Drunk Driving

Writing about alcohol regulation, Tyler Cowen observes that "Penalties for drunk driving should be much stricter." This is true. Our whole system of punishment around this topic is really messed up. The tendency is to punish people by restricting their ability to drive. The problem is that in most parts of the US, driving around is a requirement for living an adult life. The penalty is too severe, enforcement gets spotty, sentences are brief. Then, when people talk about making the laws tougher, the current trend is to ratchet-down the prohibited blood-alcohol content level to a point where some drunk drivers are, arguably, not actually doing anything worthy of severe punishment.

Mark Kleiman has proposed the idea that instead of showing your driver's license when you go into a bar or liquor store that you should need to show a "drinking license" and that could be suspended for alcohol-related misconduct including driving. That's the sort of penalty one could realistically apply to violators on a widespread basis, but that also could act as a meaningful deterrent for people who like to drink. Then you'd have to make the penalties for serving (or buying) without a license severe. And you could maybe give older teens the choice between a drinking license and a driving license, rather than trying to curtail teen drunk driving purely by curtailing teen drinking.

Comments

...then you need to revive Al Capone.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 16, 2007 9:10 AM

Nice idea in theory.. but would never work in practice in many places... yes.. it might work in bars... kinda.. but has anyone ever heard of the magical concept of a "friend" who could then go up to the bar, and buy you a drink, even if your drinking "license" was suspended?

heck.. what about rural environments.. I have friends from the countryside.. and in any time of the year not called "winter" (and even then sometimes), they go out, and have a big bash in someone's field... and then all drive home... only one person needs to get the keg.. and all would have the ability to drink despite having any suspended drinking licenses...

I just don't think suspending someone's "drinking license" is a practical idea at all.. Enforcement would be far harder than it is now.. especially if there is no subsequent way to remove them from the streets when they still drink n' drive...

ps--I'm not even going to get all libertarian on this idea.. although I'm sure many will...

Posted by Morpheus Laughing | August 16, 2007 9:28 AM

... that's brilliant.

I'm one of those who thinks that lowering the drinking age would do an awful lot to alleviate problems of binge drinking among younger people. (I also favor it on simple libertarian grounds.) The problem is it's difficult to get stuff like that passed because of we've got to be "tough on crime." But maybe the drinking license/driving license choice could help gin up support.

Posted by Freddie | August 16, 2007 9:28 AM

A drinking license? Come again? I can sort of see where you're going with this, but to be a little more practical, why not add a section to the driver's license that relates to drinking? A lot of drinking establishments have adopted a "card everyone" philosophy, with eye-rolling results. However, having a portion of the driver's license related to "drinking status restriction" (sort of like if you need to wear glasses, or if you are an organ donor), would give bars a more rational reason to card everyone.

There is, of course a rather large loophole to this, since after all, a person could easily get drunk on alcohol purchased legally by someone else. If a person who already has a "drinking restriction" on their license is picked up for DUI, though, I would think that the only way to try to prevent them from driving drunk is to take away access to their car (with the caveat, of course, that someone who is REALLY determined to drink and drive will find a way--but it should deter at least some people).

Posted by JMS | August 16, 2007 9:30 AM

How about suspending their license if the blood alcohol level is moderately high, and putting them in jail if its very high?

Another complaint, having served on a jury once, is that the jury was never told that the guy refused to take a breathalizer. Supposedly, this would bias the jurors towards the absurd conclusion that the guy was actually drunk.

The jury ended up acquitting the guy even though he failed the field sobriety test. Unfortunately, I was an alternate and so I couldn't influence the deliberations.

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 9:33 AM

The problem is that in most parts of the US, driving around is a requirement for living an adult life.

Er, yes, but drinking and "driving around" certainly ain't.

We could almost eliminate drunk driving -- and I believe we will in the not-too-distant future -- via sensor technology in automobiles. Some day it will simply be impossible to operate a car while intoxicated.

Posted by Jasper | August 16, 2007 9:35 AM

Awesome idea. And maybe if a guy fires off a loaded handgun in a crowd, we could just take away his shooting license.

Somehow, it never occurred to me that if a person recklessly endangers the lives of his fellow motorists, then requiring that he arrange for alternate transportation for an extended period of time is too severe.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 16, 2007 9:51 AM

, then requiring that he arrange for alternate transportation for an extended period of time is too severe

I think the idea is that effectively barring him from employment is too severe. Whether that's the effect is another matter.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 16, 2007 9:54 AM

The real problem is that there are a LOT of drunk drivers, and putting people in jail is really expensive. So the state tries to come up with a way to punish people that won't cost as much. Suspending someone's license is practically free, from the state's perspective. It makes it a very attractive prospect.

What we really need are more shaming punishments. In my experience (dealing primarily with middle class defendants) people aren't worried about the license suspension because they can get driving privileges (these are less generous than people think, but they don't know that and won't listen when you tell them). Three day jail sentences can be hidden on a weekend, as can three day alcohol intervention programs. Fines can be paid. The punishment that most upsets them is a colored license plate. This will be visible to friends, family, and coworkers, for months on end.

