In case no one else has said it:
‘Attempted’ murder. what sort of charge is that? </Sideshow Bob>
I know—I’m just saying on the MADD cite, their top link on the stats page is about “alcohol-impaired” driving—they don’t seem to be “pushing” the related stat to me.
Is that so? Do you have some evidence MADD supports prohibition?
Well for starters they were instrumental in getting the drinking age raised to 21. That is pretty much prohibition for adults aged 18-20.
There are numeral other crazy things they have pushed for over the years that have nothing to with stopping people drinking and driving, and everything to do with stopping people drinking.
Of course the OPer would agree with that, if you don’t drink you are infinitely less likely to kill someone in a drunken accident, irregardless of whether you drive or not 
Well not that specific link, but in several other places, that website references “Alcohol-related crashes,” attached to links that don’t work. The rest is largely, “Oh nos!!1! Teenagers have access to alcohol!”
I shant hijack this any further with my anti-MADD ramblings.
I do think driving drunk should be a crime. I think anytime when someone makes a conscious decision to drive a 2,500 lb steel cage down the road while dramatically increasing the chances of an accident, that someone needs to be shot then pissed on. That goes for you drunky, and you text-messaging-while-driving-y, and you too Mister I-know-I’m-tired-but-I’ll-be-fine.
I will say this: I don’t understand why specifically drinking and driving has become The Great Evil. There are people (by which I mean MADD) that don’t even believe anyone should be able to have a beer at the game then drive home. Nobody is even drunk or even impaired from one beer, let alone that $8.00 Michelob Light shit they sell at the stadium. But that’s another digression that has nothing to do with my point.
Here’s what I’m getting at - For the more reasonable among us, I will say if given the choice between loading all of my loved ones into a vehicle driven by a good driver who has had three Scotches, or driven by me when not wearing my glasses, I’d gladly hand them over to the three Scotch guy. I can’t see for shit. And if we decided to split the group up, and both Scotchy and I crashed, I certainly shouldn’t be treated any more lightly than he. We were both knowingly reckless, and should be punished. I don’t give two shits if his recklessness was due to booze, and mine was because I thought I looked cuter without my glasses.
When I was a teenager my best friend and I were always able to score beer at many places even though it would have been obvious to Mister Magoo that we were underage. I have to assume the clerks in those stores were either plain stupid or didn’t give a shit.
I don’t know a lot about MADD, but then, being in my mid 40’s, the legal drinking age where I grew up turned to 21 AFTER my 18th birthday. So I was still legally allowed to buy alcohol before I turned 21.
I think most of us agree that drunk driving is a dumb thing to do and that drunk drivers should be punished whether they have or cause an accident or not. I’m kinda with ya on the texting thing too. I don’t see it as much as I see people talking on a cel phone while driving though. Who would actually try to text while operating a motor vehicle? Thats so dangerously stupid I think you’d pretty much have to be drunk to attempt it.
Personally I don’t think the police enforce the cell phone thing enough. I see it all of the time. But then I’m one of them old grouches that would pay money to see the cops heavily fine the ***“drive-around-with-my-15000-gigawatt-stereo system-blaring-some-obnoxious-bass-filled-music”. ***I won’t say more on that because I hate those annoying, inconsiderate dipshits.
That’ll never happen. I don’t even go to sporting events, but I’m guessing the PTB wouldn’t want to chance losing out on the cash flow that comes from selling beer at games.
Depends on the person, I’d say. A large person can handle more of those 8 dollar beers than a smaller person. I can drink a few cans of bud and still function reasonably well. (I wouldn’t drive after drinking, and yeah, I’m not going to be juggling or anything, but I can still walk and talk withpout really slurring.) But even 1 or 2 of the german beers I used to buy whilst living in Germany could put me down pretty fast.
