The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

Should drunk driving be illegal? Not according to Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Quote:

http://www.mises.org/story/2343

In November 2000, Clinton signed a bill passed by Congress that ordered the states to adopt new, more onerous drunk-driving standards or face a loss of highway funds. That's right: the old highway extortion trick. Sure enough, states passed new, tighter laws against Driving Under the Influence, responding as expected to the feds' ransom note.

The feds have declared that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

This is why the campaign against "racial profiling" has intuitive plausibility to many people: surely a person shouldn't be hounded solely because some demographic groups have higher crime rates than others. Government should be preventing and punishing crimes themselves, not probabilities and propensities. Neither, then, should we have driver profiling, which assumes that just because a person has quaffed a few he is automatically a danger.

In fact, driver profiling is worse than racial profiling, because the latter only implies that the police are more watchful, not that they criminalize race itself. Despite the propaganda, what's being criminalized in the case of drunk driving is not the probability that a person driving will get into an accident but the fact of the blood-alcohol content itself. A drunk driver is humiliated and destroyed even when he hasn't done any harm.

Of course, enforcement is a serious problem. A sizeable number of people leaving a bar or a restaurant would probably qualify as DUI. But there is no way for the police to know unless they are tipped off by a swerving car or reckless driving in general. But the question becomes: why not ticket the swerving or recklessness and leave the alcohol out of it? Why indeed.

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.

There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You may have sore muscles after a weight-lifting session and have slow reactions. You could be sleepy. You could be in a bad mood, or angry after a fight with your spouse. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, tiredness tests, or soreness tests? That is the very next step, and don't be surprised when Congress starts to examine this question.

Already, there's a move on to prohibit cell phone use while driving. Such an absurdity follows from the idea that government should make judgments about what we are allegedly likely to do.

What's more, some people drive more safely after a few drinks, precisely because they know their reaction time has been slowed and they must pay more attention to safety. We all know drunks who have an amazing ability to drive perfectly after being liquored up. They should be liberated from the force of the law, and only punished if they actually do something wrong.

We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.

There's a final point against Clinton's drunk-driving bill. It is a violation of states rights. Not only is there is no warrant in the Constitution for the federal government to legislate blood-alcohol content – the 10th amendment should prevent it from doing so. The question of drunk driving should first be returned to the states, and then each state should liberate drunk drivers from the force of the law.

To be honest, I have to agree. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't put into our blood. It's essentially along the same lines as giving harsher penalties for "hate crimes."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The government does not tell us that we can and can not put in our blood regarding alcohol - it tells us what we can and can not do while intoxicated by said substance. We can sit at home and enjoy a bottle of wine with no trouble whatsoever, provided we harm none.

They essentially are telling us what we can or can't put in our blood, it's just that in this specific case they're tying it to a behavior, being driving, irregardless of the actual performance of said driver.

Well, clearly if people can't drive when they're high on PCP, they should also be pulled over and ticketed or arrested.

Current drinking laws aren't doing much to curtail instances of substance use and driving than they couldn't without a culture shift as we've seen with all of the beer commercials telling us to set a designated driver.

If someone is set on driving while high on a substance, no amount of legislation is going to stop them.

Quote:

Similarly, a person who drives drunk receives a harsher punishment than someone who doesn't drive drunk but does the same harm.

It's an interesting distinction to make, though, when you think about it. In any case, the result of a mansluaghter is going to be a dead person, and no amount of punishment would bring them back. Whether inebriated, fatigued, or unattentive, all cases of manslaughter are tied back to incidences of negligence. Why should it matter if the driver is drowsed or generally incompetent?

If somebody commits manslaughter while sober, are they not after all a constant danger to everyone around them?

I understand the cultural distinctions, I'm just saying that they don't mean jack shit.

In the end, being drunk is a liability no different from any other. Looking at it statistically, red cars are involved in the most accidents. Should we ban red cars?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

So taking someone into custody while they're inebriated isn't a good enough preventative measure?

