Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:
"The current law on drinking and driving is a prior restraint law. It can only be enforced by indiscriminate stops and searches. Most of the drivers stopped are not driving erratically and do not test positive. This is a breach of the Common Law prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour."Moreover, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event.
"Much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company.
"If we want to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, drinking and driving should not in itself be a crime. It should be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away - and the authorities should have no power to stop this.
"Punishment should only come if a driver is so erratic that he is plainly dangerous - or if an accident is caused. But it should then in this latter case be very severe punishment.
Firstly, I cannot see how road deaths could possibly remain at the current levels - there'd have to be an increase and"In general, we believe in real punishments for real crimes. Unless a real crime can be shown, we believe in telling the police to mind their own business."
Secondly, In what universe would 'real punishments' ever be imposed?
Without the latter - there is no possibility of holding down serious accidents.
(I speak as somebody who has actually jailed people for drunk driving although admittedly for very short periods only.)
