From: press2@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (barry.o.olson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Impairment Testing
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.014242.7882@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, asbestos@nwu.edu (Michael A. Atkinson) writes:
> 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?

It tells me I was hit by two pickled drivers. I was also almost
hit by some mothers with kids in the car, but I was able to avoid
them by the way I drive(anticipating what the other person may
do). The two pickles were unavoidable. Both times I didn't even
see them coming.

> 
> >                                          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. 

Irrevelant(street walking analogy). I agree on what the police
role is.
The point is, you cannot be guaranteed a safe road. I have shown
by my record that I am a safer driver than most. I have never been
the cause of an accident. I am a safer driver than many mothers
with screaming kids in the car.


> 
> Where do you get off deliberately increasing the chances that you'll kill
> somebody?  People who drive implicitly accept the possibility that there'll

'Cause I have demonstrated I am a better driver than many sober
drivers by not Causing an accident with my presence on the road.

> 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

Oh? Only in theory my friend.

> impaired is by definition not doing your best.  The reason we have laws

Only in theory.

> 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.)

True enough, that's why we have traffic laws(lights, signals).

> 
> >                                                 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.
Why is it irrevelant. If they are not paying attention, they are
driving impaired?

> 
> >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.

With the growing powers of the state allowing roadside searches
of everyone impaired or not, we still have drivers who drink.
The only thing drunk driving laws have done is increase the power
of the state to perform more searches and seisures. It has not
stopped people from drinking and driving.
Also, the other 50% sober drivers who cause accidents are still on
the road causing accidents. So where are the sweeping drunk driving
laws offering safety?

> 
> >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.
Deaths due to stupid actions is irrevelant?

> 
> >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.

The drunk driving laws are not clearing the highways of drunk
drivers. They are only helping the state to a bigger hand in
end-running the constitution. I'm all for impairment testing
which does not affect everyone, just those who are impaired.
Right now, cops can stop whole streets of cars for searches
and seisures even if you are straight. The only answer to
total elimination of drinking drivers is a police state, which
would solve alot of problems:-) only to be traded for new ones.

I'm voting Libertarian again.

barry--