should drinking while driving be legal?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And as Lewis pointed out even though a lot of the mandated alcohol treatment classes for first time offenders might be unnecessary, it does help create jobs and get funding for something that is needed in plenty of cases,

there's somewhere between little and no evidence that the sort of 'treatment' that gets handed out to DUI (or low-level drug) offenders is effective, even when the offender actually meets the diagnostic criteria for substance abuse/addiction, which oftentimes is not the case.

Lewis hasn't posted in this thread, so you're presumably referring to a post he made about coerced treatment a few months back:

Coerced therapy is useless to its nominal aims and not really any sort of therapy at all, but it feeds a lot of people (and feeds them well) out of the public purse without officially swelling the ranks of government employees. Besides, it's cheaper than jailing middle class offenders and preserves their respectability. From the point of view of bourgeois democracy, it's a win-win-win-win.

so he actively disagrees with your first point, that certain people coerced into treatment a) need it and b) are helped by it.  the rest of the post I interpret to be an ironical/cynical commentary.  the inclusion of the statement "from the POV of bourgeois democracy" implies that the author is not coming from the POV of bourgeois democracy, allowing some space between the author and the analysis.  we refer to that space between author and narrator as irony.

Ironic or not I agree with his second sentence. And I most certainly don't believe most people sentenced to such treatment for a first DUI need it either. I'm just saying it as he does that it creates the jobs and gets the funding for the people who do need it when it might go underfunded otherwise. It's kind of an awkward setup, but it's preferable to either giving out draconian fines/sentences and license suspensions to offenders or just freely allowing drunk driving.

[© tweed]

so you basically favor people digging holes and filling them back in.

and "people who do need it" presumes the product being sold here actually works, which it doesn't.

[Boris]

so you basically favor people digging holes and filling them back in.

and "people who do need it" presumes the product being sold here actually works, which it doesn't.

Just wait a quarter of a century; every point in this thread will be rendered completely moot as DUI arrests and related deaths will drop to ~0. In the prescient words of a former forumer, "be patient."

[Miles]

We have drive-thru daiquiri places here in LA

[minionofmidas]

That's ridiculous.  If you have .08 BAC, you are impaired as a driver.  At below .08 BAC, you're impaired.  Some people are more or less impaired, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

a chronic alcoholic -- ie, someone who drinks himself to .2-.4 BAC regularly for decades on end, is certainly not impaired at .08, and in fact is probably better suited to drive at .08 than he would be at 0 and in the throes of withdrawal, shakes, delirium tremens, etc.

A true chronic alcoholic is impaired and in no condition to drive a car at any BAC. (On the other hand, a hardened drinker who is not a chronic alcoholic and who has some experience driving over the legal limit, is - not necessarily less impaired, but certainly much less of a danger to the public - than someone driving drunk for the first time.)

The vast majority of them are well aware of the fact, in no condition to obtain a car, or both, though, so it's all good.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Is it any more dangerous than the chicka I saw yesterday who was doing her make up and smoking a cigarette with a coffee in her cupholder?  

Or the smartphone users who aren't supposed to look at their f[inks]ing facebook account when they're driving?

[traininthedistance]

The answer is not too much drinking, but too much driving. You're far more likely to hurt yourself or someone else doing the latter.

It's ridiculous what a reckless driver can get away with in the United States, impaired or not. A motorist who careens onto the sidewalk, killing or injuring pedestrians, would almost always face criminal charges in a better world. Whether the careless driver was drinking, texting, eating, or just not paying attention shouldn't matter.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Is this even a question?

My thoughts can be summed up by this clip.

[LastVoter]

other (driving should be illegal, it's uncompensated labor, all driving should be done according to  labor laws).

The answer is not too much drinking, but too much driving. You're far more likely to hurt yourself or someone else doing the latter.

It's ridiculous what a reckless driver can get away with in the United States, impaired or not. A motorist who careens onto the sidewalk, killing or injuring pedestrians, would almost always face criminal charges in a better world. Whether the careless driver was drinking, texting, eating, or just not paying attention shouldn't matter.

To support my point.

[traininthedistance]

That's ridiculous.  If you have .08 BAC, you are impaired as a driver.  At below .08 BAC, you're impaired.  Some people are more or less impaired, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

a chronic alcoholic -- ie, someone who drinks himself to .2-.4 BAC regularly for decades on end, is certainly not impaired at .08, and in fact is probably better suited to drive at .08 than he would be at 0 and in the throes of withdrawal, shakes, delirium tremens, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that all depends where your sympathies lie my man.  the DUI industry has given rise to a few destructive and distinct effects: erosion of the 4th amendment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz , Thurgood coming down on the correct side of a 4th amendment issue, as usual), cultural deification of law enforcement, and the treatment-industrial complex slush fund.  naturally I hate all of these things more than I hate people who drive while drinking or drunk.

If your sympathies lie with the perpetrators of automobile violence rather than its victims, may I kindly suggest you rethink your life.

other (driving should be illegal, it's uncompensated labor, all driving should be done according to  labor laws).

wow, uh, erm, thanks for making me feel reasonable and moderate on this issue

[© tweed]

That's ridiculous.  If you have .08 BAC, you are impaired as a driver.  At below .08 BAC, you're impaired.  Some people are more or less impaired, sure, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

a chronic alcoholic -- ie, someone who drinks himself to .2-.4 BAC regularly for decades on end, is certainly not impaired at .08, and in fact is probably better suited to drive at .08 than he would be at 0 and in the throes of withdrawal, shakes, delirium tremens, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that all depends where your sympathies lie my man.  the DUI industry has given rise to a few destructive and distinct effects: erosion of the 4th amendment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_State_Police_v._Sitz , Thurgood coming down on the correct side of a 4th amendment issue, as usual), cultural deification of law enforcement, and the treatment-industrial complex slush fund.  naturally I hate all of these things more than I hate people who drive while drinking or drunk.

If your sympathies lie with the perpetrators of automobile violence rather than its victims, may I kindly suggest you rethink your life.

straw man -- same logic could be applied to an opponent of the PATRIOT Act, accusing him of sympathizing with Islamic terrorists over 9/11 victims.

[Goldwater]

other (driving should be illegal, it's uncompensated labor, all driving should be done according to  labor laws).

...I need to change my avatar...

[barfbag]

No it's not worth the risk. Drivers will be even more likely to be over the limit if they're allowed to drink while behind the wheel. The problem with Americans when it comes to alcohol is that in our culture we experience early in life that it's something to hide. It's something which people get addicted to and has a negative view because of this. In other countries if you're tall enough to see over the bar, then it's legal to drink. We can't do this in the U.S. because it wouldn't work overnight. Imagine if teenagers were suddenly allowed to drink at bars on school nights. However, if we never had such strange laws about the drinking age, then we'd never have to worry about teenagers drinking at bars on school nights because no one would recognize alcohol as something to hide or brag about. We've done it to ourselves though so I'll lay out what needs to be done.

16- legal to drink alcohol in your own home as long as your parents buy it for you
18- legal to drink if serving in the military
19- legal to buy alcohol
21- legal to drink at a bar

[free my dawg]

what the christ

I drink but COME ON

[barfbag]

Don't you think those who have lost loved ones from drunk drivers would find this question offensive?