No, it really isn't. The very nature of inebriation is that you aren't making the same kind of judgements you would when you're sober, so a drunk who intends to drive isn't likely to be concerned about the law.

Quote:

Except alcohol directly affects the motor skills of most people.

True, and it was a bad example to use. Plenty of factors have direct impact on one's motor skills, however, such as being fatigued or as was mentioned in the article, having sore muscles. Is it honestly that drunk driving is the only thing which possesses a stigma, or is it impossible to profile those kinds of drivers?

If you've noticed the recent ad campaigns against drunk driving, they're not appealing to the safety risk one causes, but fear of police action.

Most amazing jew boots

It's probably something that the author wasn't thinking about, because the subject was drunk driving, which doesn't represent the intent to destroy or damage life and/or property. I don't think anybody would be so unreasonable as to say that if you have evidence of conspiracy to break the law, that the persons engaged in that conspiracy shouldn't be charged with conspiracy to commit _____.

Quote:

So because we can't easily incriminate all negative influences we shouldn't incriminate any?

Pretty much, yeah. Simply being drunk does not make one a danger to others, despite the impact on their motor skills. It's honestly a case-by-case basis, and the argument presented in the article is that it's wrong to excercise police power in order to punish those that may not actually be representing a danger.

There's another problem to this that hasn't been considered, which is that the severity of a crime doesn't have to be ruled out in sentencing. There's nothing stopping a judge or jury from issuing harsher sentences based on context, such as the offender being inebriated, it's just that legislating inebriation itself is wrong when the driver hasn't actually commited any infringements upon the freedoms of others.

Quote:

That's because such techniques are far more effective at deterring drunk driving.

The Government has an obligation to keep the populace safe. Keeping drunk drivers off the road is an obvious part of that.

But they're not keeping drunk drivers off the road. Police action can never be preventative, but reactionary.

I also think that using fear in order to encourage observance of the law runs counter to the principles of a free society. I mean, have you seen these commercials? The drivers aren't portrayed as violating any traffic laws, the message is that you will get ticketed for drunk driving. Not that you may depending on your driving performance, but that the police are some kind of empaths which can reach out and detect every drunk driver on the roads, enough so that driving while drunk is analogous to driving in a car whose interior is buried in whiskey or cocktails.

Quote:

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such they do reserve the right to limit what we can or cannot do while exercising this privilege.

PUHLEASE. Everything we do that isn't dictated as a positive right is a "privilege." Does that mean that our conditions should be legislated against when tied to any action? Keep in mind that you can also be ticketed for being "drunk in public," so apparently leaving the confines of your house and property is also a "privilege" dictated by the government, and you're ok with that?

Quote:

We have red lights, and it is illegal to run a red light. A police officer could pull you over for that. But what if you run a red light and don't hurt anyone? I mean, the law that a person must stop at a red light is not necessarily going to lead to someone not being injured. It is a preventative law.

So, we make it legal to run red lights and only prosecute people when their action causes a wreck.

Sound plausible?

No it doesn't sound plausible, because traffic laws are punitive, not preventative. Ticketing somebody for running a red light doesn't make anybody safer because the crime has already been committed, and the danger has already been presented.

Drunk driving, in and of itself, doesn't pose a danger to others. The only thing that affects the safety of others on the road is the performance of the driver, and while being drunk may affect said performance, it is only a probability and not a guarantee.

Running a red light is illegal, because the drivers who are observing traffic laws are operating under the assumtion that when they have a green light, they can accelerate without worrying about another vehicle careening down the perpendicular lanes.

People do operate under the assumtion, however, that the actual driving performance of others on the road may not be up to snuff. It's the very purpose of defensive driving.

What you're arguing is basically the observance of the law, while what I'm arguing is the relevancy of said law, not whether or not it's ok to break it.

Quote:

If he is unable to make a good judgement about obeying drunk driving laws, then I wonder if he will have the same disrespect for traffic laws.

Yeah, you can wonder, but because one has broken a law does not mean that he is naturally destined to break others.

