Les,
Thanks for your response. I was not claiming you have a double standard, just asking. You replied that you favor applying similar standards to people driving when sleepy, angry, or distracted, as to people driving intoxicated, which answers that question in the negative. While I appreciate the consistency in your stance, I can't help wondering whether you've thought through the implications, i.e. how will people be tested for sleepiness, anger, or distraction?
While I think tests could possibly be invented for these purposes that are no less reasonable than some of the less scientific tests often used by police to determine sobriety (asking people to walk in a straight line, focus on an object held in front of their faces, etc.), the bigger issue I see is that deciding when to require people to take any of these tests involves a great deal of subjectivity, and officers often to act on whims, engage in profiling, etc. Do you really want to be forcibly subjected to a bunch of tests just because you were driving, or were stopped at a checkpoint, and some officer thought you looked sleepy or pissed off about something or you were fiddling with the car radio?
The bottom line for me is that the evil caused by a "prevention" model of crime that tries to stop harm before it happens is worse -- both in terms of civil liberties violations and in terms of wasted resources, not to mention general expansion of government power -- than the evil that results from not catching and stopping crimes in advance such as a drunk driver hitting someone.
If an officer observes and documents on video someone driving in such a reckless manner (severe weaving down the street, excessive speeding, etc.) that whether or not they hit someone or something appears to be a mere matter of chance, I'm okay with that driver being pulled over and forfeiting the right to continue driving at that time, perhaps also incurring some penalty (which a driver should be able to contest in a jury trial if he or she wishes, without the threat of incurring significant additional punishment if the officer's judgement is upheld). But that's about as far as I think it should go.
Regarding animals not potentially causing harm (even harm to humans) as a result of being intoxicated, this is not necessarily true. A drunken reindeer could run out into a road and get hit by a car, etc. However I will concede the larger point that with higher awareness comes higher responsibility, meaning that humans have a greater obligation to avoid causing harm than do other less-aware animals.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))