Affluenza Guy

[MechAg94]

That's always going to happen, and sometimes it needs to.  Would you want it to be legal to shoot into a crowd as long as you don't actually hit anybody?

I felt it is more like walking through a crowd open carrying.  However, in your scenario, if no one is hurt, the penalties for discharging a gun in public are much less than if you actually hurt someone.  Maybe the difference between 1) driving safely while under the influence, 2) driving badly while under the influence but no accident, or 3) causing an accident while drunk.  From another angle, running a red light or stop sign are also very dangerous, but we generally don't throw people in jail for them.  I believe carrying it further to reckless driving will get you arrested.  


Really, I would just like to move the legal limit back to 0.1 or maybe 0.12, restrict it to actually driving a moving vehicle (not parked), and maybe outlaw DUI check points.  Do that and a lot of the current BS is reduced.  I would be in favor of severe penalties for someone who actually causes an accident while drunk but I thought manslaughter already applied, maybe not.  

[KD5NRH]

More like ageist; remember it's AARP and friends that fight tougher licensing the hardest.

[brimic]

You got one group of people screaming to get drunk drivers off the roads nearly to the point of wanting any blood alcohol content to be a felony DUI.  Then you have everyone else who realizes that maybe we should really be targeting the ones who actually can't drive safely.  Or instead of staking out a bar to catch people when they leave, the cop should sit at the door and offer free breathalyzer tests to anyone leaving.  There is more, but dang that is a screwy issue. 

Prohibitionists have never really gone away entirely, they just go after whatever they can feel morally superior about and get away with. As others have pointed out, making it illegal to sleep it off in your car or drive after having a glass of wine is not about public safety, its about PUNISHING people for enjoying a little alcohol, where the real dangerous problem drinkers are the ones who drive at multiples of the legal blood alcohol. Activist groups like madd can all go foadiaf.

[Gewehr98]

Having lost an older sibling to a drunk driver, I was working up a very special rant for this thread.

However, there's always a "it wasn't me, I drive better than sober people after I chug a fifth, so it doesn't apply, let me do what I friggin' want, 'Merica!" individual or three in every crowd.

So I'll just bite my tongue and be glad I never see these people in meatspace. 

[MechAg94]

Having lost an older sibling to a drunk driver, I was working up a very special rant for this thread.

However, there's always a "it wasn't me, I drive better than sober people after I chug a fifth, so it doesn't apply, let me do what I friggin' want, 'Merica!" individual or three in every crowd.

So I'll just bite my tongue and be glad I never see these people in meatspace. 

I am fine with you saying what you want.  Just when it comes to actual laws, let us all keep it reasonable and not go overboard one way or the other.

[Hawkmoon]

I am fine with you saying what you want.  Just when it comes to actual laws, let us all keep it reasonable and not go overboard one way or the other.

Many laws and regulations are arbitrary, based on a consensus of ... somebody.

Look at building codes as an example. Why is the maximum allowable distance to an exit door in an office 100 feet? So 99 feet is "safe" but 100'-6" isn't "safe"? Or stairs -- maximum riser height is 7 inches. It used to be 8 inches until a few years ago, now it's 7. So 7-1/4 inch risers aren't "safe"?

Or speed limits. Why is the speed limit on a certain highway 65 MPH rather than 55 or 60 or 70? Somebody had to make a call and say "this one's good for 65."

The same applies to drunk driving. It's not based on how many drinks you have, or what's in the drinks. There is real evidence that alcohol in the blood system impairs perception, reflexes, and motor skills. A large person with more blood and more body mass can absorb more alcohol before reaching any set limit than a skinny, small person can. So what blood/alcohol limit is "safe" and what's "unsafe"? It's an arbitray decision, a consensus of somebodies who try to balance reasonable safety against unreasonable intrusion into people's lives. The consensus in just about every jurisdiction in the U.S. is .08 percent. They could have settled on .05%, or they might have settled on .10%. They didn't. We have what we have. Them's the rules, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who isn't willing to conduct himself/herself within those rules.

Society is a compact. In a civilized society, people agree that some rules are necessary and that everyone should conduct themselves in accordance with the rules. If everyone starts ignoring the rules and making their own (or not), we no longer have a society -- we have anarchy.

[MechAg94]

 

[Perd Hapley]

Prohibitionists have never really gone away entirely, they just go after whatever they can feel morally superior about and get away with. As others have pointed out, making it illegal to sleep it off in your car or drive after having a glass of wine is not about public safety, its about PUNISHING people for enjoying a little alcohol, where the real dangerous problem drinkers are the ones who drive at multiples of the legal blood alcohol. Activist groups like madd can all go foadiaf.

While I'm not a MADD partisan, this doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen any recognizable movement in the U.S. (in recent history) to criminalize, or even shame, those over 21 for moderate drinking that doesn't involve driving. Or even immoderate drinking, if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone.* I know people who would like to start such a movement, but they don't even get involved with M.A.D.D.

If the drinking and driving (or not driving) laws are out whack, why not blame the usual culprits? I.e., statism, bureaucracy.


*I'll strike that comment, as I guess you could say the "drink responsibly" ads from the beverage companies might qualify as a movement against immoderate drinking. Even there, I think "irresponsible" drinking obviously means drinking that doesn't hurt anyone (mainly through drunk driving).

[brimic]

While I'm not a MADD partisan, this doesn't ring true to me. I've never seen any recognizable movement in the U.S. (in recent history) to criminalize, or even shame, those over 21 for moderate drinking that doesn't involve driving. Or even immoderate drinking, if it doesn't seem to hurt anyone.* I know people who would like to start such a movement, but they don't even get involved with M.A.D.D.

If the drinking and driving (or not driving) laws are out whack, why not blame the usual culprits? I.e., statism, bureaucracy.


*I'll strike that comment, as I guess you could say the "drink responsibly" ads from the beverage companies might qualify as a movement against immoderate drinking. Even there, I think "irresponsible" drinking obviously means drinking that doesn't hurt anyone (mainly through drunk driving).

Whatever moron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-prohibitionism

The term is usually used critically to describe groups or individuals, rather than by the groups or individuals themselves. For example, Candy Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), eventually left the organization in anger and has since gone on to criticize it as neo-prohibitionist, stating that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[1] Lightner was criticizing MADD's leaders who had called for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage.

[Perd Hapley]

So you just call me a moron, and then throw out some evidence that does nothing to contradict what I said. Brilliant.

[brimic]

So you just call me a moron, and then throw out some evidence that does nothing to contradict what I said. Brilliant.

I'm not even going to bother with addressing your strawman attack.

[Perd Hapley]

  

[Ben]

What the hell?