Drunk driving fatalities have fallen over the past two decades in large part due to increasingly stringent drunk driving laws. Many of these new laws were enacted due to pressure and lobbying from anti-drunk driving groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). MADD is credited as having been the major impetus behind President Clinton’s recent signing of legislation that redefines what legally drunk means “The legislation requires states to lower the blood alcohol level (to .08) that makes a driver intoxicated” (President 1). States that fail to comply will lose federal highway funds. Despite these advances in drunk driving legislation, drunk driving still represents the number one cause of traffic fatalities in the U.S. (President 1).
Many states are now considering legislation that mandates jail time for drunk drivers who are first-time offenders while others have already passed such laws. I believe these laws are too severe and will argue why, presenting both sides of the argument in order to demonstrate why I feel my perspective is a better alternative than these laws making jail time mandatory for first-time drunk driving offenders.
Those who defend mandatory jail laws for first-time drunk drivers often let emotions get in the way of common sense. The real problem is alcohol consumption. We live in an alcohol culture with hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually in alcohol advertising in the media. Our college experience is also an alcohol culture. The consumption of culture is perceived as a rite of passage for young males. Those who cannot drink with the “big boys” are often considered weak or feminine by their peers. Further, alcoholism is widespread and pervasive in American culture. It is a disease, pure and simple. It is also a disease that genetically pre-dispositions future generations to alcoholism. We need to appreciate all these facts befo
...