Posted by Patrick | August 16, 2007 9:58 AM

Why does the punishment of suspending a license effectively bar a person from employment? If adequate public transportation is unavailable, the violator can pay someone to drive him to and from work. The total amount of money shelled out for this service is likely to be quite reasonable, considered as a fine for the violation.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 16, 2007 10:00 AM

A) I'm finding the beginning of this post this confusing. First you say that you agree with Cowen that penalties for drunk driving should be much more severe, then two lines later you say that the penalty is too severe. Doesn't add up

B) Dan Kervick is right on the money - if you are caught driving significantly under the influence of alcohol, then you have certainly demonstrated that you are not fit to have the right to be in charge of a dangerous piece of machinery like a car. The point about the drinking license is silly. You won't kill your fellow citizens sitting in a bar and drinking 4-5 beers - it's the beers in conjunction with the 300hp engine that does it. If being deprived of the latter messes up your life - tough.

Posted by JohnTh | August 16, 2007 10:01 AM

First, the post implies that this is Mark Kleiman's idea, but I believe it has been bandied around by others first.

I think the main idea is that their could be things you could do that would suspend your ability to drink. A 19-year-old caught committing minor vandalism while drunk could have his license suspended, and so on.

My concern is that it would become a lifelong license rather than just something necessary while you're youung.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | August 16, 2007 10:04 AM

I like Patrick's idea of a colored license plate. The anonymity of modern life is one of the main "causes" of crime, so this could be effective.

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:09 AM

Matt,

It's a tough position to defend the drunk drivers on this one. However, MADD and the like have skewed the laws on this so far towards punishment, taht your call for stricter laws is ludicrous. Nationally, drunk driving incidents have trended downward despite increases in federal grant money for enforcement. Moreover, the vast, vast, vast majority of "drunk" drivers arrested every year injure no-one, but are instead pulled over for another minor offense and then test over a completely arbitrary and non-sensical level of "impairment." .10 is no measure whatsoever of a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle; nor is .08 which was mandated by the Feds unnecessarily 8 years ago. I'm waiting for the study where my driving ability at .08 is measured against any one of the 80 year old drivers in this country stone cold sober. We'll see who's impaired. In point of fact, DUI is the ONE area of criminal punishment in this country where offenders are consistently punished for what MIGHT have happened, rather than what did. What is needed is severe punishments for those who injure or kill while driving drunk. What is needed is severe punishments for those who repeatedly drive drunk. What is NOT needed is to jail everyday citizens driving home from work on a friday night after a few adult beverages who may do nothing more than fail to signal a turn. What is NOT needed is to then punish that person by making insurance completely un-affordable so that they carry minimum limits and still profit the insurance company. Finally, what is not needed is a complete shortfall in insurance coverage when that same worker then gets in a non-inebrated accident and has no insurance to compensate the injured party. That is our system today.

Posted by Robert | August 16, 2007 10:17 AM

I'm finding the beginning of this post this confusing. First you say that you agree with Cowen that penalties for drunk driving should be much more severe, then two lines later you say that the penalty is too severe. Doesn't add up

John Th, I think Matt's argument is that the penalties that are on the books are too severe, and that because they are two severe they are not enforced, so that the penalties given out in practice are too lenient. He proposes that decreasing the severity of punishments on the books will actually increase the severity of the punishments given out. Clever.

I would simply reject his premise that the punishments on the books, particularly the license suspension punishments, are too severe.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 16, 2007 10:21 AM

I think drunk drivers should be forced to wear large chicken costumes whenever they go out in public, with vests sewed on them with the three x's to let everyone know they are EVIL. Or something. When I was in the Army, persistent pressure and the threat of UCMJ kept most soldiers I knew from drinking and driving. In comparison, I have been surprised at how completely callous my civilian associates are regarding the matter-they get drunk, and when they drive home they seem content to risk their lives and others in the name of convenience. There is also a widespread belief that driving drunk is an acquired skill-and since they've done it so often, this is how they convince themselves they endanger no one. I guess those public service announcements aren't that effective.

The one other point of note I have found, is that the same people who drink and drive profess to have no sympathy for drunk drivers, and I have heard, among other things, that execution and life imprisonment should be among the punishments levied upon these evil doers. I find the level of cognitive dissonance here astounding, but we are talking about some pretty stupid people, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 10:27 AM

In point of fact, DUI is the ONE area of criminal punishment in this country where offenders are consistently punished for what MIGHT have happened, rather than what did.

I'm sympathetic to your point, but this is obviously wrong. Reckless driving, criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, intent to distribute...

Posted by Tom | August 16, 2007 10:30 AM

the jury was never told that the guy refused to take a breathalizer. Supposedly, this would bias the jurors towards the absurd conclusion that the guy was actually drunk.

The guy was exercising his consitutional right not to be subjected to a search and siezure without probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances. You can't infer guilt from someone exercising their constitutional rights--otherwise, those rights become meaningless.

Now, mind you: (1) driving is a privilege, not a right, and the state doesn't have to let you drive if you won't take a breathalyzer, and (2) the state can and will obtain a search warrant, and take a blood sample for analysis, if they have probable cause to beleive you're driving drunk. [Note: I'm giving you the very simplified version of all this--a comprehensive explanation of the rule and all its exceptions would require a book, not a blog comment].

Speaking as someone who has defended a bunch of these cases let me say: (1) breathalyzer and field sobriety tests are often mishandled by the police, and are frequently given more credence by juries than they deserve, and (2) present legal limits are absurdly low--.08--when the ability to drive is actually not significantly affected until .12 or so--the original legal limit before politicians started using this issue to pander for votes.

Matt calls for more severe penalties for drunk driving, but in our system, people who advocate increased punishment for crimes are invariably either (1) politicians who want to be perceived as doing something about crime without actually spending the time, money and political capital necessary to accomplish something, or (2) dupes of No. (1).

