From: asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: Chaos
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:42:42 GMT

press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson) writes:

>i have been driving regularly since 1970. For ten years I used
>to practically live in my car I liked driving so much. I am
>usually impaired, especially on weekends from imbibing in beers.
>I have been involved in two accidents in all this time, both
>caused by two extremely pickled drivers.                ^^^^
 ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
What does that tell you?

>                                          I still do not like
>the tough drunk driving laws! Accidents occur because people
>drive cars! You drives, you takes your chances! 

Yeah?  You walks the street, you takes your chances that someone will beat
the shit out of you.  Although this is true, the theory behind police is
that they are society's instrument of both discouraging and punishing this
behavior. 

Where do you get off deliberately increasing the chances that you'll kill
somebody?  People who drive implicitly accept the possibility that there'll
be an accident, but they also implicitly take on the responsibility to
drive safely and do their best not to kill or hurt anyone.  Driving
impaired is by definition not doing your best.  The reason we have laws
about it are so that people recognize this "social contract," and are
punished if they break it.  (This is why it's legal most places to drive
drunk on your own property.)

>                                                 No road is safe
>except maybe the road from your garage to the street.
>I have had plenty of close calls that I avoided from family
>type mothers with kids in the car which i was able to avoid 
>because i drive with intuition always trying to determine
>what the next person's move will be. Many times I am right, and
>am able to avoid a bad situation.

I'm waiting for relevence.

>What about laws stating "we will never get involved in a foreign
>war"! Gosh, why aren't these mad mothers against drivers pushing
>for laws like this! Maybe because they are selfish? How many really
>cared about anything pertaining to driving before they lost a loved
>one? All of a sudden they are so emotionally angry, they are
>going to go to Congress to get laws passed against everybody!

I've never lost anyone close to me from a drunk driver.  I'm also a
Libertarian; I don't believe in punishing victimless "crimes".  Driving
impaired is demonstrably *not* a victimless crime: you *vastly* increase
the possibility that you'll hurt or kill another person.  As far as I'm
concerned, what you do to yourself is up to you.

>But, if we lose a loved one from dying in a stupid, meaningless
>foreign war, well that's patriotic. I think the propaganda machine
>has once again shown how effective it is.

Irrelevant.

>Ok, blast away, I have a new flameproof terminal.

>barry--

I'd love to see some logic from the people that think drunk driving should
be legal.

-- 
Michael A. Atkinson | "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I hear you 
asbestos@nwu.edu    |  cry, to which I say, "SHUT THE HELL UP!" - D.S. Cahr

      A Libertarian, an NRA member, and a firearms owner.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs