From: "Hermit" <hidden@lucifer.com>
> ...In my opinion, the true road-dangers are the people who lack the
judgment to determine what is sensible and what is not - or the resolution
to be sensible; as well as the addictive types who can neither tolerate
alcohol, nor say no thank-you to a drink.
On that we are agreed.
>But we are not protected from such people - and under the current systems,
cannot be. Such people will drink and drive no matter how draconian the
punishments involved, no matter how insane the risks.
In 1982 31.1% of people breathalised in the UK were over the limit. In 1992
it was 8%. I would guess that the figure would be even lower now. The
current laws/campaigns obviously do have an affect on the behaviour of a
large proportion of the population.
>Meanwhile all of us exchange ancient freedoms for illusionary safety, and
not incidentally, convert far too many (voteless) children into lifelong
criminals for having a drink, rather than teaching them to deal with alcohol
(and other drugs) responsibly. Perhaps the mindset, which accompanies such
abysmal choices, is the heaviest social burden of all.
As the car is only just over 100 years old, I don't think drink/driving can
be classified as an 'ancient freedom'. I don't think there is a law against
being intoxicated in charge of a horse (in the UK at least)!
We have a reasonable amount of freedom to drink and a reasonable amount of
freedom to drive, but not both at the same time.
Are you seriously advocating that we should abolish drink driving laws and
trust people to be responsible? I wish that this would work, but I'm sure
that alcohol related fatalities would rise rapidly. How would you change the
current legislation assuming that basic human nature stays the same?
Andy Brice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT