I’m sure they do. That’s why we have auto insurance, although I’d rather not be killed.
So if drinkers and druggers bought insurance that would recompense the victims of drunk or drugged crimes, or their next of kin, that would satisfy you? Or is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a drugged person than beneath the wheels of a Sunday driver?
We could legislate against Sunday driving, but the amount of time, effort and money it would take to VERY poorly enforce this law (I suppose there’d have to be a checkpoint at every corner? Affidavits about points of departure and planned destinations, with time stamps? The mind boggles) would put it into the billions of dollars.
Funny, several tens of billions is what you're apparently happy to spend on poorly enforcing drug laws.
“So if drinkers and druggers bought insurance that would recompense the victims of drunk or drugged crimes, or their next of kin, that would satisfy you? Or is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a drugged person than beneath the wheels of a Sunday driver? “
It would help. But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired. Whether they are impaired from alcohol, pot, or speed.
One can drive unimpaired after a glass or two of wine. But not after getting drunk, or high, or impaired, whatever you want to call it.
Your continual effort to equate light alcohol use with the use of marijuana, coke, meth, whatever is wearying.
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said.
I support the illegality of drunkenness. Not of casual drinking. There is a big difference, although you don’t seem to want to see it.
“Funny, several tens of billions is what you’re apparently happy to spend on poorly enforcing drug laws. “
The enforcement of our drug laws, if as you say is in the tens of billions of dollars, does not just reduce the number of people getting high on a given day.
It reduces all the crimes they would have committed when they were high.
The murders, the rapes, the molestations, the thefts, the drunk/drugged driving, the assaults, etc.
So yes, I would pay tens of billions, if necessary, to reduce all that. That is a legitimate function of government and tax dollars. To reduce crime; to protect the innocent.
The fewer drug abusers and drunken sots running free on any given day; the fewer violent and property crimes.