Quote:

Since you didn't state your conclusion, I am assuming that you want to say, "therefore, there should be no legislation against drunk driving".

It'd be a faulty conclusion to make because it would be like implying that the impossibility of preventing drunk driving is the only reason for legalising drunk driving. You'll notice I've used other examples in order to illustrate my point, that drunk driving should be legal. In that case, I'm refuting the notion that drunk driving laws actually "keep drunk drivers off the streets."

Quote:

Why is driving drunk a special case?

Because drunk driving doesn't represent an intent to damage life and/or property.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Only, murder represents an act of theft from society, in this case a life, which is considered the highest form of theft.

While theft benefits the thief, being inebriated is only a case of robbing oneself of fine motor skills. Therefore, if we were to apply your ridiculous analogy to this situation, legislating drunk driving is an example of the government protecting us from ourselves, which is already a ridiculous notion because one's personal safety should be the choice of the individual.

There are no benefits involved in driving while drunk, other than possibly encouraging one to observe all traffic laws, therefore laws involving drunk driving can only be punitive.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

What?

Clearly it's not the case with the actual purpose of the law. I'm debunking the analogy.

No, I don't think that we should be legislating against drunk driving, because police should only be concerned about the performance of drivers, not their blood alcohol content. You don't need high motor functions to drive safely, I mean, driving a car isn't like stabbing a knife between the gaps in your fingers.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You turn a wheel and push down on a pedal. You're only working with two examples of force.

Beyond that, safe driving is mostly a matter of concentration. How do you think the disabled drive?

FELIPE NO

I dunno, you'd need numbers for that.

You're also describing situations that are impossible for people to avoid with normal reflexes. Avoiding those kind of accidents involves many elements of chance, and the danger being presented isn't the one caused by the drunk driver.

Most amazing jew boots

I don't think you understand how much some of these things are determined by chance. A momentary distraction, say you're paying attention to the wrong car, and then you get blind-sided. There are people around here who drive in blind spots, so I know a thing or two about asshole drivers.

Yes, reaction times do help accident avoidance, but it also doesn't mean that the intoxicated are incapable of reacting to and avoiding a possible accident. I can't really tell you how they can do it, because I've never driven while drunk. We need somebody who would actually be willing to admit to it, and I don't doubt there are a few members on this board who have gone out, partied, and then thought they had to drive themselves home.

When you're pursuing this line of reasoning, you're also essentially arguing that drunk driving legislation is supposed to protect drunk drivers from themselves, because in all of the incidents you're bringing up as examples, the drunk driver isn't the party presenting a danger.

Quote:

Which is funny, because being drunk typically affects your performance.

Am I the only person who understands the concept of probabilities?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Driving is a privilege. Seatbelt laws and possible cell phone bans only impenge on one's freedom to drive, but it doesn't classify as the violation of a right. In order for driving to be a right, it would have to be a positive one. I.E, you would be guaranteed the ability to drive irregardless of any past violations.

Quote:

Let me tell you: destroying income taxation right now would destroy our society.

No it won't. Societies have always functioned without government. If income taxation were to be repealed, and revenues would have to be gained in other forms of taxation, then they would be allocated to the areas that have the highest demand, being utilities and law enforcement. Municipalities don't tax income, yet they're somehow capable of running sanitation, cleaning streets, and paying for police.

You aren't sounding like a very good Libertarian at this point.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

If you do not think that you made such a claim, then I'm glad we are in agreement.

I didn't. Just because a law does not prevent behavior does not mean that its existance can't coincide with accepted norms of justice. It's like saying that capital punishment doesn't appreciably prevent crime, but may still be considered necessary as an implement of justice.

What I'm saying is that the idea that the law prevents crime is false.

Quote:

If someone is so inebrated that they cannot judge that driving drunk is probably not good for him, then I highly doubt that they are capable of obeying the traffic laws which they agreed to when they passed their drivers test. It's called gross negligence, and it doesn't matter what our intent was in that situation or not. I don't care if no one gets hurt or not, there should be laws against firing several hundred rounds into the air in the middle of New York on New Year's, even if their intent is only to celebrate the coming of the new year. Their actions are needlessly putting other people's lives in danger.

