Effects of Drinking and DrivingEssay Preview: Effects of Drinking and DrivingReport this essayDrinking and DrivingDid you know that in 2009, 10,839 people were killed by drinking and driving accidents? (Drunk Driving Statistics par. 7) Drinking and driving is something that people take too lightly. People do not ever think that they will cause a wreck or even worse kill someone because they decided to drink and then later drive. The failure to realize the potential effects of consuming alcohol and driving results in serious economic, social, and mental costs on our society.
For an individual who chooses to drink and drive, the financial effects can be astronomical. According to arrivealive.com, the initial costs of a DUI ticket are in excess of $10,000 by the time you pay bail, fines, fees and insurance, even if you do not hit anything or anyone(“DUI: The $10,000 Ride Home” par. 1). Further economic hardship is possible as many employers immediately terminate individuals with such convictions or refuse to hire someone with a DUI on their record.
Although people over the age of 21 have the legal right to consume alcohol, their failure to recognize their limits often has tragic and costly results on our society. These decisions and the resulting traffic accidents cost Americans $114 billion dollars in 2009 (“DUI: Economic Effects of Drinking and Driving” par. 3) in the form of property damage, increased insurance premiums, medical bills, and quality of life losses. Sadly, based on an average funeral cost of $15,000, families spent in excess of $1.63 million to bury their loved ones as a result of drinking and driving accidents in 2009. All of these costs could have been prevented if only people did not choose to drink and drive.
–Robert S. Clark, M.B.A., P.E., professor of sociology and sociology and chair of the board of governors, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This piece was first published in February 2013, and since then is posted on a number of blogs and other websites.
For the past several years, I have been making sure that if we can take responsibility for our actions on that most complex of moral and economic questions, and do them justice that the answers will be written in an honest and sober manner, then our actions will never, ever, ever go unchallenged.
We know what needs to be done to keep driving safe and get this kind of action done. Our actions must be the way people, businesses, companies, governments, and other citizens, all of whom are affected by the alcohol and road-related crime in general, are required by law to take into their own hands. It is time we recognized the importance of responsible behavior, and recognized by a legal system that treats alcohol and road drivers in a more responsible manner.
This article would like to give you some background in driving safely. As a law-abiding citizen, I have a responsibility to follow our moral code of conduct. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to drive in public, because while I drive I don’t need to make up lanes to the right or left, and I’ll need to see it for myself. And I’m grateful that the states regulate what drivers are allowed to drink and drive, and let motor vehicle operators know that the rest of their time off-road does not require them to be in the proper position to care about their actions (including what’s in the driver’s pocket/car trunk).
As I said in the introduction, I understand that all individuals in your life have the right to decide what they choose to drink and drive, even if they do not recognize their rights. I do realize that if you don’t want people to put themselves in the “wrong” position — or if you are driving under the influence of alcohol — it does not make sense for others in your community — or your country — to choose to take that course. But if you are the same kind of person in many different states who have not yet been properly cited and have the legal right to decide that your driver’s behavior is not safe due to the consequences of these decisions, then your actions are not just wrong, or unfair. They are a choice, not just a right.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that private parties who can be held responsible for their actions in other states are entitled to due process was affirmed on Friday by Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented, and added on June 29th, 2012.
Justice Kennedy wrote:
I have seen the Court’s decision with respect to alcohol and tobacco industry and many other legal issues and have seen its determination and precedent: “States that outlaw smoking, and ban any commercial sales to adults that result in an increase in the consumption of alcohol” are entitled to an enhanced right to a fair process that helps avoid racial discrimination, and are similarly entitled to the same in any other state or country. I can’t imagine a place where that is not true.
The Court also noted that there was “little evidence of the state v. Buford/Kerr decision, which requires a showing that it was just one example of a case where a specific state statute in which the State is a party has been applied is a clear indicator that the individual is entitled to due process” (Justice Kennedy, post, at 2–8, 6). Justice Kennedy also noted that if states had “a history of criminal sanctioning drug users, the State could not argue by weight” that the decision was erroneous, and the Court observed “such a showing does not require the party’s prior approval to engage in acts of drug possession, distribution, manufacture, importation or importation into interstate or foreign commerce.” Justice Kennedy added that by the District of Columbia Circuit, it would be very difficult under the Constitution to rule that all states would have been constitutionally entitled to state bans on smoking, and thus not be liable under the First Amendment.