Posted by rea | August 16, 2007 10:35 AM

Re: "In point of fact, DUI is the ONE area of criminal punishment in this country where offenders are consistently punished for what MIGHT have happened, rather than what did."

Isn't the same principle involved when you get a much larger sentence for armed robbery than you do for plain old robbery, even if you didn't shoot anyone?

I agree that sentences for killing someone when driving drunk should be extremely severe (on the order of 10 years in prison, at least). That doesn't mean that driving with high levels of alcohol, such that your ability is plainly impaired, shouldn't receive a reasonably high penalty (a stiff fine, a couple weeks in jail, community service, etc).

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:35 AM

How about having a realistic blood alcohol limit to consider someone a drunk driver? An average-sized adult ought to be able to drive home after drinking two glasses of wine with dinner without worrying about breaking the law. Most people are probably better drivers after one or two drinks, since they are relaxed but not really impaired. A bigger danger than having one or two drinks is being an asshole. Unfortunately, there's nothing illegal about being an asshole, but the roads are full of them, particularly in places with high asshole quotients like Northern NJ.

Posted by Fred | August 16, 2007 10:37 AM

Re: "The guy was exercising his consitutional right not to be subjected to a search and siezure without probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances. You can't infer guilt from someone exercising their constitutional rights--otherwise, those rights become meaningless."

Why can't the jury be told about this? Unless they happen to know about the technical details, they are completely in the dark. And, why have field sobriety tests if they are going to be ignored?

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 10:38 AM

I had the same thought back when i was younger. You could even make different types of drinking licenses, like probationary type things. One for teens and could only be used at a bar or in the presence of their guardians. This way they aren't buying stuff for their friends. You could also segregate bars by licenses or age, so a bar able to serve teens would have a higher threshold of responsibility as far as restricting inebriation levels but would be able to charge more since the market would be restricted. You could also make it an endorsement on a standard ID rather than having it be a license. This could be done for driving as well. So everyone gets an ID and then those IDs give different endorsements, like driving or flying or drinking. If you can do without those endorsements you don't have to get an ID.

On the punishment part, its not just that revoking drivers licenses is onerous, its also that it is nearly meaningless. You can drive without a license. It isn't legal, but if you're drunk and driving lack of a license is the least of your worries.

Posted by crack | August 16, 2007 10:40 AM

I wouldn't object to more severe sentences for those that drove very drunk if a tiered system (or sliding scale) were implemented so that those who were barely over the limit got a lighter sentence (like a fine). The problem is that someone with blood alcohol right at the limit (0.10 or 0.08) is no more dangerous than someone who drives ten miles an hour over the speed limit - the latter a behavior that's widely tolerated. Hitting someone who's caught driving with 0.11 blood alcohol with a huge penalty makes as much sense as throwing someone in jail for speeding and is just veiled puritanism in action.

Posted by bbartlog | August 16, 2007 10:48 AM

The "drinking license" is a cute idea that almost certainly wouldn't work. Crack addicts face a situation in which their drug of choice is NEVER legal and merely possessing it (without use of any kind) can result in a jail sentence. This doesn't deter them, and most crack users are able to purchase their drug of choice for years without legal action (it's when their high that the trouble usually starts). It's foolish to think that banning over-the-counter purchase of a drug that's available on every street corner and can be picked up by any friend, family member or generous stranger would be a genuine deterrent for a true alcoholic. Taking away their driver's license is an imperfect solution but one that at least makes slightly more sense.

Posted by Giant Duck | August 16, 2007 10:51 AM

"In point of fact, DUI is the ONE area of criminal punishment in this country where offenders are consistently punished for what MIGHT have happened, rather than what did."

This is not correct. We have lots of crimes where the criminal act is the creation of a hazard, even if no one is injured by the hazard in that particular case.

Posted by Patrick | August 16, 2007 10:56 AM

For instance, it's illegal to drive without insurance, whether you get into an accident or not. I always assumed that this was because insurance companies own the law, but maybe there is some wisdom to it.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 10:59 AM

We talked about this in the 'drinking age' thread.

The issue is one of zoning and public transportation. Most British homes are within walking (or staggering) distance of the local pub. If not, chances are there's a late bus or, if you're feeling flush, a taxi.

For all the contractual obligation 'please don't get hammered' lines on commercials and entreaties to use a designated Mormon, the location of places to drink implicitly relies upon driving. Or, perhaps, there's a warped safety mechanism, since drinking holes only reachable by car are likely to be more difficult for the poor swaddled teenagers to frequent. (Never mind that this usually becomes moot in college environments.)

It's time for local government and local residents to take the sticks out of their rears and open up the development of local drinking holes. And then, once the mixed signals are gone, you lock up the fuckers who drink and drive.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 16, 2007 11:06 AM

I couldn't be more enthusiastic about allowing the state to regulate what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home, and setting a precedent licensing a much wider class of behaviors.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | August 16, 2007 11:09 AM

Appealing in theory. Useless in practice. I'd expect it to work almost as well as the prohibition on college-aged kids from buying or consuming alcohol.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | August 16, 2007 11:15 AM

Drinking licenses won't work. Drunk drivers are usually alcoholics. Suspending their drinking license will have no effect. Those who are not alcoholics are young people who have not yet grasped their responsibility with regard to drinking and driving - many of whom are not legally allowed to drink anyway.

We need to lower the drinking age in this country and remove the stigma on alcoholism. People need to learn how to drink, or that they can not drink, long before they learn to drive. People need to learn if they are alcoholics before they live in a non-custodial situation. People need to be able to accept their alcoholism as easily as someone allergic to peanuts accepts their situation.

