[londons_explore]

Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the interlock for life.

Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is clearly a worse outcome.

[ryandrake]

You can get a DUI without drinking[1][2], and you can get a DUI without driving[3].

1: https://www.duilexington.com/blog/2020/september/can-you-be-...

2: https://www.carscoops.com/2026/01/tennessee-highway-patrol-s...

3: https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/can-you-get-a-...

[MisterTea]

> Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction....

No it is not.

[FireBeyond]

Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is.

You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.

[Ntrails]

Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.

On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).

[cwmoore]

As long as bars still have parking lots and there are sin taxes, it’s another state-sponsored racket.

[fragmede]

How is that not alcoholism?

[astura]

Having 2-3 drinks on a Friday night is "alcoholism?"

[rkomorn]

2-3 drinks on a Friday night isn't.

2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.

[FireBeyond]

"intoxication", not "had a drink"

[MisterTea]

The wording used did not indicate they were taking about a repeat offender.