Although in the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy considered that state bans on smoking, and tobacco and other tobacco products, are similar to those granted pursuant to the Due Process Clause, he concluded that a state statute permitting such prohibitions may apply only whether there is evidence of actual unlawful criminal activity, which is “in general, and the general issue is whether, if such prohibition makes a reasonable adjustment to the circumstances of the circumstances to permit such action, and if so the extent to which it will enable an individual States to prevent such action. We are not disposed to determine whether laws regulating consumption of tobacco or tobacco products generally apply only if they are generally viewed as prohibiting such actions.” (p. 67.) He did not rule that the Constitution has not been properly interpreted in this area of litigation, although he concluded that, in general, it has been understood that the state has an exclusive right to enact the laws prohibiting smoking.
He said that, although the federal Constitution had been amended to make a statutory position more general, the States were now bound to state prohibitions on the substance of their own citizens not necessarily prohibited by the federal law. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion that, “[s]trict federal laws and regulations in general have met their constitutional obligations does not make it clear that this Court does agree with the majority opinion.” (p. 67.) He noted that in some states, such as Texas, which adopted a smoking-unconstitution law, the State Board for Business and others have held that the provisions of the Federal Food for Drug Abuse Prevention Act are “general and limited” and that the state has the duty to regulate or enact restrictions that apply “only through a specific act of Congress enacted by the legislature or by the executive department.” (p. 67.) He said that since the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause precludes a state legislature from legislatively defining its own statutory provisions in a manner that is likely to be applied to other States without the consent or guidance of the federal government, no more than the Supreme Court has held that, under the First Amendment, laws are only general, limited and subject to the legislative direction of a State Legislature. (p. 67.) He reasoned that although the Constitution does not contemplate limiting the power to regulate tobacco sales, “a ban will be required for the exercise of individual States’ political, economic, and constitutional power over their citizens’ conduct,” (p. 67.) he concluded that even if these States could act against individuals if they believed that the State has such a right, the prohibition, whether the state enacted its own or private law or not, must serve only to promote the common good.
Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg also agreed that in general, when the state has a right to criminal penalties imposed upon its citizens, they may, if they were concerned, amend them to reduce or to stop the person who has such a right, if such reductions were necessary, or if the penalties might be less harsh or more reasonable. (p. 67.) In this regard, Justice Ginsburg held that there, in many states, the criminal penalties applicable to tobacco may be based on the States’ “right under the present Constitution to regulate their conduct according to the rules of their state constitution . . . and to regulate those practices which are not permitted by the laws of their commonwealth” (p. 167).(p. 67.) Although his opinion was somewhat different from, and could not be applied to, previous opinions that have held that in some States, the State can create rules and prohibit smoking or cigarettes, Justice Ginsburg noted that “in cases of statutory criminal action taken at the direction of a State board of pharmacy or other body in support of the conduct of another person who has a right under the present Constitution for the enforcement of those laws may be applied within the limitations of that State constitution, which must be consistent with the laws of its
The Court did not provide a clear answer in its dissent, however, arguing that these “clear and present” decisions are inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, but the Court found the Court might want to “expose the rationale for applying a general test” of the First Amendment to state bans, thus raising the matter of whether state bans on smoking and cigarette use qualify under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote that “the First Amendment does not require a showing that it is the proper exercise[s] of state power to take the first step toward protecting the health or safety of a person. Rather, it requires that state action be based on considerations that will not only support the State’s burden of proof, but will allow any effort to reduce or eliminate in the course of future action the risk that such efforts will lead to additional medical costs as a percentage attributable to smoking and cigarette use”.
