FDA to Crack Down on Alcoholic Energy Drinks

[quote name='camoor']Ever notice that whenever the government does anything that doesn't involve bombing another nation, you guys hysterically scream that America is socialist?[/QUOTE]

Ever notice that whenever the government does anything that doesn't involve bombing another nation, you guys hysterically scream that America is just protecting the individual citizen.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ever notice that whenever the government steps in and tells us we cannot do something, you guys always say "well its not like we are a dictatorship yet!"

The interesting part is that when it comes to building the mosque in NYC, it doesn't hold a candle to the intolerance the rest of the world has for different religions have, yet we should live by example, and not set the bar to their level. But when it comes to freedom as long as we aren't germany yet, we should be alright.[/QUOTE]
You are a fucking fool. It's the reactionary, blowing everything out of proportion morons like you who hold the rest of us back.

It's like you're all chicken little or something. Every time something is banned or outlawed it's the end of the world.
 
[quote name='Clak'] It's the reactionary, blowing everything out of proportion morons like you who hold the rest of us back.

[/QUOTE]

Kind of like reacting to idiot drunk drivers, and blowing it out of proportion to the point of banning something?

I know if only the government had the power to give us a healthy diet. We would be so much happier and healthier amiright?
 
[quote name='Knoell']I know if only the government had the power to give us a healthy diet. We would be so much happier and healthier amiright?[/QUOTE]

WTF are you talking about. Americans don't need the government to give them a healthy diet - it's there for the taking. In addition, a healthier diet does lead to a happier and healthier life.

We need to get the government out of subsidizing poor food alternatives like beef and corn byproducts (IE high fructose corn syrup).
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ever notice that whenever the government does anything that doesn't involve bombing another nation, you guys hysterically scream that America is just protecting the individual citizen.[/QUOTE]

I stated before - I think it's ridiculous that Dems want to ban alcoholic sports drinks, and I think it's ridiculous that Republicans want to ban swears on the radio.

Both sides swear it's for the kids. Give me a fucking break.

Also - great reading comprehension Knoell. Get a fucking clue.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Kind of like reacting to idiot drunk drivers, and blowing it out of proportion to the point of banning something?

I know if only the government had the power to give us a healthy diet. We would be so much happier and healthier amiright?[/QUOTE]
Like what, drinking and driving? Yeah I know Knoell, how dare the government tell someone what to do in their car. Ranks right up their with the audacity some states have in making not wearing a seat belt illegal. How dare they!!!!

Seriously, people like you just need something to get worked up about, and if it isn't big enough to be worked up about you just say it's the beginning of our transition to a dictatorship or other nonsense and there you go, now it's big enough. I mean for crying out loud, if you'd been alive when social security was enacted you probably would have been running in the streets decrying the end of the country as we know it.
 
It's funny to read this thread, where there are members all for the government stepping in and banning stuff while nay-saying those who fear the slippery slope... then go and re-read the Amazon thread where some of these same folks were in an uproar about Amazon stepping in and banning stuff while crying out about the slippery slope Amazon's actions could create.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's funny to read this thread, where there are members all for the government stepping in and banning stuff while nay-saying those who fear the slippery slope... then go and re-read the Amazon thread where some of these same folks were in an uproar about Amazon stepping in and banning stuff while crying out about the slippery slope Amazon's actions could create.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was pretty ironic when Amazon deleted 1984 off the Kindles.

Go and google that - you might learn something

Frankly - as far as corporate censors go your employer is one of the scariest
 
[quote name='Clak']Like what, drinking and driving? Yeah I know Knoell, how dare the government tell someone what to do in their car. Ranks right up their with the audacity some states have in making not wearing a seat belt illegal. How dare they!!!!

Seriously, people like you just need something to get worked up about, and if it isn't big enough to be worked up about you just say it's the beginning of our transition to a dictatorship or other nonsense and there you go, now it's big enough. I mean for crying out loud, if you'd been alive when social security was enacted you probably would have been running in the streets decrying the end of the country as we know it.[/QUOTE]

I don't even know where to start. We are discussing banning a DRINK, not debating the illegality of drinking and driving for one. Maybe you should start over after figuring that out. People are scared this drink will get you SOOO wasted you won't have control over your keys and your car. Because people cannot get SOOO wasted on any other type of alcohal and caffine. Redbull and vodka anyone?

