3d ago

What’s your ultimate unpopular opinion?

470 comments

DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn't be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
People hate this one but... hey, it's my most unpopular opinion.
- Wow. .08 is ridiculously lax IMO. I agree punishments should scale by inebriation level but I never expected people to think .08 was too strict.
  
  It's a slight buzz. People are substantially more dangerous when they are sleep deprived but no laws or severe punishments for that because the system needs its slaves to get to work whether they've rested well or not.
- That's one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person's driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there's little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.
  I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I'd like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.
  
  Here in Sweden the limit is at 0,2 ‰ which I believe is equivalent to 0,02 BAC. So 0,08 BAC is really high IMO.
  The limit for a serious violation is 1 ‰
  The punishment for a normal violation is a fine or up to 6 months in prison. The punishment for a serious violation is up to 2 years in prison. Apparently if you go above 1,5 ‰ you are quite unlikely to get any other punishment than prison, so community service or similar is out.
  If you are found guilty they generally take your driving licence a As well and you are not allowed to get a new one for a minimum of 1 month or a maximum of 3 years (minimum 1 year for serious violation)
  
  Does that mean the limit is like half a drink?
  
  I have no idea, I don't drink.
  But if that's the case it makes sense since you shouldn't drink and drive at all IMO the limit should be treated more like a margin of error (because you shouldn't drink at all) and less like a limit of how much you can drink.
- That is an actual unpopular opinion. Fuck people who drink and drive, driving is dangerous enough as it is, and no one needs to drink alcohol ever
  
  It's a personal decision. Some of us enjoy the flavor and the social enhancements after having a few. I agree fuck people who drive really drunk but I don't consider a few beers to be that. In fact, I know that a few beers doesn't make me drunk or mess up my motor skills any. I'm significantly more dangerous when I am sleep deprived but that isn't illegal. Heh.
  
  There are people with addictions who live in car centric places and need to drive. Should we stop those people from living a normal life because of a medical condition? Probably leading to it worsening = more drinking
  I think it's a more complicated issue than it seems at surface level and a real solution needs to be nuanced.
  
  They chose to drink and then drive. Even if I buy that alcoholics should be allowed to be alcoholics, just purchasing the alcohol, then driving home and then drinking it is of course an option.
- They used to be more lax, the current rules are more strict because it IS a problem and there are studies showing it to be. Hence the lower BAC limits.
- Mine are unpopular, but in the other direction.
  I think your first DUI offense should be the last time you drive. Period. I feel like the fact it's so lax is due to people knowing they won't be severely punished.
  
  Punishments are pretty severe... Night in jail, thousands in fines, possibility of losing your license... Justified when the person is actually inebriated but I don't believe that is the case at .08... that's a little buzz.
  Not trying to change minds here though. I know it's an unpopular opinion.
  
  I don't think a little buzz is ok either. Driving is dangerous at the best of times. Another reply somewhere in this thread already said it, but there's no need to make it worse than it has to be.
  
  People go to bars and friends' houses and such and drink. It's a part of life in western society. There is a massive difference in being slightly buzzed and being sloshed and I think the punishments should scale. Just as I'm not trying to change minds, mine won't change either. This is my unpopular opinion as the thread requested.
  
  It would be for the best if public transport were good enough everywhere that you wouldn't have to drive a vehicle with alcohol in your system.
  
  Yeah, agreed. Everybody likes to say “there’s no excuse when you can Uber!” but in a real world situation that requires an expensive ride home and then an expensive ride back to your car the next day while worrying if it’s okay in the parking lot. Not actually very practical when you’re just having a reasonable amount of drinks and not getting shit-faced. So I hang around where I’m at after my last beer until I know I’m safe and just hope I’m not slightly over that silly .08.
  
  Fair. This whole thread is unpopular opinions, so it's kinda natural for most people to disagree with each other.
  Thread participation achieved. I'm not even mad. (งツ)ว
  
  don't believe that is the case at .08... that's a little buzz.
  And a little buzz is too much to drive with? Respectfully, that is just rearranging titanic deck chairs. Buzzed driving should be illegal too.
  As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I am happy the line for driving 2 tons of steel is BEFORE someone feels the affect of alcohol. Driving is dangerous enough as is, buzzed still slows reaction times.
  
  Lines are fine. The punishments are too severe at this line though.
- Cognitive ability is a far better test. I used to be a raging alco, like real alco, not just daily drinker. The levels I functioned at would kill most people.
  Of course I still have alcoholism, but I haven’t drank in 12+ years. While I don’t condone drinking and driving at all - in fact it makes no sense at all in this age of ride sharing - but if I were on a jury I could be swayed by a heavy drinker excuse. 🤷‍♂️

470 comments