In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
>> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....
>
>Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
>absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.

There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!". (of
course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking
while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not
really an option).

>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.

You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety
of your nose.

>driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.

You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep,
that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through.

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

Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism.