From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!shauns
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.politics
Title: Re: Crack down on the drunks
Article-I.D.: tekcad.306
Posted: Thu Dec 16 22:46:49 1982
Received: Thu Dec 23 04:57:42 1982

  Arrgh! Full goose loony flame on!

   "...driving is a right, not a privilege..."

   There is nothing
   in our `human essence' that says we are born to drive cars on public roads.
   This is one of the reasons that America has so much problem with
   irresponsible drivers.
   We have had the resources to provide for the personal auto and roads for
   so long, and have integrated the auto so much into our lifestyle, that
   we forget that driving on public roads isn't an integral part of the
   'human essence' and therefore not a right..

   When government speaks of `privilege', it is saying this: If you wish
   to drive when drunk, that's your RIGHT-if it doesn't endanger the rights
   of others-if it isn't on public facilities.  Society 
   has determined that public roads are a good thing, and that, as owner,
   it has the right to require certain criteria be met to ensure good
   operation of the roads.  If you don't meet the requirements, you don't use
   the facilities.

   I also seem to detect a bit of utilitarian sentiment in the author's
   comments involving existing laws on the books covering the effects
   of drunken driving.   Yes, true enough.  It does seem that the laws
   outlawing drunken driving do so on a moralistic
   basis-"It's bad 'cause it is".
   But government has the power to PROTECT the rights of others, not just
   compensate the wronged. Therefore the government can pass laws that are
   designed to prevent the occurence of a condition that will directly
   cause personal/property damage.  If the law is very severe, it's because
   the consequences of that condition are very onerous.  In the case of
   drunk driving,  American drivers haven't got it through their head that
   they have to think of others while behind the wheel, so the disincentives
   have to be strong enough to make them think twice.
   It would be better to try and change the social factors that
   promote drunken driving, such as deemphasizing its role as a social
   lubricant and the implications of `adultness' or `sophistication' in its
   consumption-but since we are rather loathe to apply common sense and
   maturity to a problem, the backwards approach of a punitive law will have
   to suffice.

   By the way, Scandinavian countries have had for years far stricter
   drunk driving laws than we are contemplating.  It hasn't reduced the
   level of freeom of expression there, and the roads are much less stressful
   to travel.

   There, I feel better now.


				Shaun Simpkins

uucp:	{ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!shauns
CSnet:	shauns@tek
ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relay