should drinking while driving be legal?

[© tweed]

keep in mind this does not imply nor necessitate an amendment to existing laws preventing driving above a certain level BAC (usually .08).

[Flake]

No, absolutely not.

[Ebowed]

Yes.

[dead0man]

Yeah, probably.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I believe it is in Montana and Wyoming.

I'm not sure if I would favor that in populated states considering how many bad drivers there are in urban areas and how many people would be just as bad at measuring their alcohol, but I would definitely say it should be legal for passengers.

[bedstuy]

No way.

It's not necessarily much more dangerous to drink a beer while driving than it is to drink a cup of coffee.  But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

[traininthedistance]

Lolno.

[Lief 🗽]

libertarianism run amok

[DINGO Joe]

Absolutely, what other reason is there for drive-thru daiquiri shops?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Road sodas = FF

[Boris]

Passengers can already defacto drink in cars (or, for that matter, pretty much anywhere); they just can't drink out of containers that are clearly marked as alcoholic. Put whiskey/vodka into a 20 oz plastic coke bottle or a McDonald's cup or something and you're good to go. It might be legal in St. Louis for passengers to visibly drink in vehicles but I have consistently received mixed answers on whether this is actually the case and thus exercise discretion.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm torn, it probably shouldn't be, but I might go as far to say that it should be legal for anybody without a criminal record or somebody that never got pulled over for drunk driving. If they get pulled over for any reason having to do with reckless driving due to drinking, then their time is up. So I'm a toss-up, maybe yes with exceptions would be an appropriate answer.

[Goldwater]

I misunderstood the question. I thought this was asking if drunk driving should be legalized, so I voted no. But I have no problem with drinking while driving, assuming you stay within the legal  alcohol content level of course.

[Ebowed]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

[bedstuy]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

I don't see your point.  If you have a great tolerance and could drive safely at .08, you're still breaking the law at .08.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hell yeah!

[DemPGH]

The thing is, I don't think you have to drink a whole lot to be legally intoxicated, certainly with wine. So if I start drinking wine in the car I'm not stopping at two sips or whatever, which is probably the case with most people. Now beer has less alcohol than wine, but a few beers will probably put a lot of guys over the limit. So I have to say no, this would be a very bad idea, especially in a metropolitan area. A better discussion might be raising the .08 limit.

[© tweed]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

I don't see your point.  If you have a great tolerance and could drive safely at .08, you're still breaking the law at .08.

yessir, he's arguing at minimum that hard BAC reading should not be the lone barometer in handing out charges for drunk driving.

[bedstuy]

But, the type of person who drinks a beer while driving is an alcoholic who drives drunk and would be above .08 if you pulled them over some other time.

If this person is an alcoholic, .08 isn't necessarily a good indicator that they are too inhibited to drive in the first place.

I don't see your point.  If you have a great tolerance and could drive safely at .08, you're still breaking the law at .08.

yessir, he's arguing at minimum that hard BAC reading should not be the lone barometer in handing out charges for drunk driving.

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. 

The larger point is there is no legitimate interest in driving while intoxicated.  It's extremely dangerous and puts other people's lives in danger.  10,000 people a year and killed because of drunk driving.  Whatever tiny unfairness is born by only somewhat impaired drivers is nothing compared to the public safety interest here. 

[© 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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Despite the somewhat valid concerns the US's drunk driving laws are still some of the most lenient in the world.



And hell, a decade ago the states that hadn't dropped the limit yet were basically the only places in the world where you could blow 0.099 and keep your license. And getting your license back after 60 days and completing some treatment class is far more lenient in most places too.

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, and serves as a good deterrent against drunk driving without throwing on draconian penalties and potentially life crippling long term license suspension.

[bedstuy]

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.

Our drunk driving laws should be designed to promote public safety, not to enable alcoholics.  If you can't drive safely sober, there's an easy solution.  Don't drive. 

And yes, my sympathies lie with preventing injuries and deaths from drunk driving.  Besides, the 4th Amendment issue is completely orthogonal to the issue of where the BAC limit should be.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No, absolutely not.

[© tweed]

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.

[TDAS04]

No, absolutely not.