3 ms·

You are saying that DUI is not a meaningful danger?

by tamana 11y ago

VLM 11y ago
Yeah, obviously. The rate isn't that much higher than sober drivers, and the odds of being caught are extremely low. Its problem is the cost/benefit ratio is extremely low. There's nothing to gain by permitting it (maybe more booze sales, not really worth it) and plenty to gain by making it illegal (because every death due to it is pointless). Paradoxically most of our legal system is based on risk/reward ratios, not level of risk. For example speeding is illegal although the odds of an accident are extremely low. On the other hand climbing Mt Everest isn't illegal at all, even though the death rate is about 50% or whatever it is now. Smoking is not illegal although the odds of smoking killing a smoker are pretty good, yet psychedelics are illegal despite the actual death rates and counts being pretty close to zero.
- simonh 11y ago
  Almost one third of all traffic related deaths in the US are caused by drunk drivers. That's a very big slice of a pie that's way too big already.
  - VLM 11y ago
    See, you're agreeing with me. I pulled the actual numbers from Google and 40K total traffic deaths out of 2.6M total deaths for the USA last year is about one percent. So drinking related is a third of one percent. Its about a hundred times more likely than getting hit by lightning, its hardly zero, but its basically a rounding error in list of risks to worry about. Lets say 100 times per year the local pro baseball stadium fills all 40K seats and a mere 1/4 (probably more) drive home after some beers. So right there, the odds of someone being killed in any individual baseball game related drunk driving incident are under 1%, likely far, far lower, given that's hardly the only pro sport, there are more baseball stadiums in the country than the one nearby me, more than half the people sitting the stands have had a beer, and almost all drinking happens outside baseball stadiums anyway. However, I agree with you completely, its only banned because its a completely senseless and avoidable risk to take, not because its highly risky. Its measurably an extremely low risk, but the key is its a dumb risk to take, which is the only reason why its illegal. Tobacco smoking on the other hand is extremely high risk, but its not illegal, because most people don't see it as senseless or dumb.

You are saying that DUI is not a meaningful danger?

by tamana 11y ago

You are saying that DUI is not a meaningful danger?

VLM 11y ago

Yeah, obviously. The rate isn't that much higher than sober drivers, and the odds of being caught are extremely low. Its problem is the cost/benefit ratio is extremely low. There's nothing to gain by permitting it (maybe more booze sales, not really worth it) and plenty to gain by making it illegal (because every death due to it is pointless). Paradoxically most of our legal system is based on risk/reward ratios, not level of risk. For example speeding is illegal although the odds of an accident are extremely low. On the other hand climbing Mt Everest isn't illegal at all, even though the death rate is about 50% or whatever it is now. Smoking is not illegal although the odds of smoking killing a smoker are pretty good, yet psychedelics are illegal despite the actual death rates and counts being pretty close to zero.

simonh 11y ago
Almost one third of all traffic related deaths in the US are caused by drunk drivers. That's a very big slice of a pie that's way too big already.
- VLM 11y ago
  See, you're agreeing with me. I pulled the actual numbers from Google and 40K total traffic deaths out of 2.6M total deaths for the USA last year is about one percent. So drinking related is a third of one percent. Its about a hundred times more likely than getting hit by lightning, its hardly zero, but its basically a rounding error in list of risks to worry about. Lets say 100 times per year the local pro baseball stadium fills all 40K seats and a mere 1/4 (probably more) drive home after some beers. So right there, the odds of someone being killed in any individual baseball game related drunk driving incident are under 1%, likely far, far lower, given that's hardly the only pro sport, there are more baseball stadiums in the country than the one nearby me, more than half the people sitting the stands have had a beer, and almost all drinking happens outside baseball stadiums anyway. However, I agree with you completely, its only banned because its a completely senseless and avoidable risk to take, not because its highly risky. Its measurably an extremely low risk, but the key is its a dumb risk to take, which is the only reason why its illegal. Tobacco smoking on the other hand is extremely high risk, but its not illegal, because most people don't see it as senseless or dumb.