RoR: Forum

Steven

Timely article.

In my New Zealand we have random stopping of vehicles. This means that an officer has the right to stop you without reason for the purposes of checking your license or breath alcohol level. We don't have a non-sampling (an immoral search, in my books) sobriety test. If you refuse to breathe into an electronic sampler you are essentially held in contempt.

Only a few of my countrymen see this whole procedure as a horrible violation of rights. Imagine if the police could perform a random search of homes because, using the same logic as random stopping, there is a possibility that a home may contain stolen goods or other contraband? Response: blank out.

Authorities have far too many warrants. It breeds, in them, an arrogance. The type of arrogance Jefferson spoke of in The Declaration.

Ross

Post 1

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 7:19am

This is why the principled Objectivist should be opposed to drunk-driving laws: because the mere act of drunk driving, while raising impairment when operating vehicles, does not mean that the individual driving while impaired is necessarily causing harm

So, if one were to play Russian roulette with an unwilling participant (pulling the trigger for him), that's just fine because the gun may not fire?

Sarah

Post 2

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:37am

So, if one were to play Russian roulette with an unwilling participant (pulling the trigger for him), that's just fine because the gun may not fire?

Well put!

Being drunk and entering a roadway is criminal. It is an invasion of MY safety, MY well being. It threatens MY life. And, that is what Objectivists value most, right?

Load a single bullet in a pistol or get loaded and get in your car, it doesn't matter. When either is pointed in my direction, even if you don't mean to harm me, it is always wrong.

gw

Post 3

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:01am

I put that line in there for two reasons:

A) I really do believe it and
B) as bait

So, gary, Sara, where does it end? If the authorities in America can determine that one and half drinks and you are a danger to yourself and others, what's next? No driving if you don't have the mandated hours of sleep? Sleepy drivers can have the same habits as drunk ones. Let's have arbitrary "sleep points" where we come up with some sort of test for sleepiness.

Maybe we should ban guests in a car, because it is demonstrable that people are distracted by others in the car.

Let's ban cell phones...kids...the radio...anything that can distract.

And to compare Russian Roulette and drunk driving is ridiculous...pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing is a little different than tooling down the road at 2 am a little in the bag. What is it with some people and making horrible analogies here?

Post 4

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:19am

Well Slippery Slope Steve,

A number of points:
1)Reckless driving is punished by observation of said driving.

2) Yes sleep deprivation and intoxication result in the same reckless driving, and the impairment due to those is measurable, not arbitrary.

3) People who get DWIs or DUIs have evidenced their impairment by reckless driving, not sleep/drunk points. I do think the same punishment should go to people who drive tired.

4) What do distractions have to do with this argument?

5) What's the difference between comparing impaired driving with Russian roulette and income tax with thievery?

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/23, 9:20am)

(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/23, 9:35am)

Post 5

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:34am

I'm taken in by Steven's logic. I agree with him that Russian Roulette is a bad (weak) analogy.

Russian Roulette has the purpose of risking life for thrill, drunk driving -- despite it's inherent suboptimality -- has the purpose of getting home safe. I'm all for stiff fines and even prison sentences for drunk drivers who cause harm to others' body or property (drunks are at least as guilty as the sober are), but I see Steven's logic.

Moderately-weak, moderately-strong analogy:
If straight death rates mandated preventative law, then the following would have to be severely restricted or, in some special cases, eradicated by the US law:

Pregnancy & childbirth: kills 370 per year

Suicide: kills 30,575 per year

Truck drivers: kills 852 per year

Police: kills 142 per year

Bathing: kills 337 per year

All employment: kills 5915 per year

Construction: kills 1154 per year

Blunt objects: kills 729 per year

Intimacy: kills 2000 per year

My point is that 'straight deaths' cannot ever be the criterion standard for any new law.

Ed

Post 6

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:41am

Ed,

Russian Roulette has the purpose of risking life for thrill, drunk driving -- despite it's inherent suboptimality -- has the purpose of getting home safe.

Note that I did say playing Russian roulette with an unwilling partner. I'm looking at this from the perspective of said roulette partner or the person who's (potentially) harmed by the drunk driver. In both cases, the motive/purpose of the shooter/driver is irrelevant because the result is a drastically increased threat to the other's well-being.

Sarah

Post 7

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:44am

Ed,
A minor point, but most (not all) of the statistics you cited refer to instances where the victim is the person involved in the activity. It's one thing to make a decision that puts your own life at risk, but another to risk someone else's life. (See Gary's post #2.)

An analogy that I would suggest in place of Sarah's is the following: A person gets drunk and takes a gun into a crowded street and starts shooting. No one is hit. Should the person be punished, and, if so, for what crime?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 8

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 10:24am

Normally, public intoxication, maybe disorderly conduct, and illegal discharge of a firearm.

