Mike - How is khalling dangerous if she "shares a bottle of wine" [that is, usually NOT getting drunk] , drives home, and has hurt no one? What harm has she caused? and how can you truly say that if she is in this situation, that her actions were dangerous?
some part of your argument is missing - the assumed premise part, I think.

Mike - How does having a shooting range on your property in the city endanger other people?

robbie -Right and reasoned as you are, I think you would get some percentage of MADD that would say, "OK, let's prohibit alcohol! Fine!" and some percentage that would say "If the police stop you, and you fail a breathalyzer, they should just shoot you. all done."
I don't think reason has a part in this conversation; I'm just hoping to get them to shut up."

I'm not sure what would be "exposed" - they're pretty out there with who they are and what they want. I'm right with you on the going extinct.

herb - I think you're right - they want everyone to "understand" their point, and the only way to do so, according to them, is to do what they say.
It's a bit like the "you can't understand the problems of the man from Zamunga, because you're not from there, so you have no standing."
hmmm.

Blarman,

Your idea about alcohol is simplistic. It is known to boost endorphines. "Beta-endorphin release produces a general feeling of well-being." http://www.attcnetwork.org/explore/prior...

In addition it has been shown to boost cognitive reasoning. "The finding that older women who consume moderate amounts of alcohol score better on cognitive tests suggests that it can." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/f...

Drinking alcohol is not about impairing your ability to exercise sound logic. We know that the brain needs time to reorganize (down time which includes sleep) and to function more effectively. In fact many great scientific discovers have occurred when people have turned off their immediate processing (active thinking) and allowed their mind to free associate. Now I would argue this can only work if you first put in the hard work of active thinking, but I would also argue that alcohol also provides this down time for free association and reorganizing the brain.

Thank you for that insight.
My personal "tragedy" wasn't care of drunk driving but rather "drunk living". (alcoholism) and the destruction that these folks are capable of knows no boundaries.
I still don't support MADD. When the problem is a spiritual one, physical punishment rarely works.

Two words: "depraved indifference"

Of course it is a crime to be falling down drunk and get behind the wheel.

(I didn't say blow .08 - I said being falling-down drunk.)

The very definition of 'drunk' driving has changed. Back when I started working in the lab (in Texas), the definition of drunk was somewhere around 0.12 g/dL. Now, I think it is 0.08 g/dL. The difference is that .12 is a level at which most people can sense that they are 'tipsy' and hence refrain from driving; at .08 most people feel just fine - until they get nabbed by the police.

So I have sometimes wondered if the change in the legal definition was from a 'prevent drunk driving' model to a 'generate revenue' model.

It is my belief that we have generated a Catch 22 situation here: if a patrol officer pulls over a car that is driving erratically, they have difficulty getting a conviction unless they can show that the individual is drunk (or on drugs). So this is where their focus has gone. (One is just as much endangered by a person who is 'driving tired', after all.) If the public had greater confidence in the police, then we would be more supportive of relying on the officer's decision - and we would not have to measure blood alcohol or not tag non-drunk reckless drivers. But that is not the case: we do not trust the police, so we enact laws that rely on measurable procedures.

I personally think that the outward display of erratic driving should result in a penalty and cars that are driving normally should be left alone. Since we are now in an age of universal video cameras, we should rely on the report of those to ticket all drivers who are performing erratically and leave a person's body to their own control.

The issue of drunk driving is going to become a degenerate question: Inasmuch as a cowboy's horse could get him safely home when he was drunk, an autonomous car will be able to get us home when we are thoroughly plastered.

Jan

great points, blarman. There have been many laws passed that preemptively punish before a "crime" is committed. Yes, it is illegal to drink and drive if one's blood alcohol limit is above what is legally allowed. No one questions that the legal limit is the same across the board for everyone and that everyone's metabolic rate is different. However, other laws have been passed making it not only legal for police to set up road blocks and ask you to submit to a Breathalyzer or blood test, but arrest you before a crime is committed. We have gone from, a crime was committed, because a person died in an auto accident, and the accident was caused by a drunk driver to everyone can be guilty until proven innocent of a crime which may or may not occur in the future. That is a big statist leap. and while you are at that stop, they are running your plates, checking your tags, asking where you're headed, who is that kid in your backseat...the list keeps getting longer and longer. Now to your points:
1. I make reasonable judgments based on experience and science. As was said earlier, sharing a bottle of wine over a two hour meal, will likely metabolize most of the alcohol. Eating a large Thanksgiving meal and driving home poses more risk, in fact studies show more accidents are actually caused by drivers falling asleep at the wheel. Do you suggest no one drive home after a big meal is eaten on a holiday?
2. you will have to give me an example of what you mean here. Are you suggesting that by my support of limiting road blocks and mandatory blood draws, I am encouraging others to drive while impaired?
To your last point, I completely agree. Even the founders of MADD in both the US and Canada felt that their grief in support of the organization was hijacked by turning the operations into a Big Business. Please see db's post on point.

