This whole thread reminds me of the death penalty debate. The pro-death penalty side will often resort to making their case by appealing to the visceral emotions of their opposition. Example "If your mother or daughter was raped and murdered, wouldn't you want the guy put to death?" To which the correct answer, to be consistent, is no.
I see the same type of arguments being made on the DUI issue. Of course no one wants to see anyone be hurt in an accident. But let's be real, driving an automobile involves risks. Why would you be any less forgiving a person who crashes their car due to inattention or fatigue? You shouldn't be. And they deserve punishment.
Do any of you arguing against Barman have any regard for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been ruined because someone got a DUI who was otherwise a law abiding and productive citizen? Or do you like living in a police state? My main argument is the .08 bac is too low. A guy maybe had a few drinks one night, drives home, and then a cop decides to find a reason to pull him over. The guy blows a .09 and then gets thrust into the system. Maybe they lose a job or a marriage over the ordeal. They are whipped relentless, at least financially. But they are not the problem. The real problem are the chronic drunks those that are double and triple over the limit.
I see the same type of arguments being made on the DUI issue. Of course no one wants to see anyone be hurt in an accident. But let's be real, driving an automobile involves risks. Why would you be any less forgiving a person who crashes their car due to inattention or fatigue? You shouldn't be. And they deserve punishment.
Do any of you arguing against Barman have any regard for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been ruined because someone got a DUI who was otherwise a law abiding and productive citizen? Or do you like living in a police state? My main argument is the .08 bac is too low. A guy maybe had a few drinks one night, drives home, and then a cop decides to find a reason to pull him over. The guy blows a .09 and then gets thrust into the system. Maybe they lose a job or a marriage over the ordeal. They are whipped relentless, at least financially. But they are not the problem. The real problem are the chronic drunks those that are double and triple over the limit.
Every single one of you are idiots. Barman is not condoning drinking and driving. He is merely taking a more selfish stance that if you drink and drive, stasticially you are more likely to harm yourself rather than someone else.
Therefore, due to this reasoning, one can assume that you should NOT drink and drive because you are more likely to harm yourself, rather than the statiscally lower probability that you'll hurt someone else. Human nature / instinct is basic survival. Barman's rationalization is perfectly understandable, although ethically and morally, one can disagree with this thought process ( and many of you do with good reason ).
I think all of you are getting a little too emotional rather than rational here. Think about what Barman is saying.
Therefore, due to this reasoning, one can assume that you should NOT drink and drive because you are more likely to harm yourself, rather than the statiscally lower probability that you'll hurt someone else. Human nature / instinct is basic survival. Barman's rationalization is perfectly understandable, although ethically and morally, one can disagree with this thought process ( and many of you do with good reason ).
I think all of you are getting a little too emotional rather than rational here. Think about what Barman is saying.
Probably because you're reading comments from a couple of people who can't decipher English
Fact - Driving after using alcohol is more dangerous to the driver himself than it is to other people
Therefore, it's usually much smarter to not drive if impaired by alcohol.
Now if you disagree with either of the above two statements, then I can see why you might think that I am the one off base.
