Drunk driving

[Darkhorse]

[Aaron]

While I'm certain that the psychosis over drunk driving has led to far more rebellious people driving while drunk than if the stigma of being intoxicated never existed..... it is a simple fact that you're driving a lethal weapon, and if you intoxicate yourself... you deserve to suffer the consequences of using a lethal weapon on someone else if they are injured.

[Pebble]

You should only be driving if you're fit to get behind the wheel, regardless of whether that's tiredness, alcohol or drugs. There's no practical enforceable standard for sleep deprivation, there is one for alcohol. That's why it's focused on. I'm aware that sometimes there's no option but to get in the car when you haven't had a lot of sleep (we've all done it) and obviously you aren't going to leave the babies at home when you go on the family road trip, but in my opinion it's all about reducing the risk of a serious/fatal accident.

Ultimately, we, along with people across America, are going 15-rounds over guns at the moment. Last year drunk drivers killed almost as many people as guns and whilst there are admittedly strong arguments for gun ownership, you don't need to sink a few pints and get behind the wheel to protect yourself against the government.

[The Dharma Bum]

I think intoxication should be looked at as an aggravating factor in crime, not as a criminal activity in itself. If someone is drinking and they drive home safely, no crime has occurred because no damage occurred.

Now if they damage something or someone then the stiff penalty should be incurred because an actual crime has then occurred and alcohol was an aggravating factor. The purpose for the current setup is to drag money out of people, the fact that less have died as a result of this activity is incidental to that factor.

The same positive effect can be achieved by charging inebriation as an aggravating factor when damage does occur that adds to the punishment without ruining the lives of people who have committed no crime.

[Pebble]

[The Dharma Bum]

Ok, do something to the legislation that dries up the revenue generating aspect of it and see how interested the government is in punishing drunk drivers.

If you simply had stiff penalties for intoxication related offenses with any intoxicant as an aggravating factor to be considered in sentencing in general the same purpose, or possibly more, could be achieved. And you would be punishing people for actually committing a crime, not tasking the government with stealing thousands of dollars from some guy who makes $10 an hour because they had 3 beers at a Christmas party and thought they were ok to drive.

[Pebble]

[Bill_in_Bethlehem]

anyone who gets a drivers license knows that drunk driving is against the law

anyone who goes to the bar even occasionally knows that drunk driving is against the law and probably knows that 0.08 is the limit

when we say "well ive only had a few, im still fine to drive", we are acknowledging that we are about to violate this law

if we relax the standards or push the limit back up to 0.1 or 0.15, were just going to encourage more people go for it

most people who drink probably know someone that got a dui and we all know how much it sucks when that happens

so if not risking the injury or death of someone else is not incentive enough, the penalties and consequences of choosing to break this law are well known and should act as a deterrent

[Professor]

Between the ages of 15 and 23, I probably drove while legally drunk 3-4 times per week. Maybe more. I used to get drunk, then go look to joyride.

Yes, I was absolutely stupid and probably deserved to be shot. Luckily, I never got into any wrecks.

Since then, I can say that in the past 13 years, I've maybe been over the legal limit once. Perhaps twice. And, I was sooo darn careful those times that I was far less likely to get into a wreck than normal. I took backroads to avoid traffic and houses, drove slowly, etc.

It's just not worth it.

[Bill_in_Bethlehem]