I’d call a cab. I can always come back for my car tomorrow. Shit theres a service around here at Fort Bragg where they’ll pick you up, take you home and have someone drive your car home for you! I am not sure how much it costs, but its gotta be cheaper than a DUI. When you add to that EVERY freaking unit has a Staff Duty Driver that will pick you up for free, a unit fund that will pay for a cab if needed and a support chain of people that will get you home its a wonder that some assholes still go out to the clubs, get wasted and then get in an accident or arrested for DUIs at a ridiculous rate. Believe me, a DUI in the military can be a career ender.
Sorry for my own hijack here, folks.
I saw an ad in a bar in Portland, Maine for a service like that. They had a very reasonable rate, too, though I don’t remember what it was. It’s a brilliant bloody idea.
Someone’s never been on a road trip. No wonder you’re cranky.
I’d call a cab too, whether because I’ve found myself schnockered or because I dropped a contact lens and couldn’t see. I try to make a habit of not needlessly endangering other people. Cabbing, then taking a bus back to your car may be more of a hassle, we’re all grown ups here. Deal with it.
We had a similar car-driving service in LA, and have one out here in Mpls too. I think a lot of cities realize what a good and profitable idea this is. In my experiences, the rates are nearly identical to cab fare, but there is a very minimal convenience tax. Well worth it.
So back to Three Scotch and me… If we both crashed our cars, he’d be rammed up the ass (probably literally) for his offense, and would be barred from several professions. I’m not sure what would happen to me, but I’m fairly certain it would be less severe than a DUI. Why is that? Seriously, a good driver who has been drinking is far safer than me (who I’d like to think is a good driver) trying to get anywhere without my glasses/contacts. If I tried driving without them, that would be a major, reckless dick-move. I really don’t care what specific act of dickery you’re engaged in when causing accidents, or needlessly increasing the likelihood of an accident.
The problem is a lack of common ground. Some people are happy to have the State regulate their lives, considering it a small price to pay for the ability to dictate what other people also can’t do. Their personal needs fall easily within the bounds set by the State, and either no one they care about falls outside those bounds either, or there’s no one they really care about. On the other hand, I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I am an anarchist, that I believe in personal responsibility, and that I consider the State to be a terrible evil. Both I, and those I care about, have been harmed and are continuing to be harmed by the State and its legal enforcers.
I can’t have my personal freedom while they have their State. They can’t live in a community where others are forced to abide by a rigid set of external morals while I have my freedom. Our goals and desires are mutually exclusive, and there will never be agreement on this issue – as with many others.
I’m pretty sure you’d be facing a similar charge. There some charges that are specific to being intoxicated, but if you disobey medical instructions in the way you are describing you’ll be facing a vehicular manslaughter charge just like the drunk guy.
My issue is MADD is not that they are adamantly against drunk driving, I mean they are an anti-drunk-driving pressure group, they should get fired if they weren’t. Its that they have LONG since crossed the line from being against drink driving to being against drinking period. The two things are not the same, they are showing the same kind of the logic the OP is showing.
In fact in cases like this, the two things are completely at odds. I realize 10 drinks seems a bit over the top, but the concept is a sound one, if you give grads a place where they can drink and make sure they don’t drive, then you are clearly reducing the risk of DUI accidents.
My beef with MADD is the same as yours. Their own mission statement has even morphed into some BS about stopping underage drinking. Whatever you think about underage drinking, what the hell does that have to do with drunk driving? And every time someone brings up how absurd the 21+ drinking age is and suggests it be lowered to 18, they foam at the mouths with ludicrous claims of the inevitable societal crumbling it would cause. Their own freakin’ founder left because MADD is run by a bunch of clowns. Dry Agent clowns, no less.
Seriously, I’m done with the MADD ranting (at least in this thread).
Whether or not you kill someone when you drive is not a matter of random chance, like spinning a chamber or a roulette wheel. It depends on the thousands of choices you and other drivers make as you go about your drive.
Unless you’re living the life of an Amish person, your lifestyle probably requires that other people drive, from the bus driver who provides you with public transportation to the trucker who brings food to the area where you live. And while driving may not be strictly necessary for survival, it does provide very real benefits and enable me to do things I otherwise wouldn’t be able to do. The benefits of sober driving far outweigh the risks. The benefits of driving drunk? Not so much.
