Posted on 08/07/2007 4:59:35 PM PDT by rellimpank
As for the first category, I think it's been amply pointed out that addicts are not the worst danger on the road. They should be caught and penalized, but we shouldn't lose perspective of what the real risks are. The denial in the addicts that you point out is amply present in the perpetrators and defenders of worse types of negligence.
Wow, a photographic assault. I don’t get many of those.
I’m honored you’d go to such bother.
Thanks.
You're welcome. Wear the badge and label with pride.
Thanks for your reasoned reply.
Yes, I had 100’s of hours leading alcohol etc. groups—usually with an AAA partner.
You said:
As for the first category, I think it’s been amply pointed out that addicts are not the worst danger on the road. They should be caught and penalized, but we shouldn’t lose perspective of what the real risks are. The denial in the addicts that you point out is amply present in the perpetrators and defenders of worse types of negligence.
= = = =
I disagree. The last I read the stats on such . . . alcohol IS the worse cause of the worst road accidents in severity as well as frequency, raw numbers killed, maimed etc.
Yes, anger and sleepiness are also serious problems as increasingly are cell phones. But alcohol still has all of them beat—probably combined.
There are no worse types of dangers in terms of raw numbers etc. I suppose you could call terrorists worse or psychotics with guns on the free way shooting willy nilly—but those are not very common, yet. Alcohol still has them beat in numbers and brutality.
Innocent children burning slowly to death trapped in a vehicle is not a pretty site. It’s not a pretty smell. It’s not a pretty memory. It’s not a comforting thought. It’s not justifiable as
a Bill of Rights protected RIGHT TO RECREATIONAL MAYHEM, DEATH AND DESTRUCTION.
As for the statistics, no doubt that they aren't good for drunken driving although there are legitimate concerns about how the statistics are taken. I think that the argument over statistics can be put aside if we can deal with all the impaired drivers a little more rigorously and uniformly.
The BOR doesn't protect any particular activity, only the presumption of innocence and freedom from random intrusive searches. Doesn't at all mean that you are innocent if you get behind the wheel drunk even for a block. Nor does it mean you can't be noninstrusively searched or monitored.
only the presumption of innocence and freedom from random intrusive searches
= = =
I certainly prefer protecting those standards fairly intensely and comprehensively.
Yes, all impaired drivers need their due attention.
However, it is still a fact that alcohol is a fairly unique impairment.
I agree that many folks are addicted to their cell phones. And there is serious impairment when they drive . . .
But I don’t think cell phones cause raging husbands to beat their wives and kids . . . unless maybe the wife or kids never get off the durn things! LOL.
And, I wonder . . . what’s the stats on the relative seriousness of accidents with cell phones. Are they truly equal to the seriousness caused by alcohol abuse? I’m a little skeptical that they are. They don’t really physiologically internally to the organ system slow reaction times; degrade vision; put judgment centers in the brain to sleep.
Certainly they do hinder perceptiveness and reacting quickly and responsibly in serious ways.
An interesting question.
Big Macs and Quarter Pounders as well. They can make you content and sleepy, and people eat them while DRIVING!
I think I missed the memo . . .
When did it become in-vogue to . . . uhhhh . . .
advertise one’s relative lack of awareness of the serious facts of alcoholism?
Was it just this year? Last year? The last 6 months? I really don’t know. I confess it’s a bit shockingly disturbing to my sensibilities.
I think I’d assumed that everyone with more than a 9th grade education had been educated about such basic facts of alcoholism and alcohol impairment. There I go again, getting in trouble for assuming.
I mean . . . it’s one thing to DENY them . . . but it’s quite another level of a problem to have never been informed of them.
I realize EDUCATION really doesn’t make a huge dent in the alcohol problem. But it far from hurts. It can at least decrease the number of clueless women who go all gah-gah for an alcoholic boy-friend.
Wheee, I’m pinging you here for two reasons, neither of which is inherently nefarious I assure you:
1. I’m not sure if you’ve met Quix already or have corresponded directly on FR, but I thought you should meet. You would be best friends.
2. Curiosity has gotten the best of me and I’m really sincerely interested to know what you think of this mandatory ignition breathalyzer idea.
1776 in this country. Still hasn't happened in others.
Damn, you are ignorant! I never said anyone had any kind of right to drive drunk. I’m sorry your reading comprehension skills are so weak, as is your understand of rights, but you really should stop with your erroneousclaims. You are a flat out liar on top of your follish ignorance.
Hit abuse, I’ve said nothing wrong. It’s you i could hit abuse of for your flat out lies, fool.
I know internet gambling is a crime and I don’t want to get arrested, but I’ll bet you $200 that this thread gets thrown into the “smokey backroom” before sunrise.
Are you in?
YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW FOOLISH YOU LOOK ON A CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE
Only if I win if it does get to the SB within the timeframe stated.
Drop the alcoholism crap, that is NOT the issue at hand, civil liberties is the issue you would like to trample.
Hey, good for you you are aware of your own problems, well, as far as your own alcoholism goes, and seem to have a good handle on it. What’s the most recenyt chip you’ve earned?
Oh man, that is the winner post of the thread! Congrats, threads over!
In case someone gets a flat tire or their battery dies, right?
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.