Well, in this case because drunks keep murdering people.

If you're drink driving you are not mature enough to drive and therefore you should lose your license. Simple.

I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.

▲

bilekas 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't see why the government should babysit you and drive you around because you drank and drove. Driving is a privilege not a right.

	▲	Spivak 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost. Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.