Confessions of a drunk driver

[heavenlyboy34]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

+rep

 

[pcosmar]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

+1

And everyone should find this and read it. (if you haven't already)

http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Loathing-Las-Vegas-American/dp/0679785892

 

[KingNothing]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

Drunk driving ain't much of a living, boy.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I see a case for destruction of property (the sign), but nothing else. Someone please name the victims in the case against the OP? I'll wait right here.

I must have missed the list of victims that were surely posted by my Libertarian minded friends here.

 

[KingNothing]

At least no responsible person should do it and certainly nobody should be proud of doing it and talk about it like it's the most hilarious thing on earth.

I've no idea why people wear stupidity like a badge of honor.

We're all going to die. Most people will die from cardiac arrest or cancer once they reach a certain age. The rest will die from accidents. You greatly increase your chances of dying in an accident if you regularly drive with a BAC over .15. This isn't an argument that only someone with a "stick in his ass" would make. It's common sense. Drunk driving kills people, and worse yet, some of the people that it kills are unwitting contestants. It's obscenely careless, and grown men have no room to be careless.

 

[Wooden Indian]

If I am stone cold sober, and run over someone's child, dog, or mailbox... I am responsible for my actions. If I had beer, and performed one of those actions, I am still responsible. No difference.

If I am sober and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.
If had beer and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.

How is this hard for a few Libertarians to grasp?


....and BTW, I lost a brother to a drunk driver. He was only 12.

 

[KingNothing]

Get the stick out of your ass.

Nothing is worse than pseudo "libertarians" that preach louder and wag fingers more than the statists do.

People do dumb stuff, people do risky stuff, people get hurt, shit happens.

It's called living.

Safety Uber Alles is anathema to liberty.

Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

We're all going to die....

Thank you. I think you are starting to see my position.

I'd add that I personally want to die a free man without a radar camera or cop car up my ass. Whether that means me getting hit by a drunk driver or not.

 

[KingNothing]

If I am stone cold sober, and run over someone's child, dog, or mailbox... I am responsible for my actions. If I had beer, and performed one of those actions, I am still responsible. No difference.

If I am sober and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.
If had beer and harm no one or nothing, there was no crime.

How is this hard for a few Libertarians to grasp?


....and BTW, I lost a brother to a drunk driver. He was only 12.

Sorry to hear that. I agree with your argument, and I also think it is profoundly stupid to drive drunk and that it is a behavior that should not be encouraged in any way shape or form.

 

[KingNothing]

Thank you. I think you are starting to see my position.

I'd add that I personally want to die a free man without a radar camera or cop car up my ass. Whether that means me getting hit by a drunk driver or not.

Yes, because that's what I'm advocating -- a police-state. I want everyone to lose freedom when I ask people not to glorify driving drunk. You've nailed me.

 

[KingNothing]

To paraphrase Chris Rock, you can drive with your feet but that doesn't mean it should be done. Don't drive drunk. Doing so is not smart.

 

[pcosmar]

Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

Pretty slim chance statistically.. Far more likely to be killed by a sober driver,, or a hospital.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Pretty slim chance statistically.. Far more likely to be killed by a sober driver,, or a hospital.

Yup.

The medical/industrial establishment kills over 4 times as many people that die in all forms of automobile accidents.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Boy, it would really be a shame if you were killed by a drunk driver.

Yeah, I suppose it would be.

I've had family die in gunfire.

I suppose I should be opposed to firearms, right?

 

[phill4paul]

To paraphrase Chris Rock, you can drive with your feet but that doesn't mean it should be done. Don't drive drunk. Doing so is not smart.

 

[Barrex]

If you killed someone I would have zero compassion for you and would be for life in prison. Being drunk is ok but being irresponsible is not ok. I wasnt there so I can not judge were you irresponsible...and people whining how they can not read about "wall-o-text" lol. It is funny how that impairs you.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, because that's what I'm advocating -- a policestate. I want everyone to lose freedom when I ask people not to glorify driving drunk. You've nailed me.

You are not detesting it, that's for sure.

As to the second part, some of us have fond memories of times we lived- even the stupid shit we've done. I am not glorifying driving drunk. I am reminiscing on the good times I've had.

Because you have piqued my interest on the subject I decided to do a little looking.

Of 2,509 adults surveyed, 9% said they had driven within the previous 30 days when they believed their blood-alcohol content was .08% or above

The results resemble those of an unrelated, larger study released last week by the federal government. The Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration's survey of 127,000 adults found that 15% of drivers 18 and older said they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year.

There are 315,000,000 people in the United States, or there about. That's 28,350,000 people at 9%. At 15%, it is 47,250,000.

