Opinion
To make roadways safer, legalize drunken driving
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Patrick McEwen:
- Dean gives bad reasons for bad policy (April 27, 2009)
- Nuclear power deserves same rules as others (April 23, 2009)
- New FACES, same tired programs (April 13, 2009)
- Martin's initiative a bad deal for out of staters (April 3, 2009)
- Carbon tax effective cap and trade alternative (March 26, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Wisconsin is notorious for our lenient drunken driving laws. We are the only state in the country in which the first offense for operating while intoxicated is not even a misdemeanor. In response to this perceived need to stiffen the penalties for repeat offenders, several members of the state Legislature introduced a proposal earlier this week that would increase the penalties for some third- and all fourth-time offenders to a felony conviction instead of waiting until the fifth offense to make OWI a felony crime.
While this proposal clearly has good intentions behind it (the safety of Wisconsin drivers and passengers), it is more than a little bit misguided. In fact, I not only oppose this new proposal to stiffen our OWI laws, I would fully support decriminalizing drunken driving all together.
Most of you are probably a little taken back by that last statement, but go ahead and read it again: My editors can assure you they haven’t changed anything I wrote. I would be in favor of a complete repeal of Wisconsin’s OWI laws. Not only would the first offense not be a criminal one, neither would the thirteenth.
Now before you go and fire off a letter of outrage to this paper or call Mothers Against Drunk Driving to help organize a rally, hear me out. While it might be true that more stringent drunken driving laws save lives and make people safer, that alone is no justification for enacting a law. If that were the case, then people should support banning all cars, as that would prevent any kind of car accident and make everyone more safe. There is obviously some middle ground between complete disregard for the safety of others and the totalitarian state that would ensue from attempting to make everyone safe from everything. Also, this isn’t to say the sobriety level of a driver could not be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in another crime.
I’m sure that the most opponents of my opinion will rush to cite some study or other argument as to how severe penalties for drunken drivers lower drunken driving rates and save lives. However, all of these studies will fail to refute my argument because I don’t advocate for any level of penalties for drunken driving laws as these studies compare. No one can be sure how safe our roads would be if OWI laws were repealed completely.
The main argument in favor of OWI laws in the first place is that they deter drunken driving and therefore keep people safe. However, as an innocent driver or passenger on the road, you are endangered by all sorts of bad drivers. Those drivers who are talking on cell phones, texting, tired or simply not paying attention also pose increased risks. Even though being intoxicated might make one a worse driver than other sorts of impediments, the same accident causes the same damage regardless of the cause.
Instead of enforcing a myriad of laws to stop people from driving in all of these conditions, why not penalize people for being unsafe drivers regardless of the cause? If someone can’t drive safely, they still pose a threat to others on the road. Wouldn’t we all be safer if we just penalized those who swerved out of their lane, blew traffic lights or engaged in other traffic law violations that increased the risk of an accident? Is causing an accident because you choose to drive after drinking any worse than causing a similar accident because you were texting? If a driver has a BAC of over the legal limit but could still obey all traffic laws, are they really an unsafe driver?
Even with more stringent OWI laws, there will inevitably be those who choose to break them for whatever reason. Currently, those who know they are intoxicated but still choose to drive somewhere, probably have one thing on their mind: not getting caught. To them this usually means emulating as close to “normal” driving as they can. In other words, they try to drive the speed limit. This might be the most dangerous aspect of all. In a world where drunken driving were legalized, inebriated drivers could account for their lower reaction times by slowing down or even flashing their warning lights as a “Hey, I’m drunk — watch out” signal to other drivers.
Enforcing traffic violations as opposed to bloodstream contents also gives a greater flexibility than the current system. There are some people who can drive safely with BAC’s above the legal limits and others, most likely bad drivers to begin with, who shouldn’t be driving after consuming any alcohol at all. Penalizing actions and lack of ability to drive would give our legal system the flexibility to account for these varying levels of threats posed by all kinds of unsafe drivers.
While those in favor of harsher penalties for repeat OWI offenders might be right when they claim it will make our roads safer, that ought not be the sole criteria for evaluating public policy. The real question ought to be: Should drunken driving even be prohibited in the first place?
Patrick McEwen (mcewen@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in nuclear engineering.
