The main problem with “drunk” driving laws is you don’t have to be drunk to run afoul of them. You only need to have had something (alcoholic) to drink. There is an important difference there.

The problem is that it’s more difficult to pin the “drunk” driving tail on the donkey whose driving doesn’t indicate he’s drunk. The question naturally forms: If the driver isn’t driving in such a way as to suspect he’s drunk then why punish him as if he were? The answer is as simple as it is vicious: Because if not, then people who drink and drive (but who aren’t drunk) would “get away” with it.

You may at this point discern the underlying Puritanical motive – which is not to assure the public is protected from drunk drivers. If it were, efforts would focus on drunk drivers.

It is to persecute anyone who has had anything at all to drink before driving. Or even nothing at all. An empty can is enough, if you’re not of legal drinking age.

But why should that – and that alone – warrant punishing someone for “drunk” driving? See that last about the Puritanical motive, which is expressed secularly these days by control freaks just as ardent as the Prohibitionist Puritans were a century ago. The latter railed against dissolution – and blamed alcohol for it. It did not matter that most people who drank alcohol were not dissolute.

Then – as now – one size fits all.

It being much easier for the authorities to presume everyone is guilty of something than for the authorities to be obliged to presume everyone is innocent until someone has given specific reason to think they – individually – might be guilty of something.

Now, it is true that some people become terrible drivers after they have been drinking even a little alcohol. But this is chiefly because they are already terrible drivers. A little alcohol makes them worse, certainly But it does not mean everyone is worse when they have ingested a little alcohol.

To understand this better, think about a person who hasn’t got a lot of stamina. Climbing a couple of flights of stairs can be a challenge for such a person. It is not a fault, but it is a fact. On the other hand, an athletic person can easily bound up a couple of flights of stairs without much effort. Should stairs be banned for all because there are some people who have difficulty walking up a couple flights? More finely, should the person who has no trouble bounding up a couple of flights of stairs be punished if he uses the stairs rather than waits for the elevator?

Sense says no. If by sense we mean that which is reasonable. That which is justified, according to the facts.

“Drunk” driving laws fall very short of reasonable. The best evidence for this assertion being the fact that it is not required to produce any suspicion let alone proof that the accused’s driving suggested drunkenness (i.e., impairment) beyond an accusation that the person may have been drinking.

In fact – to put a very sharp point on it – the accused’s driving may have been excellent in every quantifiable way and admitted to be in court, but if the accused’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was measured as being some entirely arbitrary number (it is currently .05 in many states where it used to be 0.08 and before that was .10) then he will be convicted of “drunk” driving.

The injustice of this ought to be obvious, but we live in blinkered times. They are similar to the time when it was a “crime” to be caught drinking, period. No driving involved. It is much the same now as then in that you can also be arrested for “drunk” driving when you are parked – and asleep, in the back seat. Once again, because it is too much trouble for the cops to ascertain – to have to prove – that the individual was drunk and had been driving. It is sufficient that he had been drinking – and never mind that he is trying to sleep it off in the backseat.

Some – mostly “conservative” types, who seem to have a cognitive dissonance problem – will draw themselves up and say it’s all necessary because absent the severest consequences for drinking and driving – even if it’s just a drink and your driving is fine – drunks would have a free pass.

That this is nonsense ought to be obvious.

In the first place, because if their driving indicates drunkenness, then that would be obvious and the first cop who saw would pull that driver over.  Not every driver. This is reasonable, as not being in control of your vehicle constitutes an objective measure of incapacity (whether as a result of drinking or for some other reason).

It is not reasonable to stop every single driver.

In the second, because anyone who actually does lose control and causes what isn’t an “accident” would obviously have been the cause and for that reason can be held responsible for his actions. That, too, is reasonable. Because it is just.

Drunk drivers – the actually drunk ones – would not get a free pass. No nore so than rapists or murderers or thieves (excepting th government) do. But those who’ve merely had a drink would not have to worry about being arrested for what isn’t “drunk” driving, except in the most absurd, arbitrary and legalistic sense. For the same reason we don’t – yet – presume everyone is a murderer or rapist until they prove they are not.

“Conservatives” were once people who understood that it was better to err on the side of innocence than to presume guilt. But that was a long time ago. They are all for presuming everyone’s a “terrorist” – especially anyone who isn’t utterly deferential to the government’s enforcer class.

The Puritans of the Left-side persuasion are just as hysteric and jihadi when it comes to their presumptions; anyone who remembers what it was like during the “COVID” era remembers.

Maybe one day, respect for the ancient liberties will be recovered.

But it’s probably going to be a long time until then.

 . . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

 

The post Why “Drunk” Driving Laws are Silly and Evil appeared first on EPautos - Libertarian Car Talk.