The Myth about drunk driving.

Because Kent told me to. Here is a post detailing our discussion about drunk driving. The rest of the discussion will be in comments.

Not sure how you would have to measure prohibition for it to be a success.

• More deaths attributed to alcohol during prohibition than before and after
• More alcoholics during prohibition than before and after
• More violence during prohibition than before and after.
• Massive criminal enterprises corrupting law enforcement and our legal system.

[Kent] Zig has data the other way--except it did encourage some gangs.

[Lee] Zig is wrong.  VERY wrong. It is illegal to be drunk and drive, not to drink and drive (as much as MADD would disagree with me).

[Kent] Yes, I know that. But here is the chain: most people who go to a bar drink, the designated driver is a myth, most people who drink , then drive 5 minutes later are over the limit. Besides, if you want to find drunk people, look for them there----or you will find them crashed into the back of a car stalled on the side of the road--I am getting really tired of those.

You are correct; they are not serious about stopping drunk driving. The DUI industry would lose money if they did. Accidents attributed to alcohol have been relatively constant for years (even as we lower the BAC limits). Yet every year you hear MADD talk about the crisis is getting worse and that we need to lower the BAC limit. The ARRESTS are increasing every year.

[Kent] Madd needs your money--there are two kinds of members: true believers, and those making it into a career (same with the American Cancer Society by the way)

Our current DUI laws are punishing the wrong offenders. By far most accidents are caused by those that have a blood alcohol content at or above .15 yet most states are at .08 and some are pushing to a lower limit (I seem to have lost the link to the study of accidents in CA regarding this). This does nothing but turn what should be a public safety issue into a money making enterprise for the government. Also look at WHO is causing the accidents, by far it is repeat offenders. But if we actually target the people causing the problem then there would be less money.

[Kent] You have a point in the same as we discussed yesterday. If we lower the limit to .00000000001 who will it affect. Not the really drunk because they are already over the limit. Prosecutors and judges (Craig Watkins and his gang feel sorry for the DUI repeats because they need to get to their jobs.

Comments

[Lee]

There are two ways to solve the repetitive drunk driving problem, you either lock them up for life or you try to rehab them. If the repetitive drunk driver has commited no other crime than drunk driving do you really want the cost involved of caring for them for the rest of their lives? Would you rather try and rehab them? If rehab, the last place they need to go is jail. If they are not in jail, they are going to drive. If you force them to drive without a license then they will be more likely to break other aspects of their rehab.

[Lee]

Here is a link detailing the failure of our first attempt at prohibition.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html