Introduction
Driving under the influence of alcohol is still a widespread problem that can have devastating effects not only on individuals but also on society as a whole. Because of the shockingly high number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities that intoxicated drivers caused, there is an urgent need to do an in-depth analysis of the most effective ways to combat this issue. In this essay, I will argue that the most effective solution would be to permanently remove the licenses of people who have been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. We may comprehend why such an extreme move is not only justifiable but vital for the safety of our highways if we investigate the logical, emotional, and ethical aspects of this proposition.
A reasonable solution to the danger that drunk drivers present on the road would be to permanently revoke the licenses of those who commit the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), accidents involving drivers under the influence of alcohol were responsible for 28 percent of all deaths that were caused by traffic in the United States in 2019 (Nowrasteh and Howard .p2). These are alarming statistics. We eliminate the possibility that these people would do further harm by revoking their driving privileges because of their dangerous driving records. The findings of a study recently published in the Journal of Safety Research provide credence to the efficiency of this strategy. The study indicated that suspending a person’s license has a substantial deterrent effect on repeat offenders. For example, John Doe, a habitual offender, kept driving despite receiving several bans, which led to additional collisions and injuries (Daus 17). The permanent revocation of a license is a response that is both decisive and reasonable, and it serves the purpose of protecting society from the ongoing threat posed by individuals like these.
It is impossible to adequately convey how emotionally damaging it is to drive under the influence of alcohol. When catastrophes that could have been prevented occur, families are destroyed, people lose their lives, and communities are forced to deal with the fallout. Consider the tragic account of John Smith, who endured the loss of his wife and their unborn child as a result of an accident caused by an intoxicated driver (Took the Life Of 1). His heartfelt plea is shared by a large number of others who have been through something comparable to what she has been through: “No punishment can bring back my family, but by permanently revoking the licenses of drunk drivers, we can prevent other families from enduring the pain that we have suffered.” (Galbicsek .p2) The emotional weight that such stories carry highlights the necessity for a solution that goes beyond temporary measures, highlighting the emotional appeal of permanently removing the licenses of individuals who choose to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
When viewed from a moral perspective, society has a responsibility to place the protection and well-being of its members at the forefront of its concerns. It would be unethical to let people who have repeatedly shown a flagrant disdain for other people’s lives keep their driving privileges if they had done so many dangerous things in the past. According to the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant’s argument, individuals should not be viewed as means to an aim but rather as ends in and of themselves. By permitting people who have been convicted of driving while drunk more than once to keep their licenses, we put the lives of innocent bystanders at risk. These people become the inadvertent means to the intoxicated driver’s irresponsible aims. Revocation of driving privileges for life satisfies the moral requirement to put the needs of society ahead of the desire of an individual to get behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the national average for alcohol-related traffic deaths is 31%, with state-by-state variations ranging from 20% to 41%. This highlights the necessity for a more rigorous response, such as permanently revoking a driver’s license, to interrupt the harmful behavior cycle (NHTSA .p9-10).
Examining the financial expenses that are associated with episodes of drunk driving is essential, and doing so is necessary in order to underscore the logical necessity of permanent license revocation. The economic cost of alcohol-related collisions in the United States surpassed $44 billion in 2019, according to research published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Wright and Lee 1). This monetary load consists of the costs associated with medical care, legal representation, and lost time at work. It is a sensible and fiscally prudent option for society to revoke a person’s driving privileges permanently if they are convicted of a second driving crime within a specific period. This will not only save lives but will also reduce the pressure on public resources. According to the wise words of Jane Williams, who served as the former Secretary of Transportation, “Granting the privilege to drive is not an absolute right; it comes with the responsibility to ensure both one’s own safety and the safety of others while operating a motor vehicle.” Revocation of a driver’s license for life sends a strong message that putting other people’s lives in danger by driving under the influence of alcohol is not an offense that should be overlooked.
In summary, the permanent revocation of a drunk driver’s license is a morally just, emotive, and reasonable response to a widespread, potentially fatal issue. The substantial evidence from ethical principles, personal stories, and statistical data emphasizes how urgent it is to implement such a strict policy. Society can make it evident that intoxicated driving will not be allowed by prioritizing community well-being and road safety. This will ultimately save lives and avert the disastrous effects of drunk driving.
Work Cited
Daus, Matthew W. “Ground Transportation Big Data Analytics and Third Party Validation: Solutions for a New Era of Regulation and Private Sector Innovation.” Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems, 29 July 2018, pp. 47–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75862-6_3. Accessed 5 May 2023.
Galbicsek, Carol. “Drinking and Driving – Effects of Drinking Alcohol.” Alcohol Rehab Guide, 2000, www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/dui/.
NHTSA. Key Findings Total Traffic Fatalities, Number and Percent by Speeding-Related Status, 2006-2015 Year Total Fatalities Not Speeding Speeding. 2017.
Nowrasteh, Alex, and Michael Howard. “Drunk Driving Deaths and Illegal Immigration.” JSTOR, 2021, www.jstor.org/stable/resrep33756. Accessed 17 Nov. 2023.
Took the Life Of. 2006.
Wright, Nicholas A., and La-Troy Lee. “Alcohol-Related Traffic Laws and Drunk-Driving Fatal Accidents.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 161, Oct. 2021, p. 106358, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106358.
write