[MuresanForMVP]

but I thought the problem was that someone could be killed? certainly that was a reasonable outcome given the nature of your action. So the issue here is not the "menace" drunk driving poses to society, rather it's that you're not "in control of your actions"? I haven't heard self-control applied as the reasoning for DUI laws, and I think you're grasping at straws.

So in conclusion- intentional vehicular assault=ok, because you knew what you were doing, and drinking and driving in any capacity= incomprehensible? You make a lot of sense man, I'm glad you don't have any position as a law enforcement agent or policy maker


edit:also, according to the standard or right and wrong that you presented, a cold-blooded murderer who makes a conscious,controlled decision to slice someone's throat is not as bad as a drunk driver for the simple fact that they were in control of their actions (according to the By-Tor standard of self-control)?