Skip to comments.
Science Group Calls for a National Crackdown on Booze to Achieve 'Zero' DUI Deaths
Reason Magazine ^
Posted on 01/27/2018 7:20:45 AM PST by JP1201
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 last
To: JP1201
and yet, they push marijuana...
I suspect most people accredited with causing accidents because of alcohol use also have ingested/smoked weed.....
61
posted on
01/27/2018 11:34:25 AM PST
by
cherry
To: RatRipper
At best things can only be be idiot resistant, as total idiots are very resourceful
62
posted on
01/27/2018 12:08:45 PM PST
by
The Great RJ
("Socialists are happy until they run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher)
To: AlaskaErik
There was no internet in the 1920s, but people could go to the public library and find books which explained how to make alcohol.
My grandfather made wine in his basement during Prohibition. He didn't learn how from the internet.
To: dfwgator
Now you’ve done it!
I find myself sitting here at the PC singing that song and the tune is locked in and wont go away.
64
posted on
01/27/2018 4:21:28 PM PST
by
octex
To: Ronald_Magnus
The one with the stupid hat, just below the center of the sign, looks like Pelosi; and the one just to her left looks like Baraq Obama.
65
posted on
01/27/2018 4:31:55 PM PST
by
octex
To: JP1201
"If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving more consistently," wrote former Reason editor Radley Balko in an excellent 2011 article. "It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage." Exactly. Punish actual dangerous conduct, as opposed to just going to a neo-prohibitionist nanny state.
You'll find lots of supporters for the neo-prohibitionists here.
66
posted on
01/27/2018 4:33:52 PM PST
by
zeugma
To: RayChuang88
Given what happened during Prohibition, that will NEVER happen. For one thing, it would require another Constituional amendment, and we know how hard it is to get another Amendment on the books.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What makes you think they'll need another Constitutional amendment? They haven't needed one for the war on drugs. In what way is alcohol any less dangerous a drug than marijuana?
The only reason we had a Constitutional amendment back in the day is because people of the time were capable of actually reading and understanding the Constitution. After a hundred more years of public education, that particular problem has been eliminated.
67
posted on
01/27/2018 4:41:21 PM PST
by
zeugma
To: JP1201
How many drinks to get to 0.O8% or 0.05%. I do know it usually is correlated to body weight.
To: zeugma
The only reason we had a Constitutional amendment back in the day is because people of the time were capable of actually reading and understanding the Constitution. After a hundred more years of public education, that particular problem has been eliminated. And greatly reduced even among FReepers, as witness the loud approval for the War on Non-alcoholic Drugs.
69
posted on
01/27/2018 7:16:22 PM PST
by
NobleFree
("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-69 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson