Assume we had a drunk driving epidemic and the government (“they”) had to deal with it. They know that while they can’t stop it, they can try to mitigate and contain it. What are their options?
They could define blood alcohol limits and prosecute people caught driving over the limit – and they could do their best to educate the public as to the limits and consequences of being caught. The risk is still there – drunks are going to drive and possibly injure/kill themselves and others – but at least there is some safeguard that allows non-drinking drivers to feel safer on the roads.
What if this wasn’t effective enough, that the roads were overwhelmed by drunk drivers?
Maybe they establish “safe routes” where only non-drinking drivers can drive, leaving the other roadways free for use by anyone whether they are drinking or not. However, anyone caught driving drunk on a safe route gets automatic jail time and a 10 years suspension of driving privileges. No exceptions, no deviation: you drive drunk and get caught on a safe route, you don’t get to drive any more – and you can’t buy your way out of it.
You still don’t know with absolute certainty that when you are on a safe route that the other drivers aren’t driving drunk – you can only hope.
What if, though, the drunk driving incidents decrease enough for the government to feel that maintaining the safe routes are 1) no longer necessary and 2) also something of a financial burden to maintain? What if they simply decide to suspend their law and open up the roads in hopes that drunk drivers will not kill any more people than they were before?
What are the unintended consequences of this “suspension of law?”
And how is this any different than “opening up the economy” without being able to give the citizens adequate protections? We are simply being asked to share the road with drunk drivers that will not face any consequences for putting others at risk…
Comments are closed