In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
>> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

> Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
> absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
> either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.

I am clairifying his statement to you. And your one drop notion is silly.
It's incramentalism at it's finest.

>>> You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>> afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

>> Bull****. The whole point one drop extremist zealotry is prohibition.
>> Incrementally built prohibition created around limiting transportation.

> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if
> you want half-drunk) drivers.

Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement
studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent? Why should we
believe they are more competent now? that these studies are any more
valid than the ones done then? Really, these are simple tests, they don't
require anything more than simple scientific method, so why do the
results vary? Why the change in results and recommendations?

> I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
> restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
> too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
> freedom in a coffin.

This is all about control. The prohibitionists see alcohol as evil. They
saw it that way in the begining of the 20th century, they see it that way
in the begining of the 21st. But unlike before, this time the chosen
route is incronmentalism. No outright bans. Just make it progressively
more difficult to have a legal drink. This has nothing to do with
driving, like many things driving is the mechanism through which action
is taken for the greater goals.

>>> Driving is a privilege and with it comes responsibility, which includes
>>> making sure you are not impaired when driving. If you can't do that
>>> because you are too cheap to call a cab, you are not responsible enough
>>> to drive.

>> Here it is again, the driving is a privilege arguement being used once
>> again as a way to control people.

> Traffic has rules. Some make sense, some don't. Would you advocate
> allowing everyone to run red lights just because driver X wants that?
> Would you allow people to drive through school zones at 60mph because
> driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
> fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.
> You at least tried to argument up to here but from here it reads like a
> paper from Conspiracy Theory 101.

Your lame counter arguements. How many times have I seen this strawman
crapola? Countless. If I had a nickel.... Anyway, I've already cited how
MADD goes well beyond simple drunk driving, so it's not a conspiracy
theory, just read the MADD website.

> I am all for personal freedoms. Killing people is not a personal freedom,
> whether you do it because you want to or whether you do it because you
> have not enough common sense to keep drinking and driving apart.

The only freedom you seem to be for is that of thinking exactly like you.
Everyone else is to be attacked, accused, and discredited by whichever
means necessary.

> I agree with you that the MADD is a (small) zealot group, but just the
> fact that zealots want something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't
> make sense.

You're following their line. You support their ever decreasing BAC
values.

> If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a
> safe environment, in other words, at home.

Here we go again with the accusation through question. The 'if' doesn't
make it acceptable either.