Posted by Njorl | August 16, 2007 11:30 AM

America suffers from various self-righteous groups that, upon accomplishing an initial good thing - civil rights for blacks, getting dangerously drunk drivers with blood alchohol above .15 off the road - don't know when to stop.

Racial equality was transformed by zealots into quotas and "blacks-only" contracts with government. Ralph Nader went from making cars safe to "crusading" against french fries. MADD went from admired to an hysterical bunch of angry harpies hectoring legislatures for "Zero tolerance" on call phones, any detectable alcohol in someone 18-21 driving to proposing a 0.03 blood alcohol level being "dangerously drunk" - which is one glass of wine for a slender woman or 3 beers a guy consumes in 2 hours time. And MADD zealots - demanded ridiculously harsh penalties that helped buy vacation condos for tens of thousands of "drunk lawyers" and broadened definitions of "alcohol-related arrests" to puff up their stats, their fundraising drives and to help scare the public and legislatures when true drunk drivers were in precipitous decline.

Yes, a bust for an open beer in a car is alcohol-related, binge-drinking busts on campus, homies hit up for having 40's on the street, yes a bar fight is alcohol-related, so are two drunks arrested at their house for a "domestic disturbance". But hardly signs of the "drinking epidemic" MADD claims exists and the reason why "mandatory months long jail time" and years long bans on driving are justified for someone blowing 0.05.

Funny phenomenon was identified by road and track decades ago when they had their reporters and a few friends get drunk and run an elaborate obstacle course that not only had pylons but folding granny targets suddenly coming out on the street, traffic signals, parallel parking task, night driving, etc. The purpose was to show that performance dramatically declined - judgement, reaction time, driving a straight path...but only when the drivers went above 0.12%. From 0% to 0.08% most driver's performance substantially improved, then declined, but was still, on average, better than stone sober drivers until 0.12%.

As Roger stated earlier, MADD has not gone after 80-year old grannies or drivers with a substantial medical disability like MS or mild retardation that has been shown in tests to have far greater contribution to accidents than any person being at 0.07% or so. Or habitually angry or reckless drivers born that way with a stack of tickets and infractions inevitably found when they finally "graduate" to a major accident. The MADD nannies shut up about that because they found early on AARP and disability advocates would crucify them if they went after conditions outside alcohol - starting with bad elderly drivers - that are tied to auto deaths or injuries.

(AARP is why you see elderly drivers with a string of accidents end up doing a "sudden elder acceleration" into a crowd or lose control and steer their car into the side of a house don't get massive fines, probation, even suspension of license if they "retest satisfactorily and get new eyeglasses and coaching on what is the brake, what is the gas pedal...)

And MADD is notorious for hyping one case as "all too common on every road in the Nation" when someone blind stinking drunk on the road and causing a major accident is now a relative rarity in the overall stats of major accidents outside a few well-understood ethnic enclaves, unfortunately including Native American Reservations...MADD loves to press the media to describe any and all accidents possible as "alcohol-related" as if the alcohol in 3 glasses of wine a guy had at a restaurant was the reason that an inattentative driver rear-ended them at a stoplight and sent the family to the emergency room slightly banged up.

And MADD has pushed Hollywood to make every other character the plot requires to have a "tragic family death" to add depth to their character and victimhood creds as a moral person - someone who "sufffered their beloved's loss at the hands of a "drunk driver".

Truth is MADD did good work, got the true sloppy drunks off the road, but as they organized as a "Cause" - just couldn't bear to declare the cause won...but feel compelled to continue to sally forth with other self-righteous prigs onto new demands that appear to only desire to criminalize more people with no real safety gains....

Posted by Chris Ford | August 16, 2007 11:31 AM

Advocates of drunk driving regulation are anal retentive kill-joys who need to be lubricated.

Posted by Thinkeer | August 16, 2007 11:32 AM

Why can't the jury be told about this? Unless they happen to know about the technical details, they are completely in the dark. And, why have field sobriety tests if they are going to be ignored?

Sigh. Let me explain this again.

If you supposedly have a constitutional right to remain silent, and not to be subjected to a search and seizure without a warrant--but if you have to talk to the police and allow them to search, or your failure to do so will be treated as evidence of guilt--then you don't have the supposed rights at all.

The outcome of field sobriety tests is admissible in evidence provided that (1) they don't violate any constitutional rights (most don't) and (2) they meet basic tests of scientific reliability (so that they really show something about whetehr the person taking the tests was intoxicated).

Even if the results of field sobriety tests are admissible they are of course not conclusive--the jury is free to disbeleive them, and in some cases, there is execellent reason to do so. For example, the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, if correctly performed can show whether a person has been drinking--but not necessarily whether that person is legally drunk.

If you don't think a jury ought to be free to disbeleive the results of field sobriety tests, I'm darned if I can see why you think we ought to bother with a trial at all.

Posted by rea | August 16, 2007 11:35 AM

Rea:

I don't know what state you are in, but in Texas, juries find out 99% of the time if the defendant refused the intoxilizer. In Texas, you already gave consent (bye-bye 4th Amendment challenge) when you signed up to get a license.

Second, for those of you who keep saying .08 is not a measure of impairment, .08 in most people is the equivalent of 4 or 5 glasses of wine in the bloodstream. Do you really think it is a good idea for people to drive around with that much in their system? John Daly or your alcoholic brother can probably pull it off, but Susie Socialdrinker who drinks once a month probably can't. In an ideal world, .08 should be a deterent. There are plenty of studies that show impairment can occur at .02 -- and there are several reputable experts that say most are impaired at .05.