I think this particular drunk driver is a straw man. If all drunk drivers drove slowly and carefully on little-travelled back streets, it wouldn’t be an issue.
Here in Ontario, one brave woman dared to bare her breasts in public and fought all the way to the Ontario Supreme Court – and won. It was declared that a law which forced women to cover their breasts but did not so bar men was unconstitutional. Conservatives and the corporate media went into hysterics, claiming that naked-chested women would prove such a distraction that drivers would be piling up by the thousands. It would be Ragnarok on the roads, with flaming wrecks as far as the eye could see. Many municipalities acted quickly to pass by-laws against baring of naked woman-boobies so as to curtail this genocide.
It’s yet more evidence that the “PERTECK TH’ CHILLUNZ!” battlecry is just a cover for the garden-variety prudes and Puritans who have always infested society.
*
“The Puritan hated bear baiting; not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”* – Thomas Babington Macaulay
Wonderful. If you ever find a planet where everyone is personally responsible all the time, I’m sure your philosophy will work just great. On this one, where people drive drunk because they can’t see the risk they pose to the innocent, or don’t care, it doesn’t work too well. You should be arguing with those who first set up a society of rules and laws, somewhere over 6,000 years ago.
BTW, near me a drunk driver rammed into a building, and got most of the way through a room. I don’t remember if anyone was hurt, but you might not even be safe in your bed from these losers.
You’ve also made a whole lot of shitty arguments.
I see from your posts you’re in Canada. I don’t know too much about the DUI laws there, but I’m guessing they are similar to the ones in the USA. Whatever else “The State” or “The Crown” or whatever you call it has done to piss you off is kinda irrrelavent to the fact that DUI laws serve a purpose…one that you have not logically refuted yet.
Thats a pretty broad brush to paint most of EVERYONE else with. Especially since you can’t possibly know everyone else in “The State”, let alone this board.
I’d almost asky how you and you’re loved ones were harmed. Taxes? Arrests? Black Helicopters? But it still doesn’t matter since “The State’s” DUI laws seem to be a good thing. With the exception of these threads here in the SDMB ( and only a few posters on that side of the fence, at that) and occassionally a person who was busted for a DUI I haven’t seen too many people call for the laws to be overturned.
I had no idea Canada was so oppressive. All of my Canadian friends seem to like it. My Canadian uncle (in law) invited me and my wife to visit him soon. He didn’t mention how I’d have to surrender my personal freedom.
So in a nutshell you’re saying you don’t drive…I’m assuming because it would require you to agree with the “The State’s” rules…but if you did, it would be wrong for the state to enforce a law that punishes people for drinking and driving. Even though you haven’t presented a logical reason for that stance, except it would somehow inhibit your freedom if you couldn’t get b;lasted and roll around in a 2 ton wheeled battering ram.
Are you taking this stance solelyt because it is contrary to “the State” or did I miss something?
You know, I kinda wish women walked around bearing their breasts, too. But if the law makers prevented it I wouldn’t be pissed enough to drink a bottle of gin and drive, or tear up my license because “The State” ruined my chance to see titties. (not that I need their help to do that)
I’m pretty sure if I fished around I could find a law I don’t like…hmmm…yeah…why do I have to pay for a freaking fishing license? I mean, geez, I live here, why can’t I fish here for free?
Um…no…not even that bugs me that much. Plus, fishing, like women’s knockers, have little to do with DUIs.* (Well, I could probably make a connection between knockers and DUIs…)*
Good God man, get thee to Somali before law and order is established. Your personal paradise awaits you!
Yet their argument pretty much the same as yours. Yours was…
Driving alone is risky, Drinking and driving only adds to that risk, so if we ban drinking and driving, we should also ban driving.
Theirs amounts to (in practice at least their stated aims are somewhat different):
Drinking alone is risky, Drinking and driving only adds to that risk, so if we ban drinking and driving, we should also ban drinking.
You should welcome them as them as a ideological brethren.