However, driving while drunk, and firing into the air represent two different actions. If you shoot into the air, those bullets have to come down somewhere, and your actions represent a danger to people within a mile's radius. Driving drunk doesn't present any immediate danger, but driving wrecklessly does.

Also, because one has broken the law does not mean that they are incapable of acknowleging the fact that they have broken said law. For instance, if one is drunk and doesn't have a designated driver, one will feel compelled to drive himself regardless of the law. There's not much alternative in areas like mine where there aren't 24 hour taxi services. It may be an example of a lack of personal negligence, but doesn't represent an act of malice.

Quote:

If the behavior is detrimental to society, then we cannot sit back and do nothing, even if the current laws do not have the intended effect of preventing the act.

Not legislating against drunk driving isn't a case of "doing nothing" because the concerns of drunk driving are involving driving performance. Poor driving should still be legislated against, but drunk driving does not equate to poor driving performance as a rule.

The only way you could conceivably "do something" to prevent alcohol-related behavior is through prohibition of the substance in question, and a century of history regarding that measure has established its ineffectiveness.

Quote:

Someone intoxicated reacts much more slowly to incidents. This isn't debatable, this is fact. And by intoxicated I mean whatever level of alcohol begins to affect them individually, not just >0.08.

That's a dangerous distinction to make when you're arguing for legislation, because it already admits that the actual impact of blood alcohol content is dependent on a case-by-case basis.

I'm also not saying that inebriation doesn't affect reflexes, but that lowered reflexes do not also discount the possibility of a drunk driver being capable of focusing on the surrounding conditions and anticipating an accident.

Quote:

They're a danger to everyone that's the point. So do I need to point out obvious things like drunk drivers running red lights? Or having their perceptions impaired so that they crash right into oncoming traffic?

And yet, drunk drivers aren't the only ones running red lights. Drunk drivers aren't the only ones who have driven into oncoming traffic. You're arguing for the legislation of a condition that does not guarantee the negative action, instead of focusing on the action. Would it not be just as simple to charge drivers for the action and handle the severity of punishment depending on the context in which he performed said action? If people simply received harsher sentences for performing poorly while inebriated it would have the same net result.

Quote:

No, people are more likely to fuck up driving drunk. So it's more probable they'll be in a fatal accident. That's why they shouldn't be on the road.

I'm not saying that they should be on the road. What I'm saying is that when you make condition illegal instead of one's actions, you're basing laws on probabilities, irregardless of any actual danger that they pose. I think that's wrong, and I don't think it's a trend that should be encouraged, as is the case with cell phone usage.

You might as well also argue that the elderly shouldn't be able to drive because of the condition of being old. I understand that in the case of the elderly one's condition is not a matter of choice, but if we're legislating based on probabilities, society should be prepared for the likelihood of illegalising any number of behaviors based on condition, irregardless of choice.


TOO MUCH TALKING

Quote:

Rights are positive and very broad

No, rights are positive and negative. Negative rights guarantee that one's freedoms won't be infringed upon, while positive rights guarantee entitlement.

Quote:

I have libertarian ideals; I don't prescribe to what the party wants.

The Libertarian party is full of hacks, and to be honest I was being nice. You don't seem like a smart Libertarian.

You're also equating the desire to end something (income tax) with the ignorance of practical alternatives. No Libertarian other than market anarchists are actually advocating that the government should immediately cease taxing income without a shift to another system.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

I really don't see your issue here. It's not a matter of probability at this point, it's a matter of lives at stake due to drunk drivers.

I just told you my issue and presented an alternative.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Anarchy isn't chaos, though chaos may be dependent upon anarchy. It's the difference between do-as-you-please, and do-as-you-should, in which one's actions are performed within the context of personal values and societal norms and taboos.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

The NHTSA cites nearly 30 studies which say that it does.