Finally, why have we made alcohol a god we must bow down to? Why is it somehow a great violation of your rights that you might be under suspicion if you smell like beer behind the wheel? If you like drinking so much, do it at home or get someone to take you home. It amazes me how being able to drink and then drive is elevated to this sacred cow.

Posted by Blue Moon | August 16, 2007 11:54 AM

rea,

I understand the legal arguments, but you seem to want to have it both ways. The jury is free to use their judgement to believe or disbelieve the field sobriety tests. However, they are not free to use their judgement to interpret the defendant's unwillingness to take the breathalizer, because they are not allowed to know about it.

It seems to me that having a constitutional right to do something shouldn't necessarily preclude other people knowing that you have done it.

After the trial, the judge debriefed us, and explained that the guy had refused to take it. Then, she basically told us all to pat ourselves on the back for being such great citizens. The fact that a drunk-driving menace got off is neither here nor there. We were good citizens. Hurray!

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 11:56 AM

In California, refusing to take the test is the same as failing it. At least, that's the way it goes in practice. Needless to say, that's beyond fucked up.

I'm trying to imagine what "harsher penalties" might look like, given what we have now. Execution on the spot?

And here's a funny one: MADD isn't mothers (at least not exclusively), and they're not against "drunk driving" (they've long ago decided that "drinking and driving" is as evil as drunk driving, and really, they've broadened their mission to be pretty much anti-alcohol, regardless of driving). They're still "against" stuff, though.

OK, I'd buy harsher penalties if they came with a tiered system --- very harsh penalties for driving with a 0.15, penalties like what we have today if you've got a 0.10, and a much lighter penalty if you've got below that. But the 0.08 limit is a joke, since the law almost always says you can be arrested for being much less intoxicated, if the cop decides he would like to arrest you. Any alcohol at all -- one drink with dinner -- is "driving while intoxicated" if the cop says it is, with his "field sobriety test" that does nothing to measure drunkeness.

Posted by too many steves | August 16, 2007 12:04 PM

There is the very practical problem that lots of people occasionally (or frequently) indulge in alcohol, as it is a widespread pastime. At the same time, driving is a necessity in most places around this country. So let's say you have a few beers, and then you wait to sober up before you drive home. What metric are you going to use to determine whether it's safe for you to drive or not? Sobriety is too subjective a thing to measure with certainty merely by feeling one's self out, and most people don't have their own breathalyzer. I suspect even those quite serious about not driving drunk still have occasion to hedge their bets on a night when they are eager to get home and go to sleep. It would almost be better to set a guideline that specifically forbids drinking and driving categorically, than to have a guideline that says an alcohol percentage is tolerable up to a point, like .08 or .05. By saying that, you are suggesting that a certain minor level of inebriation is acceptable, and this will lead people to the optimistic conclusion that because they feel perfectly fine, they must fall within that acceptable margin.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 12:05 PM

How does this fit in with smoking marijuana, cocaine, misusing prescription drugs, using inhalants (sniffing glue), etc.? Button up alcohol more and we push teens into driving while intoxicated by the other drugs, I suspect.

Ideal solution would legalize the drugs, but not for minors (with bars still closed to minors, defined as under say 18 - or over minimum marriage age with parental permission), and build fleets of jointly-owned vehicles, making it easier for all to get around while intoxicated.

We have a jointly owned computer system (the internet) and can and should have jointly-owned vehicle systems.

Saying no to all intoxication, in this day and age, invites major suicide/depression issues (larger than the problems we no have).

Punishment for driving while intoxicated would then be easier to avoid and justify (for those who shun the available safe transit options).

Duke's bus/van system is a decent example of a jointly owned vehicle system.

Put money into systems like that instead of Iraq.

Posted by cfw | August 16, 2007 12:12 PM

I think we should just outlaw teenagers altogether. I would simplify things immensely.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 12:14 PM

How does this fit in with smoking marijuana, cocaine, misusing prescription drugs, using inhalants (sniffing glue), etc.? Button up alcohol more and we push teens into driving while intoxicated by the other drugs, I suspect.

All detctible by blood tests, if the driver flunks the field sobriety test and thereby gives probable cause to administer blood tests.

With marijuana, at least, the law is particularly absurd, because mj remains in the body in detectable (and illegal) amounts for 30 days or so after use, even though very obviously the user doesn't remain under the influence for 30 days . . .

Posted by rea | August 16, 2007 12:47 PM

We could invest more money in public transit, for one thing, in urban areas, and more real-world education about alcohol usage and the REAL effects of alcohol abuse in schools-- using medical professionals and AAs. Like sex ed, we can't pretend like people AREN'T going to drink. We have to be realistic about it. We can try to offer alternatives to drunk driving, as we do for unprotected sex. A breathalyzer dashboard or ignition key seems not very feasible or some such and this stupid "drinking ID" idea is so nanny state, but I think it is predominantly a social phenomenon that could be fixed through education and honest confrontation of the problem. Now it's a punitive system for many drivers, so they focus on "not getting caught" as opposed to "not doing it." We can flip the script by being realistic and, if all else fails, turning the nation's highways into bumper-car alleys.

Posted by Gregorio | August 16, 2007 12:57 PM

"How does this fit in with smoking marijuana, cocaine, misusing prescription drugs, using inhalants (sniffing glue), etc.? Button up alcohol more and we push teens into driving while intoxicated by the other drugs, I suspect. "

I don't know about all of them, but people who are high on marijuana are more likely to acknowledge their impairment. Drunks tend to gain confidence in their abilities rather than lose it.