People should be held accountable for their actions drunk or sober, but infringing on mass scale the rights of the innocent (check lanes) will not bring back your loved ones. The world is, has been and will continue to be a dangerous place. The choice is only of what kind of world the free will live in, or if there are to be any free.

Not to be bull-headed, but this seems to lead to a bizarre conclusion.

I'm pretty sure it is generally accepted that most people do not get adequate sleep anymore.
("Most" just means over half - but in this case I think it's considered much higher than that.)

Their research concludes, therefore, that the majority of people are essentially driving drunk.

Reminds me of the research that said talking with your passenger is just a distracting as talking on your cell phone.
I remain skeptical.

(Please note I do not consider moderate blood alcohol levels to be an accurate indicator of impairment.
And I did concede the obvious danger of someone actually falling asleep.)

Aaaanyway, sometimes we have to simply agree to disagree, neh?

I would encourage you to keep in mind that these people very likely are not rational any more than those who imbibe, they are merely drunk on emotion rather than alcohol. Both are impaired and neither can be reasoned with directly.

Instead of focusing on a snappy comeback (which would require a logical and focused mind to either appreciate or absorb), why not simply ask them how long ago their particular incident occurred and whether or not they have sough professional or clerical assistance in dealing with it. Once they rejoin reality and make peace with what happened, they might be in a better position to be logical. It is only the logical people we can reason with.

Correct me if I am wrong, but laws have very little to do with preemption and very much to do with laying out penalties for abrogating the rights of others. Laws (or more accurately the penalties for abrogating such) can serve as a warning or disincentive to those who pay attention to such so as to encourage one to evaluate the potential costs of a particular action BEFORE engaging in an activity which may result in the abrogation of others' rights. We don't punish people before they commit a crime, however - this isn't "Minority Report".

Now I can see that you are simply going to argue that my very logic supports your argument. Perhaps it does. But I would ask you to consider two points:

1) As one who values the products of the mind and the exercise of sound logic, why would you deliberately dilute and impair your critical thinking abilities - especially just before operating an automobile and thereby placing others of the public in danger?

2) As a corollary to 1, why would you seek to encourage others to place themselves in a position in which they would dilute and impair THEIR critical thinking activities - especially when the results of such can have such devastating and life-altering outcomes?

Please do not take this as any measure of support for MADD. I look only at the principle involved - in this case the free and unfettered exercise of clear judgement and the full use of the rational mind at all times.

As one acquainted with the grief that can only come from the death of a child, I feel for those who have joined themselves to such an organization as MADD, but out of pity, not sympathy. Emotions can have the same effect as alcohol in clouding the exercise of the rational mind, and it seems pretty clear to me that some of MADD's members allow their grief to drive their lives (pun intended) with an outcome no different than that which they crusade against.

Too many people with too many agendas.

Honestly at this point, I distrust stats from most sources, including of course government ones.

Or should I say especially government ones?

I agree with you here. One can not have free will without the propensity (and I would argue eventuality) for one to make a mistake. The only way to guarantee that no one ever makes mistakes and commits a crime is to disallow free will entirely.

Since that is not only absurd, but a total affront to humanity and self-awareness, what we should focus on is helping each and every person understand reality so that they are capable of evaluating any given situation and making decisions that do not lead to undesired consequences. Will we be so completely adept that we succeed? Probably not - thus the need for laws and consequences. And there may be some who simply choose something contrary just to rebel.

[Echoing CG] Freedom isn't free. It is a constant series of choices we make.

Really, here is one site that disagrees http://www.parking.ttu.edu/shared/drowsy...

See my comments on impairment vs blood alcohol level.

I couldn't agree more.

As for a good nights sleep - that's simply not true. Unless you are literally falling asleep at the wheel, it has no where near the same impact as driving drunk.

Neither does any other "distraction" which impairs you only for as long as you are "distracted".

As opposed to driving drunk which impairs you for the duration of your drive.

see this article http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-acc...

"Drunk driving isn't criminal behavior. Hurting people is criminal behavior." Hear hear

Why not?

If we were serious about drunk driving we would get rid of the taxi licensing rules.

0.08 is not driving shitfaced and why put the emphasis on alcohol? Not getting a good night sleep often has a worse effect on driving performance.

hear hear