[chmod775]

If they set their own place on fire, they're also homeless. Just as self-inflicted, but significantly less dangerous to third parties than driving drunk.

Driving while drunk is not a silly little mistake. A third of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers. Letting these people drive at all even with a breathalyzer is an abomination. You can expect them to have a similar disregard for other fundamentals of safe driving.

[array_key_first]

I'm not commenting on the morality of drunk driving. I'm commenting on the effectiveness of just fucking them over, that being, not effective at all.

There's this thing in the mainstream where people feel like the best way to handle people doing bad things is to just pummel them into the ground as much as possible.

While that might feel the most justified, that doesn't actually solve the problem. Suspending licenses doesn't stop drunk people from driving, because cars are more or less a necessity.

So, knowing it's a necessity, we have to design the car around that and enforce safe operation by an alcoholic.

Which is a stop-gap solution. A better solution is making cars not a necessity. But until then, we should do the stop-gap.

[KumaBear]

Stop-gap is restricting the driving to work schedule then. Everything else is optional and you can learn to work within that system. We try to put up industrial solutions to everything. Why not keep the laws cut and dry. This action = this consequence. You determine your actions you must accept x consequence. Or better yet jail time for 6 months then you will be fed and you will lose everything. There are options

[AlotOfReading]

That's how the legal system worked a couple centuries ago. You might be familiar with some of the literature written about it, like Les Misérables. I don't know about you, but returning to the world of 18th century French penal codes sounds pretty dystopian.