Last night, NPR ran a story saying that lawmakers are starting to examine drunk driving laws in the U.S. to see if they are too strict. In that story, they interviewed MADD CEO Chuck Hurley who compared drunk driving to a "violent crime" and "terrorism" because it takes innocent lives.
(Link)
Now, I understand the pain and anguish that drunk drivers cause. I was caught in a drunk driving accident when an 18-year-old kid came screaming off of a side road at midnight and slammed into my car, spinning me around and embedding me into an embankment. Luckily he hit the passenger's side and no one was with me, so I was not hurt. It could have been much worse.
I also witnessed a drunk driving accident first-hand when driving with my wife. I flagged down other cars until I found someone with a cellphone and stayed with the family trapped in the struck car until the police could arrive. It was a family of three, and the father couldn't move his one leg, his wife and daughter were unconscious. It could have been my wife and I that were hit because it was only a matter of seconds before we were to have passed through that intersection. I still sometimes dream about that car accident.
But Mr. Hurley's comparison is glib, highly glib, and I find it stupid. We know what terrorists do. We've been grappling with the issue of terrorism for years now. Terrorists go out of their way to spread fear and death. They work to destabilize countries, using terror and death as political tools. Drunk drivers are frequently careless and foolish individuals, sometimes sick people suffering from alcoholism, and they often need help.
To equate the actions of a drunk driver with the actions of John Allen Muhammad or an Osama bin Laden is unacceptable.
Leave a comment