Re: UK: Drivers may be banned from smoking at the wheel

[sam stover <sam.stover () gmail com>]

Brian Loe wrote:
> "Laws" may provide the authorities powers which trample on individual
> rights - in fact, they do it all of the time. The People either accept
> those losses or they don't. In today's society, especially in America
> but I would guess in England too, people are used to losing rights and
> therefore never think of rising up and freeing themselves of the
> shackles they are bound by. Its partly the boiling frog analogy and
> its partly because we just have it so damned good these days.

Agreed.

> Because no one and no government can ever have a legitimate power to
> control or punish your thoughts, I can not support a law banning
> drinking and driving. This is not to say that I can't understand why
> people would want such laws - I certainly do. I simply wish they'd
> look at the results of those laws once they have them - which they
> never do. The effects of DUI/DWI laws has been zilch, from everything
> that I've read, in regards to reducing drunk driving incidents.
> However it has caused several thousands of lives to be ruined where,
> 20 years ago, those same lives would have met with an officer who a)
> made them walk home; b) gave them a ride home; c) let them sleep it
> off on a nice steel cot -- EXCEPT in those cases where the impaired
> has caused damage to someone else.

I'll provide a counterpoint to this - I think people *DO* look at the
results of those laws, just not in the manner that best serves the
constituency.  I would say that the laws are primarily evaluated on
their revenue generating merits, and not the ability the curtail the
"crime" (and I use that term loosely).  What if I could come up with
legislation that would put a stop to speeding immediately.  Would it be
enacted?  Hell no - too much money comes from speeding tickets.  I would
step further out on this limb to say that the insurance companies
benefit a whole lot when it comes to DUI/DWI legislation (e.g. just
cause to increase rates).  Sometimes I think nobody cares about the
consumer, except as a source of revenue.

> So, in short, do I think someone who is too drunk to drive should be
> allowed to drive? Yes. Should they go to jail when caught? Perhaps,
> for the night. Should they be punished to the fullest extent of the
> law when they drive drunk and do someone else damage? ABSOLUTELY.

If someone in my family had ever been killed by a drunk driver, I'm
pretty sure I would not be able to respond to this in a calm manner.  ;-)

That said, I think (revenue issues aside), there is some merit to "a
couple of bad apples ruined it for the rest of the class" approach by
our legislation.  You honestly believe it is worth the risk to your life
to allow someone the "right" to drive drunk?  I'm not sure I agree w/
you on that one.  I'll have to mull that over a bit.  My knee jerk is
that after the first fatality, people, normal people, emotional people,
clamored for legislation that would (rightfully?) punish someone who did
drive drunk and hurt/maim/kill someone else.  I'm all for the govt.
staying out of my business, but if someone does something stupid (i.e.
drive drunk), I think they should be punished for it, and if the
punishment isn't severe enough, what's to stop them from doing it again,
and again, until they do hurt/maim/kill someone?

There's obviously a line there to be drawn, and if you feel that the
legislation is too far right of that line, that's cool.  I, personally,
am not sure.

-- 
S.f.Stover
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x15FFC42A
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.