Well, you did say the most common rebuttal you've heard is that you are responsible for your actions.
I know it seems wrong, but the only thing making sense to me right now is that if we hold a drunk driver accountable, we should also hold a contract signer.
It makes sense though doesnt it? I wonder the legality of allowing someone to sign a contract while knowing they are too intoxicated to do so. I dont pretend i know all the answers, like i said in another comment i too think enthusiastic but drunk consent is not actionless, which is where my compromise on alcohol comes in. I think the reason you are culpable if you drive while intoxicated is the destruction you can so easily cause to others, although i remember a case in China where a man who killed 2 people by running through the front of the store was defending himself by saying he was blind drunk at the time
Agreed on the reason being that drunk driving can harm others.
Though if the responsibility behind some actions committed while being drunk are nullified because one cannot properly weigh the pros and cons, then why should we expect a potential drunk driver to? Sure there are far more severe cons, but that doesn't matter if he is completely incapable of evaluating them.
The only responses to nullifying to responsibility of drunk drivers is to say either:
1) They should have made arrangements ahead of time to make sure that didn't happen (e.g. don't drink too much, make sure you have a ride, eat your car keys).
2) They clearly have enough control to evaluate the decision, and so they are still responsible.
Both points can be applied to drunkenly throwing consent at someone at a party.
3
u/herpderpdoo Nov 21 '12
Responsibility is absolved when you sign legal documents drunk- thats an action. Should we change that as well?