Do Blue Laws Save Lives

House Bill 953, also known as the Blue Lives Matter Bill, is officially enacted in Louisiana. Nationwide, it's the first bill of it's kind, giving law enforcement and first responders protections under hate crime laws. But many argue this group does not need extra protection. And, in a state where suspects can face the death penalty, how does this law work? The Caddo Parish District Attorney explains how the bill could impact civilians, while the head of the NAACP shares why he thinks it should be

California has done its part by enacting most of the known effective DUI countermeasures. However, there is still much to be done and applying other countermeasures implemented in other states, such as the lower per se BAC level for repeat offenders, might be of benefit to California. The study of this report shows that the California Zero Tolerance Law has had a small marginal effect on the number of underage drinking drivers in fatal crashes. After the implementation of the law, a reduction in driving after drinking and alcohol-related crashes has been evident. However, a question remains as to whether a stronger enforcement can produce more substantial results. Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines

Results: As we are able to gather from both of these graph which came from U.S. Department of Transportation. We are currently slightly down on DUI’s, but the part that I have found to be even more shocking in a good way that fatalities not involving alcohol has drop almost 10,000. While this graph only shows the amount of crashes it does not put it in as detailed as the next graph does.

The audience that Friedman is trying to target are North Carolina citizens, by addressing the issue, and revealing the significance of drunk driving laws to prove that there are advocates across the state working to help aid in prevention, and create harsher consequences for those who commit and have been convicted of this crime. Friedman’s article has a serious tone and expresses empathy towards drunk driving as it seems to be a topic of importance to him. It is almost as if he has been effected by this awful crime and wants to raise awareness and help aid in preventing drunk driving across the state. This remains clear throughout the article by vividly expressing the current bills being proposed to create these new laws and consequences. I chose this article by, Corey Friedman, to help me throughout my research, because of his seriousness and his empathy on the subject. I was also able to learn about current laws being proposed to aid in prevention and development of harsher consequences for the many who commit these crimes. Freidman has a great article, but I feel that it fails to represent both points of view among those who commit the crime and those who were victims of this crime. As for me, I have experienced both sides in the past several years.

The organization, I chose for this paper is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). I chose this organization because I feel a strong connection to their core message and that message is; “To end drunk driving, help fight drugged driving, support the victims of these violent crimes, and prevent underage drinking” (MADD, 2016). Mothers Against Drunk Driving sends a clear message about the negative effects a drunk driving, drugged driving, and underage drinking. Their website is filled with support hotlines, addresses to your local MADD office and an entire area on the homepage of the website is dedicated for people to donate money to support the victims’ families of these horrible accidents. Also, if you go past just the first page of the website a viewer of the organizations

The thought of alcohol being involved in fatal crashes brings about an emotional response. Recently, there has been a movement based on emotion rather than logic to change a certain drinking and driving law. This involves lowering the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) from 0.10% to 0.08% nationwide. However, this attention is misdirected. By looking at my personal experiences, statistics, and current laws, it is clear that there is no need for lowering the BAC.

Once the allure of alcohol is no longer a social trend, parents would be stripped of their worries of their “rebellious teenagers sneaking off to basements and backwoods to binge drink far from adult supervision” (Griggs). Parents cannot protect their children from every hazard in the world, but they can educate their kids and desensitize their kids to the thrill of drinking out of adult supervision. Opposers claim that the current law “...[diminishes] the number of traffic deaths caused by young drunk drivers...” but they fail to realize that “...tougher seat belt and D.U.I. rules have contributed to the decrease, too” (Glaser). “Raising the drinking age hasn't reduced drinking -- it’s merely driven it underground..” (Glaser). With the legal drinking age at 18 and the incorporation of alcohol awareness classes, citizens would develop safer habits when consuming

The United States has the world’s highest MLDA, and many citizens are content to keep it that way. Political interest groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who had a hand in changing the law, insist that a higher drinking age protects communities. They focus on the decline in drunk driving accidents and deaths— something they attribute to a lack of intoxicated under-21s on the road. Recently, MADD has been criticized for stepping away from it’s original purpose and turning toward a “neo-prohibitionist” outlook that demonizes alcohol, rather than drunk driving. Still, MADD members and other advocates of a 21 year MLDA often point out that death rates due to car accidents for 18 to 20 year olds have decreased since the MLDA act was passed, but this can be countered with the observation that this loss of lives has just been delayed a few years, now showing up in the 21 to 24 age bracket. It would seem that newly-legal drinkers are the ones causing accidents, no matter the age.

