Drinking Age Discussion

[slim 1,530]

Are you sure about that?

I'd be willing to bet more sober drivers are involved in accidents than intoxicated ones.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Are you sure about that?

I'd be willing to bet more sober drivers are involved in accidents than intoxicated ones.

I bet more cars are involved in accidents every day than motorcycles, sure does not make them safer. That is a percentages game. There are vastly more sober drivers, of course they are going to have more accidents. That's like the Ol' there are just as many whites on welfare as blacks arguments. Well of course there are way way more of us . The real statistic would be, out of 5000 drunk drivers and 5000 sober drivers, which group experienced more accidents.

I like your thinking, along good solid libertarian lines, whoever someone driving down the road slobbering drunk, impacts my rights, some fool not wearing a seat belt, is a danger only to himself. usually.

[slim 1,530]

whoever someone driving down the road slobbering drunk, impacts my rights,

We could make the same argument that your guns in your car are dangerous because there's a better chance of you shooting someone than the guy in the next car with no gun.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

We could make the same argument that your guns in your car are dangerous because there's a better chance of you shooting someone than the guy in the next car with no gun.

BTW welcome back

The only thing i can say is there is irrefutable evidence that there is a direct correlation between motor sills, judgement and reaction and intoxication. I am libertarian at heart, but think there have to be some laws for the protection of society. Would you knowingly board an airliner with two pilots that could blow an .18 or even a .10. I sure would not.

If you want to snort 1lb of meth and blow your brains out on the courthouse square go for it, but driving an automobile while drunk is a distinct danger to others.

[slim 1,530]

If you wouldn't board an airliner with drunk pilots you should fly the airline that prohibits that sort of thing. Why do you need the government to tell you that's a good idea?

Look at this argument from the anti-gunners perspective. They say we're dangerous because we have something in our possession we could use to kill ourselves and everyone in the whole world. Twice. Yet here we are saying, "No, it's not unsafe because I'm responsible with it and I don't do stupid stuff while using my guns."

As a society we say someone under the influence of alcohol is more dangerous than someone who is not. That's the same as saying someone with guns is more dangerous than someone without guns.

I wholeheartedly embrace the science behind impairment but I differ on the "threat" it causes. If someone can hold their stuff together while drunk as heck, it's none of my business. Just like the gun in their pocket is none of my business. It presents ZERO threat to me until they make it so. Simply having a gun or simply being drunk does nothing.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If you wouldn't board an airliner with drunk pilots you should fly the airline that prohibits that sort of thing. Why do you need the government to tell you that's a good idea?

Look at this argument from the anti-gunners perspective. They say we're dangerous because we have something in our possession we could use to kill ourselves and everyone in the whole world. Twice. Yet here we are saying, "No, it's not unsafe because I'm responsible with it and I don't do stupid stuff while using my guns."

As a society we say someone under the influence of alcohol is more dangerous than someone who is not. That's the same as saying someone with guns is more dangerous than someone without guns.

I wholeheartedly embrace the science behind impairment but I differ on the "threat" it causes. If someone can hold their stuff together while drunk as heck, it's none of my business. Just like the gun in their pocket is none of my business. It presents ZERO threat to me until they make it so. Simply having a gun or simply being drunk does nothing.

But other than Dr. Johny Fever, there is not a human alive, that is not going to experience a degradation of motor skills as their BAC increases.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's actually very true. Same deal with smokers.

There is nothing more enlightened than a former smoker/drinker. Nothing wrong with being reformed of course, and more power too these people, but very, very evangelical which can be a tad trying at times, especially when brought into a discussion for no logical reason at all

[Peikko 1,575]

Let's not do anything about drunk drivers unless they manage to actually hurt/kill someone. Good plan, why not? Let's not make anything actually illegal, doesn't that sound logical and libertarian? Of course, if nothing is illegal and someone does have an accident and hurt or kill someone whilst under the influence they can just turn around and shrug their shoulders, it's not illegal, so nothing can be done. Fantastic idea I can see this working out really well.

[slim 1,530]

But other than Dr. Johny Fever, there is not a human alive, that is not going to experience a degradation of motor skills as their BAC increases.

So you're saying anyone with motor skills degraded shouldn't be driving? How about the handicapped folks? How about old, fat, or those with diabetes? There are some folks who are legally blind yet they're allowed to drive.

In those cases, and in the case of an impaired driver, you could argue the risk to you (in another vehicle) is greater but until they actually do something to you, they present exactly the same risk as everyone else out there on the road.

[Peikko 1,575]

So you're saying anyone with motor skills degraded shouldn't be driving? How about the handicapped folks? How about old, fat, or those with diabetes? There are some folks who are legally blind yet they're allowed to drive.

In those cases, and in the case of an impaired driver, you could argue the risk to you (in another vehicle) is greater but until they actually do something to you, they present exactly the same risk as everyone else out there on the road.

You really do not understand risk assessment if you actually believe what you just posted. The riskiest drivers are in fact teenagers, they cause the most accidents which is why, strangely enough, they are exceedingly expensive to insure.

[slim 1,530]

You really do not understand risk assessment if you actually believe what you just posted. The riskiest drivers are in fact teenagers, they cause the most accidents which is why, strangely enough, they are exceedingly expensive to insure.

So what you're saying is a teenager operating a motor vehicle automatically infringes on your rights?

[Peikko 1,575]

So what you're saying is a teenager operating a motor vehicle automatically infringes on your rights?

No, I don't think I said that. Do you think I said that? I really don't think I did. Explain how you think that's what I said, when what I actually said was the riskiest group of drivers is teenagers?

[slim 1,530]

No, I don't think I said that. Do you think I said that? I really don't think I did. Explain how you think that's what I said, when what I actually said was the riskiest group of drivers is teenagers?

Well if you're not saying that then why did you bring up teenagers in relation to drunk drivers being more of a risk than sober drivers?

It's illegal for folks to operate a motor vehicle while drunk. It's not illegal for a teenager to operate a motor vehicle. Why the difference?

[Peikko 1,575]

Well if you're not saying that then why did you bring up teenagers in relation to drunk drivers being more of a risk than sober drivers?

It's illegal for folks to operate a motor vehicle while drunk. It's not illegal for a teenager to operate a motor vehicle. Why the difference?

Oh, I think even you can work this out Slim. Go for it!

Mind you, if I had my way, driving at 16 would be illegal

[slim 1,530]

You avoided the question.

Why is it illegal for people to drive drunk? Is it because there's more risk? If that's the case, then why do we let teenagers and crippled people drive? Why do we let girls on cellphones drive?

It has nothing to do with risk.

DUI laws and underage drinking laws are not about protecting people. They're about making us feel better about ourselves and generating more revenue for the state.