Filed under: Habits
We can assume that, for any given week, a drunk driver has only a 1 in 6000 chance of killing someone. So far, so good – until for the sake of argument you assume that said drunk driver drives drunk once week, 12 months a year, for 40 years. At this point, he’s risked that 1 in 6000 chance a total of 2080 times. Such a serial, chronic drunk driver has a 34.7% chance of killing someone throughout his lifetime.
This is a very simplistic analysis, and ignores many factors (such as level of intoxication, fatigue, etc.) but it’s a safe assumption that those who drive drunk present a danger to themselves and others (and it’s only danger to others that provides justification for it to be criminalized). The next question is – are the ‘blitzes’ against drunk drivers justifiable?
The answer here is clearly no, they are not, because they represent unwarranted search and seizure. If the police were targeting people driving poorly, erratically, dangerously fast – then yes, there would
be reasonable cause to stop drivers and test their breath-alcohol level. But the Police target everyone – meaning that of the 16,000 people they stopped and tested, only 160 were arrested, in other words 99% of the people they stopped weren’t drunk drivers!
Filed under: Habits
It feels really good to be drunk… I wonder why more people don’t get drunk more often… well, I guess a lot of people in the world do get drunk, but why doesn’t everyone get drunk more often? being drunk at work, that might be kind of fun, I guess, though maybe it wouldn’t be a great idea…