19 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
YES! You are my official new favorite columnist. Great arguments.
I’d like to hear your thoughts in this column on the US drug war, as well. Expand it or end it?
Makes sense, since most people arrested for DUIs are those driving responsibly and staying in their lanes.
Wow. I’ve read some stupid articles in the Badger Herald before, but this was unquestionably the dumbest article ever published here. Kudos, and kudos again.
Dear Patrick,
I took your advice and I heard you out. I think the most helpful suggestion would be to look into taking Communication Arts 262. Kthx.
“There are some people who can drive safely with BAC’s above the legal limits”
You are a student here. Have you ever been drunk? I see where you are going with this argument, but it’s still ridiculous. Anybody with a BAC above the legal limit is still going to be an unsafe driver. No laws on drunk driving would eliminate even the “Well I just won’t have more than two” rule for some when they go out.. why stop at two if there’s no legal limit?
So the understanding I have gain from this article is that the BH now lets just ANYONE with any form of an opinion write for their paper….
This is profoundly dumb.
you are an idiot. go have one of your family members killed by a drunk driver and tell us to legalize drunk driving you ass.
Wisconsin is just a bunch of Hicks, they are way to behind the curve of the rest of States. It’s called responsibility and apparently WI has none. You shouldn’t be aloud to drive while drunk take a cab you cheap ass.
Seriously? Are you an idiot? We don’t want to encourage more red neck hicks to drive drunk
worst article/thought process EVER
Patrick,
This is one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever read in the Herald, which is presumably saying a lot. Not only are your arguments poorly structured and comically unrealistic, but the very point that you would move to strike drunk driving from the books is an insult to the 300+ families who cope with drunk driving related deaths every year in this state alone.
I gave your article a chance. Pathetic. And I realize this is the kind of reaction you were hoping for, but still I could not let this slide.
One more point: if drunk driving were indeed decriminalized, it would imply that drunk driving is “ok,’ which, I hope even by your standards, is a very sad thought.
I realize you are a libertarian who’d love to see the government get the axe, but this is just sad and insulting.
Wow Has the Herald really run out of ideas for columns so now they are publishing articles like this. Come on man lets get serious here. This article is insulting to journalists all across the nation. BRING BACK THE ISSUE ARTICLES BY THE POLITICAL ORGS AND IVE PATTY BOY HERE THE AXE.
Patrick, what you’ve just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent essay were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Patrick,
Action not cause punishment is an interesting concept, but would you agree with it in any case? For instance take two cases where someone was murdered. In one case the cause was because the victim called them a mean name. In the other case the victim attempted to kill the person first, and thus the cause was self defense. Essentially by getting rid of the cause-based punishment we would have to treat both cases equally.
People are quick to site the families members of people who were killed by drunk drivers, but they aren’t addressing the actual argument. There’s no Mothers Against Texting While Driving, and I doubt there are any support groups for families that lost someone from a fatigued driver. All they do by forming these groups for drunk driving victims is cause essentialism, people who die because of drunk drivers apparently should be recognized more than people who die from just plain old bad drivers. So in that sense, I like the idea of an action-based penal system. But then again I’m an anarcho-communist, I don’t support any kind of penal system really. -John
The issue articles by political orgs was just hacks blabbing about bullshit. At least now we have morons blabbing about insane notions, which is more entertaining, if nothing else.
While I can’t say I agree with the article, I do have to say that if you’re going to criticize and insult Patrick and all of Wisconsin for being “red neck hicks” and being “behind the curve,” try to make it sound like you’re not an idiot by using proper grammar - e.g. “too” instead of “to” and “allowed” instead of “aloud.” And you say we are behind the curve…
I absolutely agree with your article! Great job. I also find “John’s” feedback interesting.
“For instance take two cases where someone was murdered. In one case the cause was because the victim called them a mean name. In the other case the victim attempted to kill the person first, and thus the cause was self defense. Essentially by getting rid of the cause-based punishment we would have to treat both cases equally.”
He specifically says he doesn’t advocate doing that.
”..this isn’t to say the sobriety level of a driver could not be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in another crime.”
A better murder related parallel would probably be that owning a gun ought not be criminal, only using it for violence ought to be outlawed.