Most people have been there: a few drinks at a restaurant or bar and then into the car to get home. Am I over the legal limit? Hard to say. Is my driving impaired? It doesn’t seem to be. But what if I get stopped? Will I lose my license, go to jail, and be disgraced in front of the community? It’s a frightening prospect.

What’s especially strange about this is the reason I fear. My arrest and punishment would not be for driving recklessly or for endangering other drivers. It would be because I failed a test of something that is not materially related to my actual driving.

The law is arbitrary and shifts with the political season. The perpetrators can’t really be sure if they are over or under the limit. And we all have vast experience with people who drink surprising amounts of liquor and drive all the time, but never get in accidents and do not seem to be driving in an unsafe way.

Then there are the frequent cases in which cops arrest people for DUI who are stopped for something else, like a burned-out tail light. I’ve known of people who have been arrested in their own driveways, having gotten home safely and harmed no one. They are arrested and imprisoned, a humiliating and terrible experience for anyone to go through.

Clearly, this DUI enforcement has been a boon to the police but has it really curbed drunk driving? You might consider staking out your local bar, following how much people drink, and observing how many get in cars after. I’ll just state what most everyone knows but hardly anyone says: drinking and driving is a national sport in the U.S. In the vast, vast majority of cases, no harm is done.

Murray Rothbard once told me that he thought drunk driving should be legal. I was stunned and shocked that anyone would say such a thing. But over time, I began to see his point. It is not outrageous at all.

He was exactly right.

With laws against DUI, what’s being criminalized? Not reckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What’s being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

But you say that drinking is associated with bad driving. Well, enforce the laws against reckless driving. Many more people drink and drive than drive recklessly. Some people drive even more safely after a few drinks, correcting for their delayed responses. We do this all the time, e.g. after a workout, when we are sleepy, when we are angry, whatever. Human beings adapt with rationality.

And you know what happens on New Year’s some other holiday. People always say “be careful, there are lots of drunk drivers out there.” Just the prospect alone makes everyone drive more defensively.
Regardless, the law has no business criminalizing associated peaceful behaviors rather than real crimes against person and property.

For example, grudges are associated with murder in the sense that a vast number of murderers are carrying a grudge. Do we make grudges illegal? That would be crazy and unenforceable, even if there were some chemical way to measure what constitutes a grudge. But we make driving under the influence illegal though it is roughly the same thing. It targets an associated condition rather than the crime itself.

Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.

And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue.

Quoted:
Fuck that guy.

Quoted:
Fuck that guy.

Quoted:
Fuck that guy.

Quoted:
If he doesn't like the rules that come with the privilege of driving, he can walk.

Quoted:
If he doesn't like the rules that come with the privilege of driving, he can walk.

Quoted:


Yeah, if you don't like the NFA then you can collect muskets.

nice.

Quoted:
drunk driving laws don't work, so using the same logic for other drug laws, might as well legalize it

Quoted:
Let's deregulate speed limits while we're at it.

Quoted:
Let's deregulate speed limits while we're at it.

Quoted:
I'll be glad when we have self driving cars and none of this will matter.

Quoted:
You can sue me after I kill your family in an "accident," but what's in my blood is nobody's business but mine.

Or if you have a problem with me driving drunk, you should drive someplace else.  People around here like to drive drunk.  You should mind your own business or stay off our roads if you have a problem with that.

Quoted:
I lost two friends after they were in a head on crash from a drunk driver who crossed the highway median.

Legalize drunk driving, okay how about making any accident which results in a fatality caused by a drunk driver a capitol crime with a mandatory death sentence?  

Quoted:
I lost two friends after they were in a head on crash from a drunk driver who crossed the highway median.

Legalize drunk driving, okay how about making any accident which results in a fatality caused by a drunk driver a capitol crime with a mandatory death sentence?