Sure. But let's really look at it through the dispassionate viewpoint of "MADD are fucking crazy." - Drunk driving is bad. But is a .15 bad? That used to be okay; when I grew up in New Mexico, if you were under a .20 (!) you were free and clear to drive all you wanted. How 'bout a .10? That used to be okay in lots of states. How 'bout a .08? That's what it became nationwide in 2005. How 'bout a .05? That's what MADD Canada wants it to be. Are we there yet? How 'bout .02, which MADD has lobbied several states to make the penalty level for minors? So let's get this straight: you're allowed to have a blood alcohol level 4 times higher as an adult than as a kid because, uhm, you're a more responsible driver? Or maybe it's just about being punitive and reactionary in order to get votes, kind of how the penalties for crack cocaine are 20 times higher than the penalties for powdered cocaine? - So drunk driving is bad. how 'bout distracted driving? Is driving while texting bad? Yeah, driving while texting is bad. Is it worse than drunk driving? Well, driving over the legal limit adds 4 feet to your braking distance but according to NHTSA, texting adds 70 feet. So the penalty for texting while driving in Michigan is what? Manacles and hot irons? No, it's a hundred bucks. - Okay, so how 'bout driving while tired? 'cuz that's pretty bad too, right? Why yes, yes it is. Being awake for 20 hours straight makes you drive like your BAC is .05. So what's the penalty for driving while tired? Oh, that's right. there isn't one. - How 'bout cold medicine? - how 'bout driving angry? - How 'bout driving while changing the goddamn radio station? - How 'bout driving while chatting with your buddy in the next seat over? They're all bad. They're all detrimental to highway safety. But they're all a bitch to test for. Blood Alcohol Content? That one's easy. So that one's draconian. Know the biggest objection raised to legalizing marijuana in California? The cops can't test for stoned driving. Or a whole bunch of other shit - but we've already established the pattern that it's extremely lucrative to ruin someone's life for having two beers while nobody has suggested that $6,000 in legal fees is appropriate for texting while driving. And let's be brutally frank - it doesn't even take a breathalyzer. My aforementioned acquaintance, who is not someone I like, refused a breathalyzer. Probably because it was 10 in the morning and he's a surly mutherfucker. But since the cop was white and this guy looks Navajo (he's actually half Hispanic, half pacific islander), the highway patrolman failed him on a field sobriety test without even asking him out of the car. So that whole family lost a car to impound (my dad had to buy them another one) and now it's his wife's problem to drive him to Santa Fe every day. Should the dude have been driving? Fuck no. If you can't keep the car on the road, keep it off the road. My sister's best friend lost her mom on the same road the dude was busted on - not to alcohol, but to falling asleep at the wheel. But whereas the insurance settlement would have been void had she been found to be drunk, the fact that she was totally asleep when she died meant her daughter got her college paid for. Chick is still dead. So yeah. I know what "most people approach this situation by first thinking" but here on this here "thoughtful web" it fucking bears a second thought. And a third one. And maybe a fourth one. And at that point, one hopes one doesn't feel the need to shit in someone else's cheerios just so they can feel self-righteous.
Yeah. Sure. I used to drive stoned every once in a while, and I've met people who judged me pretty heavily for that if they found out. Mostly people who had zero input into the situation. Personally, (and this is what anyone will tell you, in my experience) I was always on hyper-alert when I knew had drugs in my system. But stop swearing at me.
And by being on "hyper alert" you were less likely to be pulled over, right? My whole point is your penalty is being "judged pretty heavily." The penalties for drunk driving are life-destroying for entire families. The flippant answer is "yes, but the consequences of drunk driving are life-destroying for entire families" and I've seen that side of the coin too - we won't get into it. HOWEVER the number of drunk drivers facing life-destroying penalties far outnumber the number of families facing life-destroying penalties. Worse, we've created a system where the tiniest infraction is now judged by large swaths of society to be every bit the crime of mowing through a church full of nuns while swilling single malt. Sorry for swearing at you. I come here because I can hold the place to a higher standard than "most people" most of the time and it galls me when Hubski lets me down.
I have to say -- I think there are a lot of places where punishment doesn't align with crime in this country. And were I to spearhead reform, I wouldn't start with DUIs, for two reasons. Firstly because, it is an actual crime to an extent that certain other illegal things just aren't. Second and more importantly, because talking about rational punishments for drunk drivers tends to get you blacklisted. It's a third rail sort of issue thanks to MADD.And by being on "hyper alert" you were less likely to be pulled over, right?
Yeah, completely.
Now you're arguing pragmatically rather than logically, though. You're saying "we shouldn't deal with this because it's too hard" not "we shouldn't deal with this because it's not as unjust as other things. Thanks to this I know a little too much for my own good about crime and punishment. I don't know where I'd start. It's definitely a place for pragmatism, no doubt. I think if you focus too intently on the practicalities of the matter, though, you'll be so swamped you won't remember the morality that got you there in the first place. And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
This is the only part I don't agree with. MADD is fighting from the strongest position there is -- bereavement. If they can top any argument you make with "my son is dead" ... it's tough to bring rationality into a discussion like that.
That's not so tough. You can say "you're fighting for vengeance, not for change, or else you'd focus on the hardcore." Then you say "your message has gotten so twisted towards temperance that your founder left twenty years ago." Then you say "how much energy have you spent on rehabilitation vs. punishment?" and then you point out "and what has that shift towards punishment done demographically, anyway?" When you start out with the assertion that one side is not required to be rational, you'd best be doing something other than debate. Pathos only goes so far.
In the UK we have introduced laws for mobile phones and drugs, while you could also be taken to court for dangerous driving under any of the other scenarios. However, as you mention it is much more difficult to measure if someone is 'too tired' or 'too angry' to drive (unless caught on the dashboard camera doing something stupid), so I expect the actual number convicted is tiny. Also, you would still receive an immediate ban for alcohol as opposed to three/six penalty points for the other offences. However, if you go to court and explain the importance of your license to your life, the judge will likely give you an alternative form of punishment. I think we take a sensible approach to road laws as a general.
In the US, it's "reckless driving" which is a moving violation as opposed to "driving under the influence" which MADD has turned into a misdemeanor at best and a felony at worst. "Reckless driving" makes your insurance cost more. "DUI" gives you a criminal record.while you could also be taken to court for dangerous driving under any of the other scenarios.