So, along that line...I should be able to go outside my office here in East Cleveland and pop off a few with my .45, no? As long as I'm not doing any people or property damage.

After a few beers and shots, I should do that. Then, I can get in my car impaired, and play "how many lines in the road".

Actually, fuck it. I could just do all that at once. As long as no one gets hurt, that is.

No, thanks. That crap happens here everyday even though it is illegal, and a lot time it involves dodging and other forms of cover-taking.

Post 9

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 10:59am

Alright already, this is a tough crowd. You guys have good points. But I still find Steven's logic shining under the otherwise-blinding foray of gritty dust and dirt from this scuffle.

In short, I find -- at rock bottom -- the centrally-planned, no-risks-allowed 'precautionary principle' as the last stand in your arguments, guys. This'll seem a little disingenuous, but here goes:

=========
And the trouble is, if you don't risk anything, you risk even more. --Erica Jong
=========

A little tangential now ...
If only we had a light-weight, speed-limited, Sober-Cab Car (made of soft rubber), in which drunks could legally drive home.

A Drunk-Lane is definitely out of the question though, unless enough rich drunks could fully fund the damn thing. Guard rails would have to be reinforced to keep the swerving cars on the road. Not a dollar of my taxes ought to go to fund this behavior, however.

Another kooky option is to fine the hell out of drunks, and use the money for a drunks-especially lightrail (you have to blow 0.08, in order to guarantee a seat). Sober folks, if they were inclined to risk losing their seats, could ride with the drunks, too (for a small fee) -- but they'd have to give up their seats for drunk folk who are heading home to bed.

This last option is a clearly-statist, precautionary-law option:

Have cars that will only start after the driver blows sober into a driver-seat breath-alizer, mandate that all cars sold have to come with the new, expensive breathalization equipment, mandate monthly state-run equipment checks on all operating cars in order to remain road-legal, a traffic stop without a functional breathalizer is charged as a D-dub -- and your license is revoked, for a spat. But I digress ...

Ed

Post 10

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:41am

Authorities have far too many warrants. It breeds, in them, an arrogance. The type of arrogance Jefferson spoke of in The Declaration.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/23, 6:04pm)

Post 11

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:54am

Ed, et al.:

I like the points you raise, and would like to add that the estimate of the number of people killed by physicians (non-criminally) in the USA per year is much higher than any of the items in your list, but the benefits of having physicians at all clearly outweigh the risks.

Banning activities or objects because they may lead to a violation of someone's right to life, liberty or property is the legal doctrine of prior restraint, which is merely expedience, not justice. However, if I point a gun at you without other justification (e.g., you have not just broken into my living room window at 3 am), you have to assume I am making a threat on your life, and act accordingly. My possession of a loaded gun should not be banned (in public, or on my property), but brandishing without just cause or other similar abuses (applications of force by gun short of firing) are rightfully banned where I live.

I will be following this discussion closely, since I have not yet reached a decision on whether the gun analogy applies to drunken driving. That is, if the threat to life is so immediate that engaging in the activity should result in punishment if caught doing that alone.

By the way, random checkpoints are banned in my state (Oregon, USA). The police must always have a reason for pulling us over.

Regards,
Paul

Post 12

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:10pm

So, gary, Sara, where does it end? If the authorities in America can determine that one and half drinks and you are a danger to yourself and others, what's next?

If this were the Soviet Union then I guess that it would not end, but this is not the Soviet Union is it? In this country we are not at the mercy of an absolute dictator or Supreme Soviet. We do have the ability to control authorities if we decide to. It's a slow pain in the ass, but it is doable.

On this one particular issue it is my guess that drunk drivers are considered criminal by the government with the sanction of a vast majority of the public. Objectively speaking, drunk drivers are dangerous.

It would be nice if folks could decide for themselves whether to drive or not after a few at a bar. But there is one problem, There is no such thing as an objective drunk! You are expecting drunks to make decisions. I don't care for that option.

It is to bad there are no statistics detailing how many people would be alive today if the person who hit them had reacted 1 second faster. If they had hit their brakes 1 second sooner. Of course there are no statistics on this. There are only the dead and the innocent drunk who didn't mean to hurt anyone. Besides he only had a couple of drinks and that only made him react 1 second slower or cross a median or not stop at a crosswalk or run a red light or pass out at 70 mph or etc........

If you think the russian roulette scenario is bad, keep defending a drunk with 3000lb bullet.

gw

Edit: Whew! Damn, man! What are you using? Stink bait?

