A Different Philosophy on Preventing Drunk Drivers

Suppose someone gets caught drinking and driving. They often avoid jail time, but in some cases the courts mandate a breathalyzer be installed in the car, it won't start unless the driver passes the sobriety test. In other cases, the offender's driver's license is revoked. The message is, "If you drink, don't drive."

I think that's wrong. I think if people are caught drinking and driving, they should not lose their license to drive, they should lose their license to drink.

In my opinion, here's how the system should work. Your drivers license, by default, has a red stripe through it, meaning you aren't allowed to buy liquor. If you want the red stripe to go away, prove to the DMV you are of legal age (which should be 18, not 21, in my opinion) and you have no drunk driving convictions.

If you have no drivers license, but would like to buy liquor, get a license to drink (an ID card like the drivers license).

We now punish liquor stores and bars if they sell and/or serve alcohol to underage people, we would simply update that to punish them for serving to people who have no license to drink. Laws now say that citizens can be held liable if they serve alcohol to underage people (even if they don't sell it), we would update that as well.

Of course, this would not prevent people who lost their license to drink from obtaining alcohol, but I think it would make it harder for them to get it, and harder to get it away from their homes. That is, if someone gets a few beers from the fridge or a few shots from the liquor cabinet at home, we can't stop them. But they are less likely to drive after that. People who drink and drive are often going home after drinking.

Certainly this would not prevent all drinking and driving, but the current system doesn't either. We have an imperfect system, now, so if we replace it with another imperfect system that does a better job of reducing the problem, then we're still coming out ahead.

Another advantage of this system is that bars, restaurants, nightclubs, liquor stores, and beer, wine, and liquor producers will all have a monetary interest in reducing drinking and driving. They would spend some money and effort themselves to reduce the problem. That means some of the costs of fixing the problem will be borne by those who help create it.

One disadvantage is that it might make everyone a law enforcer. If you have a party at your house and serve alcohol, do you have to check everyone's ID? We would have to address this issue. Maybe we do say people who host parties are responsible for keeping alcohol oout of the hands of non-licensed drinkers. Or maybe there is a less draconian solution.

Another reason I like this idea is that it does not restrict someone's ability to make a living. Driving to and from work can sometimes be a necessity to hold a job (no public transportation available, cabs would be too expensive, carpooling not possible), so taking away a drivers license can make it too difficult to hold a job. We don't want drunk drivers to not work, we want them to quit drinking and driving.

If we want to prevent the drinking and driving combination, take away one of those elements. Why not take away the drinking rather than the driving?

Comments

[Ajlouny]

I think you have a great idea here. Outside of some of the kinks, it makes sense to me,