You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #6: Is it reasonable to expect someone who has been drinking [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Alexodin Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-03-06 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Is it reasonable to expect someone who has been drinking
to exercise good judgment? I say no because alcohol impairs judgment. I am not excusing drunk driving.

Is it reasonable to license the dispensing of liquor in an establishment that is not served by public transportation to expect people to avail themselves of alternative transportation?

I live in a rural area with no taxi service, bus, subway etc and there are many out of the way bars.

Is it realistic to expect everyone who drinks in these bars to have a designated driver? I say no it is in no way realistic to have that expectation and I can assure you the patrons do not have such a friend.

Is it reasonable and realistic to expect that a business that makes money by selling liquor to not sell as much liquor as possible? I say no.

Can you see that the expectation that a person drinking in a bar to must always exercise good judgment and have either alternative transportation or a designated driver is unrealistic?

Solution: do not license the dispensing of liquor in places that are not served by public transportation. Thats one idea just for a start.

The deaths due to drunk driving are not countless NHTSA and MADD places the number at approximately 17,000 annually. The methodology to arrive at this number is bogus many so called alcohol related deaths were deemed such because the driver died at night, there was a beer can in the car, a person walking on a sidewalk was drunk and when the driver had a diabetic black out and killed them. But for a moment lets just say that the number really is 17,000 in the great scheme of things that number is insignificant. I don't know how many people drink and drive everyday in this country but I suspect it is in the millions X 365 days per year = a bajillion. I am not an actuary but 17,000 deaths out of that many instances of drunk driving would make it arguably one of the safest activities that any human could engage in at any time. Its just a guess but its probably safer than mowing the lawn or taking aspirin (50,000 deaths per year).

My point is not to excuse drunk driving which I do not condone it is to point out that this is not a safety issue this new prohibition is because certain members of society have a moral issue with drinking and others seek to profit by the new prohibition. There are many things that could be done to reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, many many things but they are not done because MADD does not want to facilitate safe drinking they want to discourage all drinking.

I am sure I have pushed some buttons but I want you to think more deeply about this issue. To place all the responsibility on a bar patron who is frequenting and establishment that has a monetary incentive to sell liquor which impairs judgment and does not have access to public transportation is not in going to be effective.

How about we restrict bars to weigh a person and only serve alcohol at a certain rate?

How about no liquor licenses at all and people can only drink at home?

I mean if its such a safety issue why not?

They set up roadblocks it must be out of control just crazy with drunk drivers right?

Who profits? The private prisons? The trail lawyers? You bet they do and they have a vested interest in keeping drunk drivers on the road. Think about it, is it really a safety issue? How the hell did America survive for this long without all these drunk driving laws? All through WW2 the 50's 60's and most of the 70's. Maybe it was never really that much of a problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC