Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bmcg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
From: bprice@bmcg.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: re: drinking drivers
Message-ID: <1005@bmcg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-May-84 16:58:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: bmcg.1005
Posted: Wed May 23 16:58:55 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 19:11:50 EDT
References: <472@mhuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Burroughs Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 23

Of course, there is a simple way to have and eat your cake (as it were):
the goal is to prevent drunks from damaging others, while not interfering
with individual liberty (at least that's what people say).

The way to accomplish this is to recognise that any damage the drinker does, he
does by his own choice.  Then let the rest of the law take care of it.
Legally, I think this amounts to a definition that any act performed under the
influence of a drug (including alcohol) is intentional.  This definition would
be suitably constructed so that the intent to get drunk (or high,...) is at
least prima facie evidence of intent to perform each act performed while drunk.

Maybe it should be stronger than prima facie--maybe it should be a non-
rebuttable presumption.

In any case, the consequences are interesting.  A property-damage "accident"
becomes vandalism.   An injury "accident" becomes battery; and a fatal
"accident" becomes murder.  An accident fatal to the drinker is suicide--with
the appropriate insurance implications.

Why not?
-- 
--Bill Price    uucp:   {decvax!ucbvax  philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
                arpa:?  sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc