logo


Advertisement

Should congress limit drunk driving?

retweet
  Tags: law   society   philosophy   alcohol   drunk driving   dui   madd

Background


The organization "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" (known as MADD) believes that congress should enact laws such as mandatory alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers.[1]

Should such laws be put into place, or are they treading on constitutional rights and leading back to the 18th amendment?

Related Debates

Should DUI laws apply to marijuana?
Should legal drinking age be lowered to 18?
Does drinking wine improve health?
Is alcohol more dangerous than marijuana?

 

Arguments For

Yes, congress should do more to curb drunk driving.

Alcohol-related traffic fatalities are up to 17,941 in 2006.[1]

Arguments Against

No, congress should not do more to curb drunk driving.

Not only would such mandatory locks be unconstitutional, alcoholism and drunk driving is a consequence of social problems and not due to a lack of laws and regulations. Education is critical.

There are those people who will drink alcohol because they love alcohol. They will find a way to drive, regardless of the law. There will always be a friend's car they could borrow which doesn't have mandatory alcohol ignition interlocks. The problem should be handled not through prohibition or stricter laws, rather by examining why people drink and are willing to put other people's lives at stake by then driving.

The key reason why this happens is because the driver does not care. Perhaps their lives are so miserable that they do not care about making another person's life miserable. Would a stricter law make them care more? For any sensible human being, it would. But there is no sensibility in a person who becomes emotionally distracted and distraught. Some people also drink in celebration, or simply drink due to alcohol addiction.

All of these reasons should be treated with different strategies for reducing the likelihood of drunk driving.

If a person becomes furious and kills someone, it won't matter what laws exist against murder or what complex controlling devices we wrap around knives, guns, or blunt objects. We cannot stack laws upon laws, expecting things to change the way people's emotions work.

True reform will come from educating people, a better psychological understanding of how uncontrolled emotional distress develops, and answer the tough question of whether a fully-educated and emotionally controlled is possible or even desirable. The degree to which we want to prevent drunk driving is the degree to which we are willing to accept such a society.

Sources


 1  Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths Highest in 15 Years May 25, 2007 Unknown Author (The Auto Channel)
 2  Drunk Driver Jailed for Life Sept 10, 2009 Unknown Author (AskMen.com)

User Comments & Opinion

 
0.0%
100.0%

0 Voted Yes

1 Voted No

profile pic
I think federally mandated programs are just going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money and be ineffective.

We should curb drunk driving using programs that are tailored for each community and the source of most drunk driving in that area. Some places need education, other places need more taxi cabs, it really depends.

One super federal program is bound to be expensive and fail to make a difference. - thorie (twitter) vote up image vote down image 0
 
Vote "Yes" Comment:
* Note: Your comment will be tweeted.
 
 
Vote "No" Comment:
* Note: Your comment will be tweeted.
 
Recent Changes   dot   Latest Comments   dot   63 Total Users   dot   260 Total Debates since Aug '09