Posted by Njorl | August 16, 2007 1:30 PM

"How does this fit in with smoking marijuana, cocaine, misusing prescription drugs, using inhalants (sniffing glue), etc.? Button up alcohol more and we push teens into driving while intoxicated by the other drugs, I suspect. "

I don't know about all of them, but people who are high on marijuana are more likely to acknowledge their impairment. Drunks tend to gain confidence in their abilities rather than lose it.

Posted by Njorl | August 16, 2007 1:30 PM

Re: "You can't infer guilt from someone exercising their constitutional rights--otherwise, those rights become meaningless."

So, if someone is exercising their right to free speech while conspiring to commit murder, I guess you can't use that against them. What a great system we've got.

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 1:34 PM

Well, what if the murder conspirer is really lazy, and never gets around to killing anyone? You know how many people I've openly expressed the desire to murder? You really can't throw someone in jail for a crime that they haven't yet committed.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 1:38 PM

The absurdity of the situation (our professed horror at drinking and driving, while basically encouraging it in practice), to echo an earlier commenter, is demonstrated by the fact that most people have to drive to get to a restaurant or bar. If you live in an urban area, you may be able to walk or have ready-access to a cab.

If you live in the suburbs, almost every customer at an establishment will be driving, yet no one is cut-off after 3 drinks. Or six drinks. Or even more. You should see the length of time people will drink and, sometimes, eat at a place during a NFL or MLB game.

If we *really* were outraged at DD, that simply wouldn't happen, there would be (very low) limits set on the amount a place could serve. Which would be truly absurd, but I don't know how you can be holier-than-thou on DD and not agree with it.

Posted by Andruw | August 16, 2007 2:05 PM

All detctible by blood tests, if the driver flunks the field sobriety test and thereby gives probable cause to administer blood tests.

Actually, blood testing is of limited use. They can only reliably test for marijuana and opiate use. Cocaine, meth, extacy, LSD, psychedelic mushrooms tend to move into and out of the system too quickly to test.

Posted by Freddie | August 16, 2007 2:17 PM

A couple excellent comments by Njorl and Chris Ford. Above the usual level for this blog. Nice work.

Posted by Fred | August 16, 2007 2:19 PM

The crazy thing about this issue (and many issues in American politics) is that we don't look down on drunk driving. We look down on getting caught drunk driving. That being said, I agree strongly with the people above who advocate a tiered system. 0.15 BAC or higher driving should be truly ostracized (and penalized). Lower than 0.12 should only be lightly penalized, if at all. I'm sure studies can be constructed to go both ways on impairment at 0.08 BAC, but as others have noted, slight impairment is pretty much irrelevant noise in comparison to big factors for driver safety- age, disability or general recklessness.

Posted by mpowell | August 16, 2007 2:27 PM

It would almost be better to set a guideline that specifically forbids drinking and driving categorically, than to have a guideline that says an alcohol percentage is tolerable up to a point, like .08 or .05.

Bingo.

The fact is, as a society we're not truly serious about ending the scourge of driving while impaired. Many (most?) human beings can't be trusted to drink alcohol and then operate a vehicle, because alcohol, by its very nature, impairs judgment. The vast majority of impaired drivers are NOT deliberately trying to break the law, because they think, wrongly, that they're "okay" to drive.

It should be socially unacceptable to "only" drink a margarita and a beer or two at Appleby's and then load the wife and kids into the car and drive home. Yeah, I know paying taxis sucks, but if you can't afford it, drink at home. Barring a move to a "zero tolerance" approach to the mixing of alcohol and driving, I see technology as the only long term solution.

Posted by Jasper | August 16, 2007 3:20 PM

Re: "It should be socially unacceptable to "only" drink a margarita and a beer or two at Appleby's and then load the wife and kids into the car and drive home."

Alright, that's it. Now you're getting personal. There's nothing wrong with driving after a couple drinks (or more drinks if adequately spaced out). And nobody's gonna deprive me of my margaritas.

The problem is driving with high levels of intoxication. What that level is, I'll leave up to the experts.

Posted by Jim W | August 16, 2007 3:26 PM

Maragaritas are for girls, sissy, and Applebee's is for fat white trash republitards. Keep livin' that vida loca, JW! Kids are for Christians, wives are for losers, cars are for yuppies, homes are for boomers. But seriously, it's never up to the experts. It's up to republitard, MADD-puppets like Liddy Dole who brilliantly surmise that the best way to curb underage binge-drinking (if that were her goal, which it's not: the goal is abstinence based at heart, for youngsters but not her and atrophied-hubby) would be to make Legal Drinking more a forbidden fruit and status symbol than it already was. Huzzah, kudos, you fucking republitard morality-legislators. Laws are not the way to change behavior: education, honesty, and openness are. Reality! Puritanical suppression results in revolt. Gross hypocrisy breeds contempt. Remove age drinking laws, put the onus on the parents, the merchants, and educated kids themselves. As for Drunk Driving, put some teeth behind the informed social stigma, and do get OTHER impaired drivers off the road too. Breathalyzer steering wheels are okay by me, but make sure the line you draw is reasonable. .1 seems like a natural choice, but it depends on the drinker. I don't drink anymore, so frankly, I don't care personally, but I know from my drinking days that the most certain way to convince a drunk that the best revenge is getting drunk is by telling said drunk he can't get drunk.

KA-THUNK!

