In article >, C.H. wrote:

>>> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if you
>>> want half-drunk) drivers.
>>
>> Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement
>> studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent?
>
> No, just greedy.

Greedy? Greedy for what? And why wouldn't they be now? Why on earth would
they lie or make things up? It's pretty obvious why they do now, it's
about survival, continued funding for the cause.

>> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies
>> are any more valid than the ones done then?

> Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence.

They didn't influence the studies then they don't now. These are the
studies anti-drunk driving groups have been using and funding. 20 years
ago MADD et al were telling us something much different than they do
today. It's about their continued survival.

>> Really, these are simple tests, they don't require anything more than
>> simple scientific method, so why do the results vary? Why the change in
>> results and recommendations?

> See above.

The fact is, if they weren't good then, they aren't good now. So by
discrediting the previous for the new, you discredit the new as well.

>>> I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
>>> restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
>>> too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
>>> freedom in a coffin.

>> This is all about control. The prohibitionists see alcohol as evil.

> I don't see alcohol as evil, just its application in conjunction with
> motor vehicles. For me this is not about control, but about survival. You
> may value your life so low that someone else's right to booze supersedes
> your right to live, but I don't.

Here you go again with same crapola. I value my life as much as anyone
thankyouverymuch, so stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. And it is
about control. Growing a police state through 'soberity check points'
which function with little difference from the type of checkpoints the
KGB or the Gestopho(sp?) would run.

>> They saw it that way in the begining of the 20th century, they see it
>> that way in the begining of the 21st. But unlike before, this time the
>> chosen route is incronmentalism. No outright bans. Just make it
>> progressively more difficult to have a legal drink. This has nothing to
>> do with driving, like many things driving is the mechanism through which
>> action is taken for the greater goals.

> Conspiracy theory. You are beginning to sound like Judy.

Draw the line from a to b. Read MADD's website. It's right there. They
make it quite clear they are going after the avialibility and
affordability of alcohol, not just driving drunk.

>>> Traffic has rules. Some make sense, some don't. Would you advocate
>>> allowing everyone to run red lights just because driver X wants that?
>>> Would you allow people to drive through school zones at 60mph because
>>> driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>>> fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted. You at least tried
>>> to argument up to here but from here it reads like a paper from
>>> Conspiracy Theory 101.

>> Your lame counter arguements. How many times have I seen this strawman
>> crapola? Countless. If I had a nickel.... Anyway, I've already cited how
>> MADD goes well beyond simple drunk driving, so it's not a conspiracy
>> theory, just read the MADD website.

> I am not interested in MADD's policy nor did I debate it anywhere in this
> thread.

Well they are leading the group wrt this cause in the USA.

> I am interested in my survival and that of others. Responsibility
> is neither a strawman nor crapola, but the heart and soul of traffic. If
> you can't be responsible you don't belong behind the wheel.

I am really growing tired of this. I am far more responsible behind the
wheel than practically everyone I come across. So drop the personal
crapola. The fact remains if someone has a glass of wine with dinner and
drives home he is no more dangerous than when he wakes up to go to work in
the morning. The anti-drunk driving groups have been around for 20 some
years now and they have to push this low now to stay around. They
achieved their goals, they are obsolete in this regard but they won't go
away so they push for ever lower values of BAC.

>>> I am all for personal freedoms. Killing people is not a personal
>>> freedom, whether you do it because you want to or whether you do it
>>> because you have not enough common sense to keep drinking and driving
>>> apart.

>> The only freedom you seem to be for is that of thinking exactly like
>> you. Everyone else is to be attacked, accused, and discredited by
>> whichever means necessary.

> Where did I attack any freedom?

Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.

> I specifically attacked drinking and
> driving and that's not freedom. On the other hand I repeatedly said that
> I am for abolishing speed limits, helmet and seatbelt laws (I would not
> drive without a seatbelt nor ride without a helmet but if someone wants to
> it should be his right. Now tell me, Brent, what 'freedoms' did I attack?

Oh, so you think that someone who has a glass of wine with dinner is an
impared driver and a danger to you, but one who slides out of the driver's
seat in a curve or while making an emergency manuver is not a danger to
you?

And you're reading comprehension problem again, I didn't claim you
'attacked freedom' I stated you seem to be for the freedom to think only
as you do. Note the critical difference.

>>> I agree with you that the MADD is a (small) zealot group, but just the
>>> fact that zealots want something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't
>>> make sense.

>> You're following their line. You support their ever decreasing BAC
>> values.

> I always supported a zero alcohol rule. That doesn't have anything to do
> with MADD, just with my personal interest in not being nailed by a drunk
> bozo.

I'll bet you've driven with numbers higher than zero and didn't even
notice it or even know because you didn't know you had consumed anything
that would raise your BAC even by some trivial amount.

>>> If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a
>>> safe environment, in other words, at home.

>> Here we go again with the accusation through question. The 'if' doesn't
>> make it acceptable either.

> Yes, it does. Either you want to experience the 'great effects of being
> drunk' or you don't. In the first case there is no reason for you to be
> insulted, in the second the whole thing doesn't concern you.

If you want to experience the 'great effects of beating your wife' do so
in a safe environment, in other words, at home.

Does that feel better to you? Of course it doesn't. The 'if' doesn't
matter one bit.

> It's funny how touchy you are when it's about you and how vicious and
> dishonorable when it's about me.

Not being touchy at all. Just pointing out what you're doing. Once you
did it, you made it open season on yourself. If you didn't want to play
hardball, you shouldn't have started it:

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
-> risk your life and others'?

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:31:06 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply
-> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be
-> wrong.
<...>
-> but if you really think drinking
-> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before
-> you hurt someone.