Scrap All Drink Driving Laws!

Libertarian Alliance News Release Friday the 2nd December 2011 Release Time: Immediate Contact: Dr Sean Gabb,, 07956 472 199

Scrap All Drink Driving Laws!

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group, today calls on the British Government to repeal all laws against drinking and driving. Drivers should be free to drink as much alcohol as they like before and while driving. The Police should be allowed to intervene only if a driver appears from his actions to be a danger to other road users, or if he causes an accident.

Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

“The current law on drinking and driving is a prior restraint law. It can only be enforced by indiscriminate stops and searches. Most of the drivers stopped are not driving erratically and do not test positive. This is a breach of the Common Law prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour.

“Moreover, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event.

“Much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company.

“If we want to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, drinking and driving should not in itself be a crime. It should be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away – and the authorities should have no power to stop this.
“Punishment should only come if a driver is so erratic that he is plainly dangerous or if an accident is caused. But it should then in this latter case be very severe punishment.

“In general, we believe in real punishments for real crimes. Unless a real crime can be shown, we believe in telling the police to mind their own business.”


Note(s) to Editors
Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. He is the author of over a dozen books and a million words of journalism. He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at

His latest novel, The Churchill Memorandum , asks what England and the world have been like in 1959 if there had been no Second World War. If you like Bulldog Drummond and Biggles and the early James Bond, this will be right up your street.

Or his book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back , explains how its current ruling class has turned England into a totatlitarian police state, and how this ruling class can be overthrown and utterly destroyed.

Or another of his books, Smoking, Class and the Legitimation of Power , explains how the current “war” on smoking has nothing to do with making individuals healthy, but everything to do with enhancing the power of a totalitarian ruling class, and enriching its relevant client groups.

You can see other books by Sean Gabb here .

Extended Contact Details
The Libertarian Alliance is Britain’s most radical free market and civil liberties policy institute. It has published over 800 articles, pamphlets and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms. These are freely available at
Our postal address is

The Libertarian Alliance Suite 35 2 Lansdowne Row Mayfair London W1J 6HL Tel: 07956 472 199

10 responses to “Scrap All Drink Driving Laws!

  1. Hip hip hooray – at last somebody else who can see the nonsense of our cultural wanton destruction caused by these unconstitutional and arbitrary-driven laws. Our culture of social intercourse has been totally and utterly wrecked through these absurd and damaging laws.
    Oh yes the authorities have done a great Fabian job of managing to condition people to go along with supporting these laws and effect knee-jerk reactions whenever anybody with an ounce of sense questions the legitimacy of these drink drive laws, and that is because people cannot see through this conditioning that the PC brigade have engendered into our society.

    Own up- how many of you think “this man is mad – of course we need these laws”. Well think again. Look at the damage our culture has been dealt. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of public houses and thereby our centuries old culture all because of the police. Especially out in the country. And where once upon a time these pubs performed a safety valve for those poorer members of society where they were helped with the odd financial contribution, nowadays these places have disappeared and the altruism of yesteryear has disappeared with it. Where is the legitmacy???

    And whenever anyone does happen to raise this question there will always be somebody who says that they know so and so and his daughter/mother/wife/son etc was killed by a “drink driver”. Well if anyone is found pragmatically (rather than some spurious and arbitrary blood alcohol level) to be incapable of driving and has a car crash, whether because they have had a drink, drugs or over-tired, then I would throw away the keys, not of their car, but of their cell. But there has to be some pragmatic test not just some arbitrary reason. If

    Not once has there been a rational investigation into these laws and their efficacy or legitimacy. I urge everyone to support Sean Gabb’s stand on this and demand of your MP that these useless and damaging laws are repealed, if only on the fact that they are unconstititutional (which on its own is surely enough reason!).

    Nick Chance

    [PS And while they are about it, WESTMINSTER should (if they can get their noses out of the expenses trough for a moment) also repeal the two worst laws ever passed: the seat belt law and the crash helmet law. These were the first time, (after suicide that is, which was eventually repealed) where the executive decided that we should have laws passed to save ourselves from ourselves. This is a totally appalling and illegitimate use of legislation since, of course, it then opens the door to any non-libertarian law on the grounds that it will save us/save money/ etc etc regardless of the fact that it destroys our liberty. THIS IS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND PARLIAMENT OVERSTEPPED THE MARK AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.]