Posted by Gregorio | August 16, 2007 3:37 PM

I can't wait for these breathalyzer steering wheels, so I can finally start selling my "BreathaLier" exhalation fabrication device. Works just like a pair of lungs to get you that alcohol free puff of air right where you need it after a long night of hard drinking at the bar.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 16, 2007 3:45 PM

Hm... given that the requirement to present drivers' licenses to drink already fails to prevent "underage" people from drinking, I'm not sure how a "drinking license" requirement would fare any better. The person who commented about crack users makes essentially the same point.

Also, what do you do about foreign visitors? Issue them temporary drinking licenses at the border (that would be a nice little add-on to that 2-hour wait time at Immigration)? Just deny them alcohol?

Posted by Paul Curtis | August 16, 2007 3:49 PM

Gordon Lightfoot is an avowed drunk driver. Arrest him! Tar & feather! Death to them all!

Posted by MADDMan | August 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Using driver's licenses to purchase alcohol hasn't failed. OK, it hasn't been 100% successful at preventing underage drinking, but what kind of success rate would you expect? How much underage drinking is prevented depends a lot on local enforcement. I don't see too many kids getting served in NYC, though that might just mean that I'm going to the wrong places.

Anyway, the appeal of the drinking license isn't that it would work.... no policy is going to "work" in that sense. The appeal is that it's more honest and doesn't attempt to interfere with things that we don't really want to stop.

Posted by AlanC9 | August 16, 2007 4:23 PM

I dunno... given the "epidemics" of underage binge drinking we're always hearing about, I'm not sure how our current system of drinking licenses (that is, after all, what we essentially have anyway) is succeeding in any meaningful way. You may not see the kids at the bars in NYC (try Bar None on a Saturday night, though), but that doesn't mean they're not drinking. Admittedly I'm not citing stats here b/c I'm too busy/lazy to look them up.

Agreed that no policy has to "work" 100%, but I haven't seen much evidence that our drinking license system works at all -- what social good does it really serve? Does it prevent any kid who wants to drink from drinking? I doubt it. But it does encourage them to do so out of the eye of adult supervision.

I'm not entirely qualified to comment on this debate, I suppose, since I can walk/take the subway to bars. But it's just a thought.

Posted by Paul Curtis | August 16, 2007 4:54 PM

And nobody's gonna deprive me of my margaritas.

Nobody's trying to deprive you of your margaritas. Heck, if it were up to me, nobody would be depriving you of your weed or coke, either. But still, these things don't mix well with driving. So take a fu*%ing cab already.

Posted by Jasper | August 16, 2007 5:36 PM

It's hard to take a cab when you live in Bumfuck, Indiana. So drink at home or get a friend who's not a total lush.

Posted by Gregorio | August 16, 2007 5:53 PM

Or, have a drink or two and then drive home! Just don't drive home drunk.

Granted, this makes it very tough to know what to do when you've had 3 drinks, or 4, if it's over a few hours. When in doubt, call that cab.

Posted by too many steves | August 16, 2007 5:59 PM

Nthing all of those who note the role of MADD: they're basically just Moral Scolds For Postponded Adulthood now.

And just to reiterate the structural lack of seriousness about drinking and driving: I'd like to see some locality mandate that if you're serving booze in commercially-zoned areas off the public transport network and unreachable on foot, then you subsidise cabs, run a shuttle bus, or reimburse designated drivers. Providing free sodas all night is tokenism.

(Oh, and Fred: if you want the standard of comments kept high, stop commenting.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 16, 2007 6:00 PM

Re: We must seize this election and make every attempt to move as far left as possible as quickly as possible.

If you do that you will fail. Now, I am certainly not suggesting compromise with the Far Right-- that would as hopeless and as useless as trying to convert Osama bin Laden to Buddhism. But there is a vast populaion of independent voters out there who you need on your side. They've deserted the GOP in droves due to the Rove strategy of goerning from a narrow, minority base. If you create a leftwing version of Bush and Cheney you'll end up alienatinmg those people too, sending them back to the OP, or on to some offball, maverick like Ron Paul (who is not really your friend even if he too wanst out of Iraq). FDR may have polarized the country, but he alienated only the Right while earning the Democrats the trust and loyalty of the center for years to come. Wouldn't that be better, even if it means a bit less ideological purity and acceping the merely good in plae of an unattainable best

Re: . Finally, what is not needed is a complete shortfall in insurance coverage when that same worker then gets in a non-inebrated accident and has no insurance to compensate the injured party.

Isn't that what the Uninsured Motorist coverage we all have to carry is supposed to be for?

Re: There are plenty of studies that show impairment can occur at .02 -- and there are several reputable experts that say most are impaired at .05.

Oh good grief. The level of impairment you are talking about is probably less than results from having a sleepless night, a bad cold, or a very recent spat with your significant other. Are we going to start arresting people for those too? The fact remains that truly catastrophic DUI crashes almost always involve very high levels of blood alcohol-- like the .2 booze-hound (license suspended) who got on I-595 the wrong way by where I live last month and hit another car head on, killing himself and three others (including two kids) in the other car. You have to be well and truly shit-faced to screw up like that and those are the people we need to do something about, not the guy who has a couple beers after work and hits the trash can in his driveway later.

Posted by Jonf | August 16, 2007 8:22 PM

Blue Moon - There are plenty of studies that show impairment can occur at .02 -- and there are several reputable experts that say most are impaired at .05

There are other studies, such as Road & Track Mag, that show driver performance improves up to a 0.08.

