max. The risk is implied and a social contract will be signed by all drivers.
The government should not punish people for having a potential to commit a crime, but for actually committing the crime! There are already serious disintentives to drunk driving. You are more likely to kill yourself or others (which leads to a serious punishment), if you were drunk and hit someone, you will probably receive a harder punishment because you were criminally negligent. You don’t need to stop cars on the road to check for blood level of alcohol for that. You simply punish people for harming others.
I wouldn’t want private roads to have limits on certain types of driving (cell phone, alcohol, whatever). I expect private roads which try to reduce risk to punish people more seriously for actual harm to body or property, that’s all.