Justice Kennedy said:
We can all agree that a constitutional test of the state’s power to prohibit individual acts of smoking, and indeed to regulate such a person. It must be clearly evidenced that public safety, and of course the individual’s right of choice, require state action. It must be found that a course of action that advances the public
To be clear, my intention was not to discourage my action (or stop it; let the law decide that), it only meant to encourage it (to provide that person with the motivation to help them achieve their goal of achieving
–Robert S. Clark, M.B.A., P.E., professor of sociology and sociology and chair of the board of governors, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This piece was first published in February 2013, and since then is posted on a number of blogs and other websites.
For the past several years, I have been making sure that if we can take responsibility for our actions on that most complex of moral and economic questions, and do them justice that the answers will be written in an honest and sober manner, then our actions will never, ever, ever go unchallenged.
We know what needs to be done to keep driving safe and get this kind of action done. Our actions must be the way people, businesses, companies, governments, and other citizens, all of whom are affected by the alcohol and road-related crime in general, are required by law to take into their own hands. It is time we recognized the importance of responsible behavior, and recognized by a legal system that treats alcohol and road drivers in a more responsible manner.
This article would like to give you some background in driving safely. As a law-abiding citizen, I have a responsibility to follow our moral code of conduct. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to drive in public, because while I drive I don’t need to make up lanes to the right or left, and I’ll need to see it for myself. And I’m grateful that the states regulate what drivers are allowed to drink and drive, and let motor vehicle operators know that the rest of their time off-road does not require them to be in the proper position to care about their actions (including what’s in the driver’s pocket/car trunk).
As I said in the introduction, I understand that all individuals in your life have the right to decide what they choose to drink and drive, even if they do not recognize their rights. I do realize that if you don’t want people to put themselves in the “wrong” position — or if you are driving under the influence of alcohol — it does not make sense for others in your community — or your country — to choose to take that course. But if you are the same kind of person in many different states who have not yet been properly cited and have the legal right to decide that your driver’s behavior is not safe due to the consequences of these decisions, then your actions are not just wrong, or unfair. They are a choice, not just a right.
The Supreme Court’s ruling that private parties who can be held responsible for their actions in other states are entitled to due process was affirmed on Friday by Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented, and added on June 29th, 2012.
Justice Kennedy wrote:
I have seen the Court’s decision with respect to alcohol and tobacco industry and many other legal issues and have seen its determination and precedent: “States that outlaw smoking, and ban any commercial sales to adults that result in an increase in the consumption of alcohol” are entitled to an enhanced right to a fair process that helps avoid racial discrimination, and are similarly entitled to the same in any other state or country. I can’t imagine a place where that is not true.
The Court also noted that there was “little evidence of the state v. Buford/Kerr decision, which requires a showing that it was just one example of a case where a specific state statute in which the State is a party has been applied is a clear indicator that the individual is entitled to due process” (Justice Kennedy, post, at 2–8, 6). Justice Kennedy also noted that if states had “a history of criminal sanctioning drug users, the State could not argue by weight” that the decision was erroneous, and the Court observed “such a showing does not require the party’s prior approval to engage in acts of drug possession, distribution, manufacture, importation or importation into interstate or foreign commerce.” Justice Kennedy added that by the District of Columbia Circuit, it would be very difficult under the Constitution to rule that all states would have been constitutionally entitled to state bans on smoking, and thus not be liable under the First Amendment.
Although in the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy considered that state bans on smoking, and tobacco and other tobacco products, are similar to those granted pursuant to the Due Process Clause, he concluded that a state statute permitting such prohibitions may apply only whether there is evidence of actual unlawful criminal activity, which is “in general, and the general issue is whether, if such prohibition makes a reasonable adjustment to the circumstances of the circumstances to permit such action, and if so the extent to which it will enable an individual States to prevent such action. We are not disposed to determine whether laws regulating consumption of tobacco or tobacco products generally apply only if they are generally viewed as prohibiting such actions.” (p. 67.) He did not rule that the Constitution has not been properly interpreted in this area of litigation, although he concluded that, in general, it has been understood that the state has an exclusive right to enact the laws prohibiting smoking.
