Should drinking and driving be legal?

[??????????]

It should be legal not only to drive while drinking, but also to drive while drunk. The "crime" of drunk driving might pose a risk to other drivers. However, merely posing a risk should not be a criminal offense, when it is not accompanied by substantive harm. The law should deal with actions, not probabilities.

You're batsh*t crazy if you actually believe that.

[Emsworth]

There are several reasons for which "drunk driving," in and of itself, should not be illegal.

Firstly, there is essentially no way for an individual to tell whether he is breaking the law. A person must wait until the government stops him, and administers a Breathalyzer test, before he can find out whether he is a criminal.

Secondly, it is practically impossible to enforce the law without violating individual rights. When stopped by the police, a person suspected of drunk driving is not allowed to decline a Breathalyzer. He is compelled to take the test. This amounts to an infringement of the right against self-incrimination. But aside from administering this or some other test, there is practically no way to enforce the laws against drunk driving. When faced with a choice between enforcing a law and enforcing the Bill of Rights, I would side with the latter.

Thirdly, drinking is not the only factor that impairs an individual's ability to drive properly. An angry person, I assume, is more likely to get into an accident than a calm one. Should we criminalize driving while angry? Should the government stop drivers on the road and administer mood or emotion tests?

If an intoxicated person is driving perfectly safely, there is no reason to punish him. Why does it matter whether his blood alcohol content is 0% or 0.1%? He is posing no threat to anyone else.

If an intoxicated person is driving recklessly and dangerously, then he should certainly be punished. But punish him for driving recklessly, not for the content of his blood.

[Defarge]

If drinking drunk is illegal, why would drinking while driving be legal?

[Alcon]

It should be legal not only to drive while drinking, but also to drive while drunk. The "crime" of drunk driving might pose a risk to other drivers. However, merely posing a risk should not be a criminal offense, when it is not accompanied by substantive harm. The law should deal with actions, not probabilities.

I am going to assume that you have not been watching your Law and Order (or that I haven't been).  If DUI didn't exist, wouldn't driving drunk be the epitome of reckless endangerment?

[Emsworth]

If DUI didn't exist, wouldn't driving drunk be the epitome of reckless endangerment?

If a driver is swerving from one side of the road to the other, or speeding, or otherwise posing a threat to others, then he should most certainly be punished. However, if he merely has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 instead of 0.07, then I do not believe that he should be considered guilty of any crime. The offender should be punished not for what is in his blood, but for the actual act of unsafe driving.

[MODU]

It should be legal not only to drive while drinking, but also to drive while drunk. The "crime" of drunk driving might pose a risk to other drivers. However, merely posing a risk should not be a criminal offense, when it is not accompanied by substantive harm. The law should deal with actions, not probabilities.

You just dropped a point in my respect book with that comment.

[Nym90]

I feel that creating a threat to someone's life should be punishable, regardless of whether the person actually gets hurt or not. Someone shouldn't be "rewarded" simply for getting lucky.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

As far as I'm concerned the government has no business punishing people based on the possibility of risk. If someone drives drunk and they don't hurt someone that's fine. But if they do hurt someone charge them with attempted murder.

[??????????]

Emsworth,

You do realize that on your drivers liscense (at least in Florida) the following phrase exists : "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Therefore, in my opinion, a person who willingly enters into a contract with a state by getting a drivers liscense has to follow the conditions of said contract. And if that phrase is printed on your liscense that is a condition of said contract.

[WalterMitty]

just imagine how high car insurance rates would be if emsworth had his way.

[MODU]

just imagine how high car insurance rates would be if emsworth had his way.

Just imagine how many more dead people (guilty and innocent) there would be if Emsworth's view was shared by the governments.

[minionofmidas]

No. If passengers were allowed to drink, all the driver would have to do upon being pulled over would be to hand the drink to someone else.

Passengers are allowed to drink in Germany.

However, it is actually illegal to seat a drunk passenger in the seat next to the driver's if there's other room available.

[Alcon]

If DUI didn't exist, wouldn't driving drunk be the epitome of reckless endangerment?

If a driver is swerving from one side of the road to the other, or speeding, or otherwise posing a threat to others, then he should most certainly be punished. However, if he merely has a blood alcohol content of 0.08 instead of 0.07, then I do not believe that he should be considered guilty of any crime. The offender should be punished not for what is in his blood, but for the actual act of unsafe driving.

One could go even further, arguing that swerving alone should not be sufficient for reckless endangerment, as one can do that without causing any problems; thus, hitting the car should be reckless endangerment, but not before that.

The definition of reckless engerment (which I believe in fairly static across the states) is as follows:

"A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. 'Reckless' conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others."

The very act of entering a vehicle and going out onto the highway while drunk fits the definition of "recklessly engaging in contact which creates a substantial risk of serious injury to another person."

[Emsworth]

Emsworth,

You do realize that on your drivers liscense (at least in Florida) the following phrase exists : "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." Therefore, in my opinion, a person who willingly enters into a contract with a state by getting a drivers liscense has to follow the conditions of said contract. And if that phrase is printed on your liscense that is a condition of said contract.

This is an example of an unconstitutional condition. In most cases, the government cannot force someone to give up a right in order to obtain a benefit. Could a state provide that "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes a waiver of the right against cruel and unusual punishments," and then punish someone found driving drunk with torture? Of course not.

One could go even further, arguing that swerving alone should not be sufficient for reckless endangerment, as one can do that without causing any problems...

