"Funny you should say that cuz you arer talking to one right now. ARE you listening?"
---I have been listening, but you haven't had much to say besides how anyone who's against your point of view is a terrorist. I said the AVERAGE 'victim' of a drunk driver. And my point was that the average drunk driver doesn't have a victim, because I'd put money on most drunk drivers making it home fine. That doesn't mean I approve of drunk driving, or that I approve of your preaching as if your victim status should accord your lame 'arguments' more validity. I think drunk driving ought to be punished in a way that specifically stops drunk driving. Not with license revocations and checkpoints on highways. How about checkpoints in front of BARS, for example? Or simply requiring places that legally sell alcohol to confirm the legality of their drinkers on the way out they way they must confirm them on the way in?
"Many that are caught go off scott free too. I see a problem with that, do You?"
---It depends on why. But if you commit the crime, generally, you should be punished for it in a way that prevents recidivism. Not 'rehabilitated.' Punished.
"That is exactly why you see BAC's going down and down people aren't listening quite yet."
---That's right, some of you are not listening. Because lowering BACs ain't working. It's just putting more 'drunks' out on the street and making police more likely to arrest people whose actual impairment is questionable. When you make it illegal to drink at all, you simply annoy legal drinkers and make them more likely to be lawbreakers, because the laws are simply easily broken.
Prohibition didn't work the first time, either.
"but you haven't had much to say besides how anyone who's against your point of view is a terrorist."
That isn't what I said at all, you stretch and twist there.
Schumer would be proud.
I made a comparison and it is accurate.
"I'd put money on most drunk drivers making it home fine."
Most terrorists that set off roadside bombs (unless suicide bombers of course) make it home to, so I guess their actions are ok eh? That is your logic.
"That doesn't mean I approve of drunk driving, or that I approve of your preaching as if your victim status should accord your lame 'arguments' more validity."
My arguments are valid because they are true sir.
" I think drunk driving ought to be punished in a way that specifically stops drunk driving."
AND THEY WOULD BE??? I notice that you say in general what they should be and then swith to specifics that should NOT be. How about you offer some what SHOULD be's?
"How about checkpoints in front of BARS, for example?Or simply requiring places that legally sell alcohol to confirm the legality of their drinkers on the way out they way they must confirm them on the way in?
"
Here an idea was floated to put BAC machines in bars for the public to police themselves. Guess which party members threw a fit and killed that Idea? The party of NO..the party that refuses to assign personal responsibiliy. The claim came of invasion of privacy, the very same argument made against checkpoints.
"It depends on why. "
They get off because the punishments aren't really there in strength to make them actually be punished. Some sommunity service, some 'counsiling' and a fine, maybe even a few months without a license, if you couyld call it that, as they get work permits and drive anyway.
I hear the arguments made about augmenting budgets and to a point I agree but much of the funds collected go to places like the victims compensation fund. I would also ask you to think about the people hurt or killed , who themselves or their families exit the capitolist arena and enter the socialist arena when their income is deleted as a result of the drunk drivers action. Food stamps, medicare even housing dollars are now the 'income' and the drunk driver is Why. Someone has to pay for this right? Why not a people that chose to drink and drive? Why shouldn't they have to pay?
"Because lowering BACs ain't working. It's just putting more 'drunks' out on the street and making police more likely to arrest people whose actual impairment is questionable. "
Impairment is questioned regardless of what the level is established at. This post has some of that contained within it. This is exactly WHY BAC as a limit is what is used as legal or not legal. It removes the impairment argument.
"When you make it illegal to drink at all, you simply annoy legal drinkers and make them more likely to be lawbreakers, because the laws are simply easily broken"
I do not advocate making illegal to drink. This is where you omit something in attempt to justify drinking and DRIVING. See, you omited the DRIVING part. This debate is not about drinking, it is about the Driving when you drink. You just tried to moit the driving part and make it about just drinking. This is something that many attempt to do. It fails when the real context is talked about. It is the driving that is the issue, not simply drinking.
This isn't about prohibition of alcohol. If you think it is, then I suppose you would to see pilots allowed to fly when they drink, I suppose you would like to see commercial truck drivers be allowed to drive when they drink. I suppose you would see logbooks for those folks go away so they could drive 36 hours straight too eh? (that goes to the tired arguement.....I didn't see anyone opposing that law as they do the .08 law. Funny how that is eh?