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.