A report from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) gives Rhode Island it’s lowest rating on preventing drunk driving. But is that all that matters? Is this criteria correct, and does it consider civil liberties?
As reported by WPRI, the MADD state by state report suggests it is a problem that Rhode Island doesn’t enforce draconian laws like “no refusals”, where a judge can order you to have your blood drawn to test for alcohol content. Also, Rhode Island doesn’t have sobriety checkpoints (DUI roadblocks) to stop unsuspecting citizens for literally no reason, just to check if someone has been drinking.
It can easily be argued that these restrictions on government power and intrusions allow Rhode Islander’s more freedom in their everyday lives.
No one is in favor of drunk driving. But there is more to life and freedom that taking every possible step that might possibly prevent someone’s poor decision making, and punish a mistake.
Every restriction and penalty is a further imposition on regular citizens. So while it is fine for MADD to advocate for it’s point of view, and it’s particular issue, there is far more to the story than just “getting tougher”.
