Re: Don't drink in Tejas...


DGDevin wrote:

That is really silly


"Silly" is apparently your favorite word.


by that logic a company that dumps known deadly
pollutants into the local river hasn't done anything wrong until people
start turning up in the emergency room or morgue.


And "nitwit" is my favorite word for you. Only a nitwit would think
that a company who dumps deadly pollutants in river has done no harm,
even if a human being is never harmed by it.


The law has long
recognized that imminent danger justifies action, a drunk turning an
ignition key is enough, we don't have to wait until he kills a family, the
increased and heavily documented risk from his impairment is more than
enough.


Yes, I understand that the government believes it knows what is best
for us, and has the right to incarcerate us as a result.


This isn't a speculative situation or one where the jury is still
out as in your championing of the "right" of smokers to pollute the air in a
bar because there aren't yet enough studies proving to your satisfaction the
dangers of secondhand smoke. Drunk driving isn't a debateable issue, the
notion that a drunk driver isn't doing anything wrong until he actually hits
someone is ridiculous.


Why? Please explain what harm is done by a drunk driver who never
actually hits someone.


I can keep a case of old
sweaty dynamite in my garage right beside the box of oily rags, after all,
it hasn't hurt anyone YET?


If you happen to be so stupid as to do this, no I don't think it's a
crime. It's a pity. If, OTOH, you deliberately manufacture a bomb,
that is a different issue..


How about I pour some oil on the road out front,
what harm have I done until someone actually skids out of control?


Whether or not a vehicle encounters your oil spill is irrelevant. If
you pour oil in the road, you have commited a crime by harming the
environment. The damage done is demonstrable and obvious, and the
government has a responsibility to punish that.


And
what's the deal with prohibiting me from bringing diseased produce into the
country, they don't *know* the disease is for sure going to spread to
domestic crops, fascists.


Border security is one of the fundamental roles of government. That is
a completely seperate issue from what we are discussing here.


"Harmless" drunks? What makes you say they're harmless?


If they haven't harmed anyone, they're not criminals. They're just
drunk. I don't want the government to deprive others of their freedoms
and rights out of the impluse to make me feel "safe" from acts that
have not happened.


If they have car
keys in their pockets and they're in a public place other than a hotel where
they have a room then they are a danger to the public.


Any time anyone has car keys in their pockets, they are a danger to the
public. Almost 100% of auto-related fatalities are caused by drivers,
and there are tens of thousands of such fatalities every year.

But that doesn't mean we should outlaw driving, despite the certaintly
that innocents will die because it is legal.


Even if they aren't
driving they're a danger to themselves and others, there is a legitimate
public interest in discouraging public intoxication.


I couldn't disagree more. There is little more irrelevant for a
government to be doing than telling people what beverages they should
or should not consume, in public or private.

DGD, you and I are at the polar extremes of these types of
social/government public policy issues. Your are pretty much the
poster boy for the perspectives in this area that I find most
repellent. My impression is that I don't think you've ever encountered
a government-mandated restriction on personal freedoms/behaviors that
you disagreed with. I'm never going to convince you about this one,
and I find your responses to my posts in this thread to be well beyond
silly. We are never going to come to even the smallest degree of
agreement on this one.

Peace,
Neil X.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Farangs moan: The Puritans are here again
    ... for whom alcohol is a major part of their lives. ... "How can I live if I can't get drunk any time I want to and keep ... where the government sees itself as the "big momma" who will ... Unless you're living alone on your own planet there isn't much you can ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: LymeNut making Lisa out to be some crusader. Kathleen put that woman in the nut house.
    ... you are a danger to yourself or others. ... including military and government ones are relays in the whole great ... not even convinced Lisa exists. ... actually seems to have organized the protest. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: DUI and car rental
    ... Government, which attracts the biggest ... How would you protect yourself against drunk drivers? ... bite after bite of our liberty from us. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: sorry, no April Fools from me . . .
    ... that the government provides a fire department ... | danger, but then thinks we don't need to be reminded ... Zell Miller was pretending that if it made sense ... abortion as a legal means of sacrificing a human life ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real
    ... you have to donate big time to his campaign. ... >Are we really that easily swayed by a few really dumb ads? ... it is in danger of loosing ... government is the electorate itself. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)