(Edited by gary williams on 9/23, 12:12pm)

(Edited by gary williams on 9/23, 12:20pm)

Post 13

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:18pm

Paul, good points. Re: the physician-as-executioner thing, yeah, big omission on my part. The number of folks brought to an early demise via 'care' is astronomical:

-folks killed by doctor/health practitioner error (wrong drug, wrong dose, etc): more than 100,000 annually

-folks killed by otherwise-competent doctor/health practitioner intervention (inherent lethality of drugs and other interventions, given at the CORRECT time, and in the CORRECT dose): more than 100,000 annually

-total loss of life due to conventional medicine interventions: more than 200,000 annually (deaths roughly equivalent to 4 Vietnam Wars, occurring somewhat silently -- every year)

Paul, I respectfully disagree with you that this amount of lost life is either unavoidable -- or even worth the 'benefits'.

Data sources (most recent to least):
==============
==============
de Carvalho M, Vieira AA. [Medical errors in hospitalized patients] J Pediatr (Rio J). 2002 Jul-Aug;78(4):261-8. Portuguese.

"In the USA, approximately one million of patients/year are victims of medical errors and adverse drug events. Today, deaths resulting from these episodes are the fourth cause of mortality in the USA."
==============
==============
Ingelman-Sundberg M. Pharmacogenetics: an opportunity for a safer and more efficient pharmacotherapy. J Intern Med. 2001 Sep;250(3):186-200. Review.

"Besides patients who do not respond to the treatment despite receiving expensive drugs, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as a consequence of the treatment, is estimated to cost the US society 100 billion USD and over 100,000 deaths per year."
==============
==============
White TJ, Arakelian A, Rho JP. Counting the costs of drug-related adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 May;15(5):445-58. Review.

"Adverse drug events occur frequently and lead to a significant number of fatalities each year. It has been estimated that fatalities directly attributable to adverse drug reactions are the fourth to sixth leading cause of death in US hospitals, exceeding deaths caused by pneumonia and diabetes. The economic burden resulting from drug-related morbidity and mortality is equally significant and has been conservatively estimated at $US30 billion dollars annually, and could exceed $US130 billion in a worst-case scenario."
==============
==============
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5.

"We excluded errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, therapeutic failures, and possible ADRs."

"We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death."
==============
==============

Ed

Post 14

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:18pm

Ed,

What are we risking by punishing drunk driving? This, to me, seems like it should be filed with "I can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater 'cause I've got freedom of speech."

Sarah

P.S. And I still think my analogy was good dangit.

(Edited by Sarah House
on 9/23, 12:20pm)

Post 15

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:35pm

If we can do anything, as long as we don't violate anyone else's (negative) rights, then whose rights (and which ones) are violated by the drunk driver who doesn't cause an accident?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 16

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:36pm

I suspect there would be far less driving while drunk if drunk drivers who were involved in an accident had to pay the full costs of the damages. This means that insurance companies would not have to pay. This means that if someone dies, the drunk driver would be charged and convicted of manslaughter.

Too often we read of 3rd and 4th "accidents" with the same drunk driver. They're driving drunk again because they didn't fully bear the consequences previously.

Post 17

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:40pm

Sarah, like I said before -- you have a good point.

I guess I'd be happier if there was merely a huge fine that you had to pay, in order to drive drunk. This would settle my spirits in that it would be an economically-driven solution, and specifically NOT a solution involving central authorities indirectly planning individuals' lives (ie. moral police).

It is this central planning of individual choice that scares the bejeezus out of me. Someone once said that it (central control of individuals' choices) amounts to mountains of corpses and rivers of blood -- and I believe this, with all my heart.

To those whose prime motivation (for human action) is mere fear-based survivalism, I must seem like a damned heretic -- for saying the above. Safety, safety, safety -- it can be just as addictive (and harmful) as drugs. I guess I'm just too damned fond of Mill's talk regarding the never-to-be-put-assunder tolerance of different experiments of living -- allotted to each individual.

That said, I concede the issue to you, Sarah. You do have a good point about others risking my life -- with their "experiments of living." Drunk driving kills tens of thousands per year -- and that can't be good. There, I said it. This moral dilemma (and don't be fooled into thinking it isn't one) involves prioritizing values. Happy life is the highest value, and some "experiments" risk others' attainability of such value.

This whole thing hinges on risk (ie. potentiality), which can be vague, ineffable, and even considered limitless. Actuality is inherently a better standard by which to judge action. This whole preventative-precautionary law stuff both frightens, and sickens, me -- but I don't see a way out of the quagmire, so I, for now, concede.

Ed
A man who has just said his peace.

Post 18

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:52pm

Great points, Rick!

The drunks ought to be at least as culpable as the sober. If they run someone over, it ought to be treated as if a sober person (capitalizing on their volitional capacities) had run someone over. There ought never be any special considerations for self-imposed 'impairments' of any kind. All adult folks ought to be equal before the law -- no exceptions.

I can see the headlines now:
Driver says needed anti-histamines had impaired his ability to distinguish the crowd of people that he plowed through at highway speeds -- jury is deliberating.

Ed
Spoken like a true either/or rationalist.

Post 19

Friday, September 23, 2005 - 1:18pm