“Automobiles are not ferocious.... it is man who is to be feared,” as Robbins B. Stoeckel remarked, enumerates a simple, yet fundamental concept- a vehicle in itself is a relatively safe, that is, until you put a person behind the controls. Further adding to the danger is the ever prevalent risk of a fellow driver being impaired by the usage of alcohol; perhaps the only thing that may make such a situation even more difficult and dangerous is one who is under the legal alcohol drinking age. Fewer situations are more life threatening than when an underage driver has been illegally consuming alcohol, yet persists in the belief that he or she retains the ability to drive safely. Thoughts along this line are foolish at best and deadly at

This number is equivalent to one third of all automobile accidents across the United States. The Midwest region of the United States had the highest amount of individuals who were driving under the influence and the highest percentage of people who admitted to binge drinking at 16.5 percent. These numbers reflect a problem with drunk driving but they in no way reflect that alcohol should not be sold on Sundays. Michael Lovenheim from the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management states that “Blue Laws”, which are laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays, first started in observance of the Sabbath on Sundays. These laws have been a consistent law in 14 different states to include: Georgia, North Carolina and of course Oklahoma. This was later assumed by blue law proponents that the restriction of alcohol sales on Sundays reduce the number of drunk driving incidents within their individual state. In an analysis completed by viewing the Fatal Accident Reporting System, it is shown that on any given day of the week, the numbers of alcohol related crash fatalities remained consistent throughout the week. In fact, the day with the highest number of fatality accidents was

Drunk driving is a decreasing issue in the United States. However, to keep minimizing the problem the punishments need to be made harsher. “The aggressive enforcement of drunk driving laws, say many analysts, is an effective tool in reducing the number of driving fatalities and injuries,” (Drunk Driving, 1). In the United States, drunk driving claimed the lives of 10,839 people in 2009. (Drunk Driving, 1). Drunk driving should have harsher punishments because they are endangering their own lives, others’ lives, and the victim’s loved ones.

Drinking and Driving has been around just as long as drugs have, yet drunk driving takes more lives than drugs do per year. Last year in 2014, 9967 people were killed in car crashes. There was 3464 cocaine related deaths during the same period. Stricter drinking and driving laws were only put into law after the Carollton bus disaster happened. In 1988 a drunk driver driving the wrong way in Kentucky hit a school bus where 27 people died and dozens more were injured. In the aftermath, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was started and throughout the 80’s drunk driving became a hot topic. At that time alcohol related accidents totaled around 100,000 a year. Deaths related to illegal drug overdose, AIDS, or violence associated with the illegal drug trade totaled up to 21, 000 per year. Sentencing for drunk drivers typically only spend two days in jail the first time and up to ten days the second. Drunk driving carries a far greater risk of violent death than the use or sale of illegal drugs, but the social response to drunk driver’s generally emphasized keeping the person functional and in society, while attempting to respond to the dangerous behavior through treatment and counseling. People charged with drug offenses, are typically charged with felonies and sentenced to prison. At that time there were not first and second chances with a few days in jail like it was for drinking and driving. One of the main reasons for this disparity is that white men account for the majority of

In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in drunk driving incidents. Out of those people, 65% (6,515) were drivers, 27% (2,724) were passengers, and 8% (837) were non-passengers (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). Over half of those fatalities (67.1%) involved blood alcohol levels over .15% (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). The legal blood-alcohol content is .08%. Drunk driving caused 31% of deaths in car crashes in 2013 (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). In 2012, 402 people were killed by alcohol impairment in North Carolina (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). These numbers, though they seem astonishing, have been cut in half since 1991 (“Drunk Driving Statistics”). Even though the number of fatalities has been lowered, that number is not low enough. Most drunk drivers are repeat offenders. Lives are being taken because of the careless attitude of the drunk drivers. Drunk driving is selfish; those who commit this crime do not think about the extreme consequences of their actions. In North America it is estimated that 1-5 drivers has been drinking and 1 in 10 is legally impaired on any Friday or Saturday night (Root). Many groups, including MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), are fighting to stop drunk driving. Unfortunately, drunk driving cannot be stopped. People will always commit this heinous crime. The numbers may go down, but unfortunately there will always be a number. The only way to continually decrease the amount of lives lost is to increase punishments for drunk driving.

How much longer will we be forced to endure the pain and atrocities due to the carelessness of drunk driving? Drunk driving has been a problem in the United States since the introduction of automobiles; however, it did not become an important social issue until the 1980’s. At that time the political atmosphere defined crime in terms of personal choice and individual responsibility. Drunk driving was defined as a problem located within individuals. Drunk driving is illegal in every state. It is not only illegal, but unsafe to operate an automobile if you are under the influence of alcohol.

Blue laws are laws that regulate business on holy days like Sunday. Sunday is the day to go to church and worship God. In some business, you were not allowed to buy cars, liquor and alcohol. This begins in the 17th century, which outlawed drunkenness and other activities that are not related to church. This movement was to let less people to get drunk.