“So if drinkers and druggers bought insurance that would recompense the victims of drunk or drugged crimes, or their next of kin, that would satisfy you? Or is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a drugged person than beneath the wheels of a Sunday driver? “
It would help. But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired. Whether they are impaired from alcohol, pot, or speed.
One can drive unimpaired after a glass or two of wine. But not after getting drunk, or high, or impaired, whatever you want to call it.
Your continual effort to equate light alcohol use with the use of marijuana, coke, meth, whatever is wearying.
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said.
I support the illegality of drunkenness. Not of casual drinking. There is a big difference, although you don’t seem to want to see it.
It would help.
Not the question. Again: would that satisfy you?
But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I'm talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn't have happened if the car wasn't on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said in post #258, to which you haven't responded:
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do;
Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure.
save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do;
I've done it myself in the past - so again you FAIL.