When an individual is coerced or forced to perform an action, then that individual is not responsible for that action, because that individual has been influenced by outside forces that the individual had no control over and could not do otherwise. If a person has a mental disorder or a recent head trauma, we do not hold them responsible for their actions, again because they are being influenced by something that causes them to act other than they normally would or how another rational individual would normally act. These seem to be some of the rules our society has concerning the fantasy of "responsibility." If these are acceptable "outs" of responsibility, then why also is it not an "out" when an individual is under the influence of alcohol? Let us first see what effects alcohol has on an individual, before answering that question. From Jefferson College of Health Services, a chart has been made as to the effects alcohol has on an individual. This is evaluated by an individuals "blood alcohol level" (BAL). To determine how much alcohol an individual consumes as to what their BAL is, this calculator will give an estimate.
0.02 - 0.03% - Coordination intact, slight euphoria, and loss of shyness. Depressant
effects are not apparent.
0.04 - 0.06% - Feeling of well-being, relaxation, lower inhibitions, and a sensation of
warmth. Euphoria. Some minor impairments of resoning and
memory, lowering of caution.
0.07 - 0.09% - Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and
hearing. Euphoria. Judgement and self control are reduced, and
caution, reason, and memory are impaired.
0.10 - 0.12% - Significant impairment of motore coordination and loss of good
judgement. Speech may be slurred; balance, vision, reaction time, and
hearing will be impaired. Euphoria.
0.13 - 0.15% - Gross motor impairment and lack of physical control. Blurred vision
and major loss of balance. Euphoria is decreasing, while dysphoria is
beginning to appear.
0.16 - 0.20% - Dysphoria predominates, nausea may appear. The drinker has the
appearence of a "sloppy drunk."
0.25% - Needs assistance in walking; total mental confusion; Dysphoria with nausea
and some vomiting.
0.30% - Loss of consciousness.
0.40% or higher - Onset of a coma, possible death due to respiratory arrest. (2007).
When looking at the chart we notice that starting with the lowest percentages that euphoria is starting and continues onward until the loss of consciousness. What euphoria does to an individual besides making them seem happier, is gives them the feeling that they are capable of doing almost anything. Since it is at the onset of drinking, it is quite probable that this may have influence over an individual to possibly drink more and to think that they are able to drive. Normally this same individual, when sober, knows that one should not drive when one has been drinking. But, since the effects of alcohol take effect on him/her, they begin to think differently, their judgment is altered, their memory is affected, and then their physical attributes begin to decline. Though, when one is drunk, one is unaware of these impairments.
The argument that states that one should be held responsible when drinking refers to the fact that the individual made the choice to drink when they were sober. Thus, they conclude, since they are responsible for choosing to drink, they ought to be responsible for everything they do after they are drunk, even though they are not the same rational being that they are when they are sober. This argument seems very weak. For one ought to be only held responsible for actions they perform when they are not under the influence of anything. Because a person chooses to drive to work, we do not hold them responsible if a person jumps in their car at a stop light, puts a gun to their head and makes them run over a little old lady crossing the street. We say that the person with the gun is responsible. Why can we not say that the alcohol is responsible in the case of the drunk? Probably because by putting the responsibility of an action on alcohol (even though it is the cause of the person acting the way in which they did) would lead to the outlaw of alcohol again. That ought to still be a choice for our society, if we do not want irrresponsible individuals in our society, then we ought to outlaw alcohol, not persecute every individual that drinks.
This should show that there is some contradiction working within our values and beliefs. We should not hold drunk drivers more responsible for their actions than we do others in similar circumstances. Another example of this is the warning label on some cold medicines that one should not drive when under its influence. If an individual does drive while using cold medicine and is in an accident, they are not charged with anything other than the accident. There is no law against cold medicine and driving, yet the same outcome as alcohol may happen. We ought to only hold a drunk driver responsible for the accident they committed and not add the extra charge of "drinking and driving" if we are going to continue to allow alcohol to be legal in this country. Paris Hilton did not have an accident, nor did she harm anyone, the fact that she had consumed alcohol, should not have been an additional charge. To do otherwise is unjust and not universal. If this is a country that is "just" and universally applies its laws, then the drinking and driving laws must be removed.
Since these opposing "truths" exist, it reveals that the fantasy of "responsibility" may not be true in all cases. Also, since some of these examples seem logical, it may be the case that it is time for the fantasy of "responsibility" on drunk drivers needs to be adjusted.