I have to question the totality of those studies. How much can the drop in fatalities be attributed to the .08 laws as opposed to the License Revocation laws and public education efforts? What sociological efforts did they put into confirming that the .08 law was a direct cause? ALso, clearly, if you revoke licenses you're going to lower the amount of negligent drivers on the roads, and thus reduce fatality rates.

Quote:

Ah. So do you disagree with what the author of that article said, mainly "the law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property?" And, could you point my to what your second point is addressing?

I do disagree, because there are actions which present a clear and immediate danger to lives and property. Improper use of a firearm, for instance.

The question of criminality shouldn't be relegated to damage to life and property, but should also extend to behavior that threatens the freedoms of others. Simply because somebody's freedom hasn't been violated does not mean that punitive actions shouldn't be taken.

As for the second part, I was addressing:

Quote:

If someone is so inebrated that they cannot judge that driving drunk is probably not good for him, then I highly doubt that they are capable of obeying the traffic laws which they agreed to when they passed their drivers test.

Quote:

The fact is, the largest plurality of motor deaths in our country belong to drunk driving incidents. Again, at what point is correlation between drunk driving and accidents considered high enough before we consider it to be harmful? If I am a cop and someone is so inebriated that they are having trouble walking straight, why should I have to wait for him to start driving recklessly before I have him arrested? Or should I wait for him to disobey some minor traffic violation, such as cutting in between lanes, and punish him for that small offense and only that small offense?

Even with the current laws in place, people shouldn't be arrested simply because they can't walk straight. They have to express intent to drive, and take appropriate actions to drive in order to justify an arrest.

To clarify, yes, I do believe that if an officer is aware of a drunk driver, he should wait for the driver to commit an infringement. At which point, the driver can then be issued a punishment in accordance to the severity of the crime, which is in this case violating traffic laws while intoxicated. The actual law being broken is the traffic one, but the severity of the punishment is dependent upon the context in which the crime was commited. I feel that's a reasonable compromise.

In the end my argument represents a compromise between greater freedoms and security or the illusion of it. I can understand if society places a higher value on its general safety than greater freedoms, but I have to disagree in principle.

Quote:

I'd like to know what your definition of a 'rule' is. There seems to be an awfully high correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving. How high does the correlation between driving drunk and reckless driving before we can see the former as a good sign of producing the latter?

If every drunk driver was involved in a crash, then I would be supportive of BAC laws. As it stands, though, I think it's an impossible figure to measure, because you would first need to get people to admit that they've broken the law and allow themselves to be monitored while they're breaking it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Do you often just dismiss sources that disagree with you a priori? Why don't you read their research methodology, and then come back and complain about how incomprehensive they are.

I didn't notice anything in the report that hinted at their methodology, unless you expect me to root through thirty different studies.

Quote:

And then, after they break a small traffic infraction, you book them for that small traffic infraction and send them on their way like you would any other violator? Or do we have to wait for someone to get hurt or killed before we actually charge them? And that would make our drunk driving accidents per year numbers go down...how?

Are you just selectively ignoring what I'm saying or what?

Quote:

Wow. That's messed up. I'm really sorry for wasting my time in this conversation.

Fuck you too.

Quote:

It's funny, I kinda like the argument about firing into the sky. I mean, there is a chance that you won't hit anyone/anything that isn't yours, right? It's just a case of probabilities.

Essentially, so is reckless driving. The difference between drunk driving, reckless driving, and the bullets, however, is that drunk driving only increases the likelihood of there being a danger. With bad driving and the bullets, though, the danger is immediate.

FELIPE NO

I guess my time is too precious to research for other people's arguments. How will internet debate survive this!?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Because possessing a blood alcohol content above a .08 does not make one a reckless driver. I can only repeat this so many times before I wonder if any of you are listening. BAC can only ever raise the likelihood of one being a danger to others, it doesn't act as a guarantee.

