Replies

"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."

---Which explains why it took you so long to admit you made the comparison. We haven't really come to that yet.

"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."

---Actually, no, my logic was that most drunk drivers don't actually cause anyone else to be hurt or killed, and I would bet that the most likely victim of drunk driving is the drunk himself. So following my logic--and I'll try to make it clearer for you--the average 'victim' of drunk driving isn't anyone, because the average drunk hurts nobody at all. That doesn't mean they aren't dangerous but the point is that you mean to compare terrorists to drunk drivers, and one is clearly far more dangerous to people than the other.

"My arguments are valid because they are true sir."

---Do you really think this is anything more than a tautology? Am I supposed to go, "oh, YEAH, he's right because his arguments are TRUE!?!?!" I would bet dollars to donuts you haven't any idea what a valid argument IS.

"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 I just did in the post below, dumbass? You really ought to use that preview button. And you really ought to consider that I'm proposing specifics that SHOULD be, not shouldn't.

"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."

---But see, you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with them. And you fail to refute my point, which is that there are much better ways to stop drunk driving than lowering the bac to a ridiculous one-drink level.

"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'm against that. I think the laws that we use on drug purchasers who are driving through ghetto hoods trying to score would be used to better effect on drunk drivers. Take their cars. Work permits are simply letting them stay on the road to really cause harm eventually. Letting them keep a car at all does the same thing.

"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?"

---Who said they shouldn't pay? I just say that if we're going to change the law, it should STOP them from drinking and driving while impaired, not stop people from drinking a beer and driving home. It shouldn't stop everyone who wants a beer after work, or bust everyone who owns a bar and serves a single beer for getting people 'drunk.'

"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."

---Well, DUH. I understand the system. And yes, the BAC is a number that 'removes' the argument, but do you really think juries will convict people for 'drunk driving' when the BAC that's illegal is equivalent to having drunk a single beer? I think you are simply setting the system up to lose even more than it does now. How many more driveaway, work-permit DUI convicts do there have to be before you see the system isn't stopping drunk driving but is simply creating more "drunk drivers," who will all too often drive without a license or insurance that will NOT pay as you wish?

"I do not advocate making illegal to drink. This is where you omit something in attempt to justify drinking and DRIVING."

---You DO, or you wouldn't be backing what this article advocates. And I'm not justifying drinking and driving--I'm advocating laws that stop IMPAIRED driving, not create a stupid hassle for everyone on the road that's had a single beer.

"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."

---But if driving is the issue why is the BAC a problem? Why not just make it illegal to be a drunk driver? Oh, wait, already done! No, the issue here is PRIMARILY a WCTU one. The MADD crowd would prefer to illegalize drinking anywhere outside the drinker's home, and ideally, not even there.

"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?"

---You're out of your mind. The differences are staggering. You're not advocating people being stopped for simply being drunk. You're advocating people being arrested for having a beer before they drive. Not being drunk--having a beer. The 'tired driving' laws and the 'no-drink-and-fly' laws, all go to stop IMPAIRED driving and flying. What's advocated here does not stop impaired driving. It goes simply to not having a drink AT ALL and then driving. And that would shutter bars all over the country.