'Interesting' MADD fact-

Over 1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.

Now one could say that 45,840,000 people drove drunk without incident. But we haven't gotten into auto accidents, well, I'm getting there.

32,885 is the total number of auto fatalities in 2010. 10,228 were 'alcohol related.' [now we don't know if these people were shitty drivers, or if it was even their fault, mind you] That's 31%.

*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

**A driver involved in a motor vehicle crash is considered alcohol-impaired if he or she exhibits a BAC of .08 or greater.

So that means that 45,829,772 people drove drunk without incident, a DUI, or dying in an accident. [or even killing another man who was drunk for that matter, i.e. drunken pedestrian]

Let's see the percentage of people killed when compared to those who drove drunk.
0.0216%

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.

 

[KingNothing]

Now, after seeing these numbers does it seem justifiable to lock up those unlucky enough to be caught for a by and large victimless crime? Or to have check points or per se DUI laws?

I think not.

So, you are completely missing the point. MADD is horrendous. They continue to push for lower and lower legal BAC limits, in spite of the massive amount of data that shows there to be almost no difference between sober-driving and .08-driving. In my ideal world, there is no "legal limit" and there are no public roads, period. What a wonderful place that would be. A consequence would be, however, an increase in drunk-driving related deaths. Given the numbers we do have, we'd be able to conclude that a gigantic chunk of those deaths would be caused by people who habitually get sloshed (~.20) and drive. A compromise between our current drunk driving laws, which are terrible, and my Libertarian utopia, is to increase the legal limit to something around .15, a number that is rooted moreso in facts than MADD's emotion. It's still a utilitarian law and not necessarily a "moral" one, and those always make me feel uneasy. So, what we do is lead by example, discontinue driving drunk, and show that we are responsible enough that no legal action is "required" to prevent us from doing so.

Whether we like it or not, laws will exist until we can strip away all justifications for them. To that end, seeing people celebrate drunk driving is disheartening. .... think it's something Ron Paul would do? I don't. He'd lead by example as we all should, and not be so careless. As Vito Corleone said, men can't be careless.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You are missing the point. 'Public safety' is the premise for all of the cops you see. It is the premise for the checkpoints. It is the reason people willingly are sacrificing their rights. The data shows that driving drunk is so damn nonconsequential that it begs the question, why? Why are there more and more cops yearly? More checkpoints, more 'campaigns?' Is it conditioning? Of course. Is it because it generates revenue? [from the prison lobbies, to City Hall] Of course.

Why are we not categorically denouncing their selective facts and reasoning? Because it is emotional and they have driven that home. Kids have died. Innocent people injured. But kids and people die daily. It is not enough for me to give up my rights. My heart bleeds for the kids who were ran over as much as the next but there is no way to tell whose fault it truly was, or whether or not alcohol even played a role. Ron Paul would denounce the police state as much as I. He would also denounce the idea of sacrificing freedom for safety. Especially in this case when the statistics are such that it is absurd.

I agree with highering the limit to .15. Most people would fall into that category and it would help a lot of young adults in the short run. For the long run we need to change how we view the law in general. The amount of people driving completely shit-faced is probably extremely low. There are other crimes and statutes they can be brought up on if needed anyways. Per se DUI laws are Draconian. These need to be addressed first and foremost.

 

[KingNothing]

You are missing the point. 'Public safety' is the premise for all of the cops you see. It is the premise for the checkpoints. It is the reason people willingly are sacrificing their rights. The data shows that driving drunk is so damn nonconsequential that it begs the question, why? Why are there more and more cops yearly? More checkpoints, more 'campaigns?' Is it conditioning? Of course. Is it because it generates revenue? [from the prison lobbies, to City Hall] Of course.

That, and because MADD distorts the statistics. Drunk driving really is a problem at a certain BAC. At the legal limits MADD pushes for, it is not a concern. Don't ignore that. An overwhelming amount of "alcohol related" (scare quotes intended) accidents happen to VERY drunk individuals.

Ron Paul would denounce the police state as much as I. He would also denounce the idea of sacrificing freedom for safety. Especially in this case when the statistics are such that it is absurd.

And he wouldn't brag about being stupid of driving drunk. Don't ignore that, either.

I agree with highering the limit to .15. Most people would fall into that category and it would help a lot of young adults in the short run. For the long run we need to change how we view the law in general. The amount of people driving completely shit-faced is probably extremely low. There are other crimes and statutes they can be brought up on if needed anyways. Per se DUI laws are Draconian. These need to be addressed first and foremost.

This is a good paragraph.