Posted on 11/10/2004 9:26:19 AM PST by skellmeyer
Americans. We willingly accept a level of risk in one area that we find horrific in another. Take, for instance, the risk posed by alcohol or cigarettes. Fifty years ago, alcohol and cigarettes were fairly innocuous diversions. Hollywood showed the good guys smoking and drinking throughout the course of nearly every movie. A drunk behind the wheel was high comedy. On the other hand, the industry that embraced a drink and a smoke forbad any scene where a man and a woman shared a bed.
Times change. Now, movie plot devices have flipped. Martinis and cigarettes are out. Casual sex is in. We've made progress, right?
Well, let’s see. Grab a calculator and a copy of any United States statistical abstract published in the last thirty years. Now, turn to the section on law enforcement. Write down the number of people ticketed for driving under the influence. In the year 2000, for instance, that number would be 915,900. Now, in the section on transportation, find the number of fatal accidents: 37,409: forty percent of these, or 14,963, involved alcohol. So, what percentage of drunk drivers were involved in a fatal accident? Divide the second number by the first: 1.6%. Here's the funny thing. It doesn’t matter what year you choose. In any given year, between one and two percent of drunk drivers are involved in fatal accidents. This is considered very dangerous.
(Excerpt) Read more at bridegroompress.com ...
BTTT
It's amazing to see the level of ignorant drivel being published these days. I'm not quite sure what point the scatter-brained author is trying to make here. It's a very simplistic view point of two very serious and far reaching subjects for a website that is not even related to the article subject matter.
I think the author must have gotten an STD while driving drunk.
Reality is harsh, ain't it?
An essay on windmill-tilting, in my opinion.
DUI Gulag, Responsibility in DUI Laws, and Get MADD.
The common thread in all of these sites is the fact that MADD is dedicated more and more towards a re-imposition of Prohibition, and less towards its original mission of getting drunk drivers off the road. IMO, the influence of MADD over our legislators poses more of a threat to the liberty of the average American citizen than any anti-terrorism laws (i.e. the Patriot act) ever could.
No, it's actually an essay pointing out that if we outlaw drunk driving because of its dangers, we should likewise re-instate the Comstock laws and outlaw contraception because of its dangers.
How many windmills have you ever tilted?
Not nearly enough...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.