Drunk Driving Pros And Cons

Statement of Problem According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), all states that wanted to keep U.S. federal funds for their highway systems had to adopt the .08 threshold of drunkenness for driving since 2000 (“Legislative”). To most, the topic of drunk driving is very simple: it should be illegal. However, few people ever hear the counter argument to these mostly agreeable laws. According to a Gallup poll in 2000, 72% of Americans agreed with the lowering of the legal BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) passed by congress and signed by President Clinton in 2000 (“Most”). What few people seem to recognize is that these laws have huge constitutional hitches.
In most states, drivers are required to submit a breathalyzer or chemical test if an officer wants to administer one, including Pennsylvania. This is a huge objection of the Fifth Amendment which states “…. nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” (Staff LLII). The forceful use of chemical BAC tests is against individual’s rights …show more content…
With DUI’s having a prominently negative affect on many people’s lives it will be hard to sway people to support the change. Many lives have been lost due to drunk driving and this fact will affect much of the public’s view on laws regarding DWI’s. Victims of drunk drivers also have an impressive voice in the ears of legislators with the organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). According to MADDs’ most recent financial report in 2015, which can be found on the organizations’ website, had expenses of close to 38 million dollars to help end drunk driving (“Annual”). This force that receives federal funding would be extremely tough to overcome and advocate against (“Annual”). Public support is very high for the current DUI threshold of .08 and MADD is responsible for helping pass Clinton’s legislation in 2000