An Argument Against Drunk Driving Laws

I really enjoy these kind of articles. Most people would react with shock when confronted with an argument that may seem to run contrary to popular belief. I particularly enjoy the look on people's faces when I say that they don't have a right to education. It's been around so long and the benefits are so far reaching that people can't imagine life without it. But if they simply stopped to think about it they might realize the inconsistencies within laws and privileges.

In this article, Radly Balko, AKA The Agitator, makes the case against drunk driving laws.

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo  advocated  creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.

    ...

    The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

    ...

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Ah, consistency, something that lawmakers lack. Mr. Balko makes a good case for consistency. If eating is just as dangerous as someone with a BAC of .05, then that person should also be fined or arrested. It's not the alcohol, but the impairment that should be the focus. When argued from this standpoint, I find it hard to support inconsistent drunk driving laws.