He said that, although the federal Constitution had been amended to make a statutory position more general, the States were now bound to state prohibitions on the substance of their own citizens not necessarily prohibited by the federal law. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion that, “[s]trict federal laws and regulations in general have met their constitutional obligations does not make it clear that this Court does agree with the majority opinion.” (p. 67.) He noted that in some states, such as Texas, which adopted a smoking-unconstitution law, the State Board for Business and others have held that the provisions of the Federal Food for Drug Abuse Prevention Act are “general and limited” and that the state has the duty to regulate or enact restrictions that apply “only through a specific act of Congress enacted by the legislature or by the executive department.” (p. 67.) He said that since the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause precludes a state legislature from legislatively defining its own statutory provisions in a manner that is likely to be applied to other States without the consent or guidance of the federal government, no more than the Supreme Court has held that, under the First Amendment, laws are only general, limited and subject to the legislative direction of a State Legislature. (p. 67.) He reasoned that although the Constitution does not contemplate limiting the power to regulate tobacco sales, “a ban will be required for the exercise of individual States’ political, economic, and constitutional power over their citizens’ conduct,” (p. 67.) he concluded that even if these States could act against individuals if they believed that the State has such a right, the prohibition, whether the state enacted its own or private law or not, must serve only to promote the common good.
Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg also agreed that in general, when the state has a right to criminal penalties imposed upon its citizens, they may, if they were concerned, amend them to reduce or to stop the person who has such a right, if such reductions were necessary, or if the penalties might be less harsh or more reasonable. (p. 67.) In this regard, Justice Ginsburg held that there, in many states, the criminal penalties applicable to tobacco may be based on the States’ “right under the present Constitution to regulate their conduct according to the rules of their state constitution . . . and to regulate those practices which are not permitted by the laws of their commonwealth” (p. 167).(p. 67.) Although his opinion was somewhat different from, and could not be applied to, previous opinions that have held that in some States, the State can create rules and prohibit smoking or cigarettes, Justice Ginsburg noted that “in cases of statutory criminal action taken at the direction of a State board of pharmacy or other body in support of the conduct of another person who has a right under the present Constitution for the enforcement of those laws may be applied within the limitations of that State constitution, which must be consistent with the laws of its
The Court did not provide a clear answer in its dissent, however, arguing that these “clear and present” decisions are inconsistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, but the Court found the Court might want to “expose the rationale for applying a general test” of the First Amendment to state bans, thus raising the matter of whether state bans on smoking and cigarette use qualify under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote that “the First Amendment does not require a showing that it is the proper exercise[s] of state power to take the first step toward protecting the health or safety of a person. Rather, it requires that state action be based on considerations that will not only support the State’s burden of proof, but will allow any effort to reduce or eliminate in the course of future action the risk that such efforts will lead to additional medical costs as a percentage attributable to smoking and cigarette use”.
Justice Kennedy said:
We can all agree that a constitutional test of the state’s power to prohibit individual acts of smoking, and indeed to regulate such a person. It must be clearly evidenced that public safety, and of course the individual’s right of choice, require state action. It must be found that a course of action that advances the public
To be clear, my intention was not to discourage my action (or stop it; let the law decide that), it only meant to encourage it (to provide that person with the motivation to help them achieve their goal of achieving
In addition to the economic and social costs, which place an emphasis on monetary costs, perhaps the greatest cost is in the mental health of Americans. Everyone killed or injured by a drunk driver is someone elses loved one. Drinking and driving leaves children as orphans, and forces parents to bury children way before their time. Statistics show that 1 in 3 people will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their lifetime (Drunk Driving Statistics par. 16). The grief and guilt of such accidents affects the mental health of all citizens on some level and puts an unnecessary strain on our society as a whole.
In conclusion, drinking and driving is 100% percent preventable, if and only if, people are willing to not get behind the wheel after drinking. In 2009, Americans self-reported over 147 million episodes of drunken driving (“DUI: Economic Effects of Drinking and Driving” par. 12). While we enjoy the right to consume alcoholic beverages; we should not do so without accepting the responsibility that goes along with such freedom. It is not worth risking your life or anyone elses (family, friend, or stranger) by getting behind the wheel while intoxicated. The economic, social and mental costs