The important studies are those that show that once someone is in shit-faced territory, 0.15 and on up, the risk goes from mild or no impairment into substantial degredation in driver performance. All the "drunk driver horror stories" of drunks weaving into oncoming traffic, driving the wrong way, plowing into cars at intersections show bllod alcohol levels far in excess of "0.0X" type amounts - which are the equivalent of driving while listening to an audiotape, driving while having the flu, having kids in the car, or being 63 vs. 43.

Jasper - The fact is, as a society we're not truly serious about ending the scourge of driving while impaired. Many (most?) human beings can't be trusted to drink alcohol and then operate a vehicle, because alcohol, by its very nature, impairs judgment.

So as age, disease, culture, distractions, and IQ levels add risk factors as significant as alcohol -

1. At what age to you tell older drivers to hang it up and take a taxi everywhere? 70? 75?

2. At what age would high-risk younger drivers be allowed on the road in your Police State? Age 25 when risk level decreases, age 25 with curfews until age 30 except for those going to or leaving work.

3. Many medications taken for things like common colds and hayfever, depression - cause symptoms that in some people cause added risk in driving. Should anyone stopped submit to blood samples to check for Sudafed, Nyquil, Provax, wellbuton? And charged with intoxication if tests come back positive?

4. Low IQ is definitely correlated to added driving risk. Would you support a curfew restriction on dumber people, added drivers ed classes mandatory for the dumb, and an outright prohibition on driving if someone was below a 75 IQ in your MADD "zero tolerance of impairment" Police State?

5. Should Moms with kids driving in a distracted manner have to attend mandatory classes in the MADD Future, pay a massive fine, and at least spend sometime in jail to "wake them up" to the danger they put other motorists in?

Jasper - It should be socially unacceptable to "only" drink a margarita and a beer or two at Appleby's and then load the wife and kids into the car and drive home. Yeah, I know paying taxis sucks, but if you can't afford it, drink at home.

Moralistic self-righteous "society-improvers" are on a real tear to tell and dictate to other people what their self-annointed groups of puritans and prigs now demand be socially unacceptable. Ban social drinking. Ban adults from biking without helmets on. Ban diet soda in school but teach the kids to love high-cal 10% "natural" fruit juice. Declare fast food is a deadly problem and eradicate it for healthy salads. People with MS or mild Parkinsons should have their drivers licenses yanked for mild impairment. Radios, cell phones are distractions and must be banned so "society can be safer, still".

Frankly, I'm sick of it.

America has far bigger problems than to put up with an alarmist, ignorant pack of Nanny State Safety Nazis chasing trivial problems and attemping to shove their beliefs down other peoples throats and mandate how other people live.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 16, 2007 9:25 PM

Get a clue, folks.

Punishment does not work. Period.

You deal with antisocial behavior in one of two ways: education and training (starting BEFORE the incident in question, i.e., childhood) - or execution.

There is no middle ground called "punishment" that works.

And don't cite this or that experience, or this or that person who turned goody because he got spanked. I'm talking statistic reality of human primates here, not anecdotal evidence.

Even Nietzsche, the "Will to Power" guy himself, recognized that punishment simply does not work.

Taking away somebody's license to drive for a DUI could, I suppose, be considered the non-lethal version of "execution." However, since he - or she, let's not forget that Paris Hilton is driving again, folks! - frequently gets it back, it's obviously not.

If you're going to take someone's license away for DUI, then don't give it back until he proves he's not drinking to excess again. Which basically means X amount of time provably sober by regular alcohol testing beyond the length of time that anybody could remain sober without actually being sober.

They have tamper-resistant patches now that they give drug parolees that will show any use of drugs. Do the same for alcoholics, maybe. Go for six months with the patches proving you haven't taken a drink, you get your license back.

Personally, I think alcoholics should be shot on sight. But then I remember that Andrea Corr has been known to have to be helped out of pubs in the past (hey, she's Irish!) and I think, maybe not. Occasionally tipsy is not alcoholic, anyway.

Perhaps a distinction could be made between aggressive alcoholics and ones that just love everybody (that would be Andrea.) Shoot the aggressive drunks, leave the nice ones alone as long as they don't drive.

The overall problem is that humans for thousands of years have sought ways to alter their consciousness to lowered states of efficiency in order to escape their fear of death by escaping reality.

This behavior pattern isn't going away until nanotech makes it possible - which means until nanotech makes death (at least guaranteed death by old age or disease) unlikely.

To control this behavior is going to require more social reorganization than changing the legal penalties for drunk driving.

Again, this is a bandaid being put on a terminal cancer patient.

We should start calling Matt and such other liberals "bandaid Liberals".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 17, 2007 2:09 AM

Nice post, but I think that kids will drive drunk until there are easy enough alternatives to driving. Public transportation in American suburbs needs to get better. Besides the whole drunk driving issue, this would seem to make sense for environmental reasons.

Posted by Robert | August 17, 2007 3:24 PM

One way to handle this problem is via ankle bracelets. There are ankle bracelets which can be used to detect if the wearer has consumed any alcoholic beverages via the pores of the wearer's skin. This punishment would allow someone convicted of DWI to continue driving, would give the authorities the ability to know in practically real time if the person continues to consume alcohol or alters the bracelet and gives the person a little bit of public humiliation ("Fred, why are you wearing a black box around your ankle?"). And this doesn't create any additional hassles for the people who know how to drink responsibly.

Posted by Craig | August 17, 2007 6:26 PM

wbipjvgm dwnirvmkf ercdlhxyg aqdofsm yjwvfm gzbtav ykzalowuh

Posted by cgmo fuiboje | August 27, 2007 1:10 PM