Quote:

The hazardous situation doesn't have to manifest itself to be wrong

Yeah, it sort of does. If there is no danger, then what harm or potential harm is there being commited?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Actually, no. I don't agree with the concept of "freedom from ___". There are only "freedom of" rights, really. "Freedom from hunger", ack, ridiculous.

You mean like the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, and the freedom from unreasonable searches?

Quote:

Amazing considering you, what, read two paragraphs I wrote. If you mean I wasn't being a good libertarian, well, that's what I said from the beginning. If you mean I wasn't smart, well, your opinion. Maybe I'm being too nice in letting people online dictate to me my beliefs.

I'm not dictating your beliefs, I'm just telling you that you're wrong.

Quote:

No, I'm not equating anything. Most libertarians I come across are. I make the point, perhaps, to someone not familiar that most libertarian party members are kind of crazy.

Most libertarians aren't even party members. Libertarians with a capital L refer to a rank and file, while libertarians are merely ideologues that usually vote republican.

Quote:

Curiously, are you a libertarian? You seem like it from virtually all of your posts (and quoting the Mises Institute) but you seem to mock it at the same time. But, you know, that might just be because mockery is big here.

I am, but there are crazy libertarians like there are crazy liberals and conservatives. In his New Year's Resolution for 1976, Murray Rothbard wished that the survivalist and free soiler libertarians would actually go off and live in the mountains or start their own country so that they wouldn't be a part of the movement that actually wanted to change things in the real world.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

People who are hot for child porn are at a greater degree of becoming future kiddy-touchers, although it's not a guarentee.

You need to stop this now. I don't know what you think you're doing, but it needs to be put out of its misery.

Look bitch, cut this retarded shit. I don't give a fuck what you have to say at this point, especially when all you can do is tell me to "stop it" and debunk my statements with ridiculous hyperbole. Cut it out.

Quote:

I keep telling you to stop why aren't you listening to me.

Because I don't care. I've mentioned several times that this is a matter of principle for me, and people are free to disagree. Yes, I don't think I should have to research other people's arguments for them, and no I'm not going to "stop it" because it will make you think less of me. I'm tired of this shit you're pulling.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Hopefully what they notice is that I react negatively to being condescended to.

Maybe if you didn't compare drunk drivers to those complicit in child rape and didn't act like my fucking mom, I wouldn't seem so "hysterical."

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Look, I shouldn't have to explain myself to you. I've orchestrated my arguments, very specifically in this thread. It's not my fault that your selective interpretation of shit I never said is making you think less of me.

What's crawling into my "vag" is that people (not all) keep addressing points that I didn't make. I never said that being drunk doesn't cause accidents. I never said that the studies were wrong, I questioned their science which wasn't mentioned in the report.

I'm not going to sit here and be demonized for shit I didn't say. You're turning this into the Denicalis drama all over again, so stop telling me what I can or can't argue.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah, God forbid I recall an event that was caused in part by you. You'll notice I'm not invoking you for any fault in this. This is between lurker and me.

Quote:

Did you point out any studies that defends the point you have made? I looked over your posts, but all I saw was cockamime bullshit retoric coming from you alone.

I shouldn't need a study to illustrate that probabilities are not guarantees, and no I'm not going to root through 30 studies for an uknown number that may be scientifically sound. That the report was already using "science by consensus" should be enough to put the burden of proof on the consensus.

Most amazing jew boots

How can I back up a claim with a study that I know would be based on criteria that's impossible to measure? Are there any countries that don't have BAC laws? Can you run a survey where people are honestly going to answer that yes, they do drive drunk despite the law?

FELIPE NO

Well, it was fun while it lasted, guys. Looks like we can't destroy America through the internet. We have to destroy it instead.

I don't even care if the studies do exist. I doubt that they do because I don't think it's possible to perform a study that will get people to honestly admit that they've broken the law, especially one that carries as huge a stigma as drunk driving. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't stopped studies like the 1998 WHO study which concluded that second hand smoke has no discernable negative effects. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't silenced global warming skepticism.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?