While I was waiting for my oil change at the service station of my local Buick dealer, I was surfing the web on their free wireless network. I stumbled across an article that perplexed me. The person who wrote the article defends the point that drunk driving laws are unconstitutional because they take away a person’s freedom. Here are some of the points that he makes.
Until the mid-1980s, police officers weren’t strict on drunk drivers. If you were pulled over for driving under the influence, the officer would either escort you home or take you home in the police car. According to the article writer, their goal was to “prevent you from hurting yourself or others, not to ruin your life while adding money to substance abuse counseling and legal communities.”
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is to blame for the stricter laws. Although it started out as a good idea, the organization became too powerful and lobbies for legislation that is “often ridiculous” and “counter-productive” through spreading half-truths and manipulating statistical information.
Together, MADD and the government have “created a legislature that is overly concerned with satisfying angry mothers” while ignoring individual rights.
The drunk driving laws hardly focus on other impairments, including prescription drugs or marijuana.
The article writer cites the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to argue his point. He says drunk drivers aren’t afforded “equal protection of the laws” because they are getting unfair treatment.
You can read the entire article here. It is eight pages long so I don’t have enough room to touch on all his points. But what do you think about his argument? Does he have a point or is he just “under the influence” of something? Let us know what you think.
The Internet has been a great tool for many things. Unfortunately, with any great innovation, there’s somebody out there to exploit it and take advantage of it.