reply to post by mnemeth1
I do know that you are correct in your conclusions. Why should a person who does no harm be punished etc....
I have come to the same conclusion repeatedly while considering your thread. It's the premise that I have trouble with. I don't get drunk. 'Drunk'
means: smashed, incapacitated, unable to drive a car in a safe and non-reckless manner. Most people cannot even drive when straight, OK? This is why
I'll never own a motorcycle, despite that I love them. Add texting and technology to 'drunk driving' and you have drunk moron butt dialing beer
goggled zombies hoping to make it through the maze.... If they mess up even a little, someone innocent is harmed badly.
And the driver gets in trouble, big trouble. I could dig it. Because I don't smash up cars, and I don't get drunk.
So let's consider that the it's the legal blood/alcohol limit that gets in your craw. Using technology, it should be a simple matter of finding the
personal limitation every driver exhibits, through testing. This would be a more practical argument than opening the floodgates on 'drunk driving'.
Everyone is different. Everyone probably has a different level of tolerance. If you want to drink and drive, then pay some outfit to regularly check
your ability to handle the stuff. This could be done easily, for those of you who insist on having your precious alcohol while driving. There will
certainly be psychological factors, impossible to screen for, I suppose, but nonetheless: one phuckup, and the driver loses his license.
Since a line of coke probably increases your ability to drive, while smashed, or 'drunk', why not do toots just before your testing session? Then,
with your advantage status, you can be 'designated drunk driver'. Good idea. Great. I see no way anything could go wrong.
But back to your arguments, OP. I am certain your tables show that the way it is, isn't working, save to waste money, create a police state, and
scarcely save a life in the process, else you wouldn't have displayed them. It ought to be simple, you know, go out, have a few drinks, drive home.
With alcohol, however, there's a bit of grey area. I recall just before I lost control of a sports car, on a couple of mixed drinks, it felt so right.
And, I was able to perfectly regain control like a pro racer before coming to rest. But it was surreal how the mere presence of the solvent in my
bloodstream was, in fact, the catalyst for me taking that turn, at that speed, in the first place. No one got hurt. No one's car was scratched but
mine, because I had the reflexes of a cat and the car responded well. It was an impossible number of maneuvers that had to be executed in a fraction
of a second at high speed during which time slowed to a crawl. There was a bit of luck involved as well.... Probably I was just below or just above
the blood alcohol limit. I was certainly an inexperienced drinker, and the car was being felt out by me for the first time, on liquor, as a high
performance car. No one got injured, yay. I'm just sayin'.
Responsibility with alcohol? I could deal with it for the rest of my life, and I'm sure you could with yours. But what about every one else? Let the
record speak for itself, eh? Not a bad idea. I don't think the state likes fairness, though. They like to apply the screws, totalitarian style, making
us all victims, all but themselves who are exempt.
It's good to hold fast to the line, as you do, for individual freedom, because as you know, they've no plans to stop hauling in that fat net full of
technological catches by which to systematically detain and enslave us.
edit on 1-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: none should
party until all are free