Definitely a controversial position, but one that I also sympathize with.TrueFlog wrote:On a related note, Radley Balko opposes not only DWI checkpoints, but DWI laws as a whole.[/url] (And so do I.) I believe the laws should focus on the dangerous acts - reckless driving, speeding, etc. - and not on the cause - drowsiness, drunkenness, texting, etc. If a guy can drive safely from point A to point B, who cares how drunk he is or isn't? I'm not advocating drunk driving or saying it's never dangerous, I just prescribe to the "No harm, no foul" philosophy.
For me, you would also need to take away the "justification" of being drunk leading to a lower sentence. If a drunk driver causes an accident and someone dies, they need to be held to the same punishment as someone who did the same thing while stone cold sober. That is the only way I would support doing away with drunk driving laws. This may not be feasible, without changing other aspects of the law such as the need to prove intent for various charges, etc.
Then again, IANAL, and IADNAL (I Am Definitely Not A Lawmaker), so what do I know?