Why isn't drunkenness illegal?

Post Reply New Topic

I understand that drinking and driving is illegal in all (most if not all) countries. The idea is that your judgement and reaction time is impaired. However, why is drunkenness itself not illegal? Like if you commit a crime while you're drunk or you become violent, you can be charged with the crime but not the drunkenness itself. However, the drunkenness CAUSED you to be more likely to commit the crime. An analogy is that speeding CAUSES you to be more likely to crash your car and so speeding comes with penalties (although minor ones are civil offences not criminal) and so why is drunkenness itself not a crime? You can't say to the cops "but I didn't crash my car now did I?" The act of speeding ITSELF is enough to charge you with the ticket.

Now, is it because our society has tolerated the use of alcohol as a method for inhibition? I mean, it would be difficult to make such a law since most people do it regularly (at least certain age groups). Why are some drugs illegal but not alcohol? Binge drinking probably cause just as much harm to your body. Like drugs, alcohol can ruin a persons life if the consumption is abused.

skafather84 wrote: It's not the arrest alone, it's everything else with it that costs these people everything and the justice system isn't about blood vengeance. I think my point is entirely proportional because the people arrested haven't necessarily hurt anyone or even caused property damage. If you murder someone when drunk then yes, you should completely lose out. If you're damaging property when you're drunk, you should have a breathalyzer installed into your ignition system and be forced to pay the full cost of reparations. If you're arrested for drunk driving ipso facto, you shouldn't have to face more than a fine and maybe community service, not losing your ability to generate income for yourself and be a productive member of society.


Drivers who gets behind the wheel while their ability to operate a vehicle is impaired are being reckless as to whether or not death, injury or damage is going to occur as a result of their actions. The evidence to link impairment to these risks is well established. Just because a driver happens to be lucky and doesn't hurt anyone does not mean that the behaviour is not still criminal.

In this country, impaired driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death are separated, included offenses within the larger ambit of impaired driving. If your recklessness results in actual harm, you are exposed to greater penalties than the simple reckless act.

Quote: Also, with that quarter million, that's only people who have been caught and arrested and I know a large number of people who drive intoxicated and have never been caught and have never harmed person or property so, extrapolating that for the population at large, the number of harmless intoxicated drivers goes up.


What a fatuous argument. No intoxicated driver is harmless. Rather, many intoxicated drivers do not cause the potential harm created by their recklessness. But every single intoxicated driver elevates the risk for every other person in their vicinity. That is sufficient, in my view, to render their behaviour culpable.

Quote: This isn't about the death. That should be taken on one-on-one just like we're supposed to deal with firearms deaths case-by-case and there are people who fight against that being dealt with in broad strokes.


I beg to differ. Your leaders, in their wisdom, have made the possession and use of firearms a right. There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle.

I would be far more sanguine about firearms if the same rigours of training, examination, licensing and insurance were in place for their use. Far from treating motor vehicles like firearms, I would prefer to see firearms treated like motor vehicles.