One could make such an argument, but it would not be a reasonable one. It is quite evident that swerving from one side of the road to another poses a substantive threat (not merely a theoretical risk).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is the actual endangering conduct? Is it the fact that one's blood alcohol content is 0.08 instead of 0.079? Or is it the fact that one is, in fact, driving unsafely? I would argue that it is the latter.

Suppose that there are two drivers, both operating their vehicles in an equally dangerous and reckless manner. If one driver's conduct is a result of intoxication, while the other's is a result of being sleepy, why should the former be punished any more than the latter? The substantive threat posed by each person is precisely the same: why does the cause of that threat make any difference? Or, should we create a new offense of driving while sleep-deprived?

It should be noted that, normally, the police do not randomly stop drivers and test them for alcohol. They only pull over those who are driving unsafely. But in this case, why not punish the offender for the actual act of driving unsafely, and leave the alcohol out of the picture?

[MODU]

One could go even further, arguing that swerving alone should not be sufficient for reckless endangerment, as one can do that without causing any problems...

One could make such an argument, but it would not be a reasonable one. It is quite evident that swerving from one side of the road to another poses a substantive threat (not merely a theoretical risk).

So..... it's ok to drink and drive until you become impared???  You become impared with the first drink, whether you realize it or not.  So . . . drinking and driving should be illegal. 

[Emsworth]

So..... it's ok to drink and drive until you become impared??? 

Yes. Individuals should not be punished for the contents of their bloodstream, but for their actual physical actions. If the individual is speeding, then ticket him for speeding. If the individual is running red lights, then ticket him for running red lights. If the individual is swerving from one side of the road to the other, then ticket him for swerving from one side of the road to the other. In each of these cases, why does it matter whether the behavior was caused by alcohol, by muscle soreness, by anger, by not knowing how to drive, or by something else?

The same line of reasoning applies in several other cases. Suppose a drunk person with a gun randomly fired shots in the street. Does the fact that he was drunk matter? Should he receive an extra punishment merely because of his blood alcohol content? Or should we punish him for the actual act of firing a gun in the street, and leave the alcohol out? Likewise for unsafe driving.

[Nym90]

In the imperfect world in which we live, it is easier to convict someone of being over a 0.08 (as this can be clearly proven with a Breathalyzer) as opposed to making a subjective judgement about whether or not their driving was unsafe or not. You make a good point, Emsworth, about there being an inconsistency here, and I would agree that in theory these should be treated equally, but the reality is that justice is best served by not allowing unsafe drivers on the road and it is easier to do this via laws against drunk driving than laws against unsafe driving.

The same persuasive arguement could be made against speeding laws, and I would again agree, but it comes down to the certainty of having a number rather than the uncertain and subjective judgement of what is and what is not safe.

[MODU]

But Ems, the purpose of the laws is to protect against such impairment.  The effects of alcohol do not kick in right away, but with some people, it just takes a little time.  If someone is driving and drinking, and they have a ways to go to get to their destination, there is enough time for that person to become impaired and a threat to not only their lives but also the lives of everyone on the street (or off with how some of these cars go driving into homes/crowds).  So, by taking that drink, they are becoming impaired, and therefore the threat which you proposed.  Therefore, the law against drinking and driving is not only legal, it is very important.  Maybe once we have smart cars that keep us in our lanes, at the right speed, and will break automatically in case of an emergency, then we can remove the law from the books (as long as the person doing the drinking is in one of those cars).

[Emsworth]

But Ems, the purpose of the laws is to protect against such impairment.  The effects of alcohol do not kick in right away, but with some people, it just takes a little time.  If someone is driving and drinking, and they have a ways to go to get to their destination, there is enough time for that person to become impaired and a threat to not only their lives but also the lives of everyone on the street (or off with how some of these cars go driving into homes/crowds).  So, by taking that drink, they are becoming impaired, and therefore the threat which you proposed.

You make a very interesting point. Your line of reasoning--if I interpret it correctly--is that driving under the influence should be illegal because drunk drivers need to be stopped before the effects of alcohol kick in. But is it in fact possible to stop a drunk driver before the effects of alcohol have kicked in?

Suppose that person X has just taken a few drinks at a bar, and is on his way home. Suppose also that the effects of his alcohol impairment have not kicked in yet. How will the police know that he has been drinking and driving? Perhaps a witness from the bar might call the police--but the probability is so miniscule that it may be ignored entirely. Perhaps the police might stop cars randomly and without suspicion, and check the drivers for drunkenness--but this is illegal.

So when do the police decide to stop a car in order to test its driver? Only when the drunkenness has physically manifested itself in the form of the driver's behavior. Only when the driver begins to drive unsafely. Only when the driver starts swerving from one side of the road to the other, when he starts speeding, when he misses red lights.

But we have assumed that our hypothetical that the effects of alcohol have not yet taken effect on X. Therefore, he is currently driving very safely, although the impairment might kick in at a later time. How, then, will the police know that they should stop him? The fact is, they will not know. Unless they are stopping drivers without suspicion, they cannot know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The anti-drunk driving laws may or may not be wise: that is a matter of opinion. But they are most certainly not legal (i.e., constitutional) in the manner of their enforcement, as I explained earlier. It is declared in the Fifth Amendment, "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The rule applies to any criminal case; there is no DUI exception.

[Alcon]

Emsworth,

It is true that 0.79 and 0.8 are not much of a differentiation.  However, we apply threshholds on a lot of thing.  "Drunk" is a sliding measure, but there is a point at which judgement impairment becomes present - a scientific point.  I do not see why using this point is unacceptable.

Your second example is taken well, but I don't disagree with it.  I think that reckless endangerment and DUI should be the same charge - vehicular reckless endangerment.