  2. I couldn’t agree more!
    This increasing policy by several governments to rule us as opposed to fulfilling their elected task of governing us is becoming more and more draconian, and we must all stop it enslaving us .
    I can recall, even back in the 1960’s when it was most usual for persons to visit public houses, have a few drinks and smoke, in convivial company, then driving home.
    Undoubtably there were over the years a few accidents, but pro rata far fewer than we find happening on our roads and motorways since drink driving has been banned.
    It is obvious that the cause is not the car, not the drinking, but the competence of the driver that is the cause.Bad driving, congested roads,and driver’s impatience are the causation of road accidents.
    Perhaps to return to allowing vehicle drivers to once again enjoy a drink and a smoke in company of others in public houses would allow them to be less stressed, and in their more relaxed state, less impatient whilst behind the wheel of their vehicles, whereby far fewer accidents would occur.
    This “Nanny State”, interference, not only promotes stress, but removes the individuals ability to make Common sense decisions regarding their daily lives.
    John Bennett,Lincoln.

  3. Hmm, so we are all allowed to get pissed out of our heads and because we think we can drive like a rally driver we can do so and hope that we don’t mane or murder anyone in the process. Be capable of driving is relative to the individual. The more booze one has the less capable are they of being responsible for their actions. So stupidity and bravo take over. Most drunk driving cases are about being, guess what, being incapable of driving according to the rules of the road -like driving on the correct side of the road and or being aware that at 60 miles per hour you have no hope of missing the person crossing the road as you hazily go through the red lights. But hey life is cheap no?

  4. It should be maim not mane. My spelling and typo mistake!

  5. At last. These prophylactic laws, which make something illegal in case someone does something imcorrect, including smoking in open spaces, have caught on with legistaures far too widely. I was stopped by a Canadian policeman from drinking a beer on the beach, for goodness sake. If we had no speed limits at all, 98.53% of the population would drive as they do currently. Enough.

  6. I had smile at jeremy maconogh’s comment. So we do not need a law to ban murder for instance, as it is a law ensuring someone does not do something that is incorrect. I am aware that the majority of people find murder an incorrect thing to do, but with out a law making it illegal some people might reason it is a correct and therefore for them a legal thing to do.

    Yes I know most people are law abiding citizens, note the word, law abiding. If you have no prohibitive laws on the grounds that it is only about making something illegal in case someone does something incorrect – who defines and upholds the notion of correct? So in this new state of affairs what happens when a drunk driver murders someone – they get put away for what? Murder is not a sanction prohibitive act. Driving carelessly then? Ah but no laws abound in this new state because most laws are about making something illegal in case someone does something incorrect.

  7. If you kill someone drunk driving then the charge is murder. I have no problem with death being meted out for such a charge. Not however by the state or its grisly agents.
    So perp handed over to the victims relatives for disposal as they see fit. Only way out for perp would be to call a judicial duel(everybody should have the option to die fighting). If victims relatives are elderly etc they can pick a champion but the perp must fight his own corner regardless. Only other option would be for perp to pay blood-money but many families etc would not be willing to accept that.

  8. A few years ago, Auberon Waugh checked and confirmed thet broad satistic that about 70% of “deaths from drunk driving” were actually drunk pedestrians and cyclists falling over in the paths of vehicles unable to take evasive action in time. Could someone recheck this?

  9. I have to say I was initially very critical of this post, and to be truthful I still have some reservations. But having gone to the DfT website and looked at the statistics, I am a surprised by what I found. The police do seem to put a lot of effort (that’s time, money, resources) into finding that most drivers are under the drink drive limit. My concern was the appearance of advocating drink-driving, which I guess you’re not doing. Whether drink-driving should be an offence or not is also not clear cut. I’ll set out some thoughts…

    • This is one of the more thought out responses to Sean Gabb’s statement. You are quite right Derek, a critique of a law does not mean one is advocating the behaviour that the law is prohibiting – in this case drinking and driving. If figures show massive reductions in drink driving cases from minor to tragic because of prohibition, does it follow that without the law the results would have been the same, less or worse? I know libertarians see any legal prohibition other than individual aggressive coercion against another and his property so the law would be used to convict someone of the driving offense once an offense has been committed. The proponents of the law would point to prevention is better than cure and that such a preventative method is for the good of the many at the expense of a few.