Who is overreacting here? The people who are banning a DRINK? Or the people who are complaining that they are banning a DRINK?

For people who would like marijuana to be legalized you sure like to pick and choose.
 
[quote name='camoor']I stated before - I think it's ridiculous that Dems want to ban alcoholic sports drinks, and I think it's ridiculous that Republicans want to ban swears on the radio.

Both sides swear it's for the kids. Give me a fucking break.

Also - great reading comprehension Knoell. Get a fucking clue.[/QUOTE]

Well hey, if you are going to claim republicans exist for the sole purpose of bombing nations, then i will claim democrats exist for the sole purpose of being a nanny.
 
I remember the 1984 incident. My wife was hinting that she wanted an eReader for Christmas. We talked it over (paying full price for books, no option to trade in books or buy used books, the 1984 incident, her inability to remember to charger her iPod/cell phone/DSi) and she decided she'd rather have something else. I keep threatening to get her an ironing board.

But, again, I have no problem with individuals working at a company making a decision on what they want to sell. But I take that into consideration when making purchases. For example, I don't buy CDs at Walmart. Granted, I don't buy many CDs anyway - but I just don't buy CDs there. Funny thing is, the CDs I do buy don't even need to be edited (last five CDs I bought - Charlotte Church, Back to Scratch from some UK importer - Jessica Andrews, Icon from Best Buy - Jason Mraz from Target - Lisa Loeb, the Purple Album from an eBay seller - Simpsons: The Movie deluxe edition from Best Buy.) But I make a conscious decision to not buy CDs from Walmart because I disagree with their policy on edited music. Which is just fine - as I have alternative methods of purchasing CDs.

Now, in a world where the government steps in and starts banning products... your alternative methods just land you in jail.
 
[quote name='Clak']Like what, drinking and driving? Yeah I know Knoell, how dare the government tell someone what to do in their car. Ranks right up their with the audacity some states have in making not wearing a seat belt illegal. How dare they!!!!

Seriously, people like you just need something to get worked up about, and if it isn't big enough to be worked up about you just say it's the beginning of our transition to a dictatorship or other nonsense and there you go, now it's big enough. I mean for crying out loud, if you'd been alive when social security was enacted you probably would have been running in the streets decrying the end of the country as we know it.[/QUOTE]

People are still allowed to mix their own supply of alcohol and (legal) stimulants, the banning of this drink is like the time the nanny state wouldn't allow me to open up a chain of Drive-Through Liquor&Fireworks stores.
 
THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOM! WHO SAID THAT COCAINE IN DRINKS IS DANGEROUS?!? IT SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE!!! *Knoell & Unclebob in the early 1900s*

Hope this belittling post is enough to hold you over until I can sit down and really tear apart your last string of posts.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']The whole point is that it isn't their place to decide what is appropriate and what isn't. Where does it stop if they do pull this?[/QUOTE]

Funny.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Funny.[/QUOTE]

duh wat da difference between free speech & a cheap product, marketed to inexperienced drinkers, that not only has a high level of alcohol but a high amount of cafferine/other stimulants which mask the effects of the alcohol until it is too late
 
[quote name='Knoell']I don't even know where to start. We are discussing banning a DRINK, not debating the illegality of drinking and driving for one. Maybe you should start over after figuring that out. People are scared this drink will get you SOOO wasted you won't have control over your keys and your car. Because people cannot get SOOO wasted on any other type of alcohal and caffine. Redbull and vodka anyone?

Who is overreacting here? The people who are banning a DRINK? Or the people who are complaining that they are banning a DRINK?

For people who would like marijuana to be legalized you sure like to pick and choose.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Knoell']Kind of like reacting to idiot drunk drivers, and blowing it out of proportion to the point of banning something?
[/QUOTE]
You said the above, which is of course what led to drinking and driving being illegal. So you have people reacting to idiotic drunk drivers, did they also blow it out of proportion? I mean it's your car isn't it, shouldn't you be able to blow down the street drunk off your ass?

And at any rate, I'm talking about the mindset you and others like you have, not any one single instance. Seeing that something is doing harm to people and banning it, that's overeating? Or is acting like it's one step closer to having all our freedoms taken away overreacting? Because that's the way most of you act everytime the big bad gubment bans something.

And I'm not even defending this, I don't really even care, but you all freak out every time the government steps in and does....well practically anything.
 
It would make more sense to not give a shit when private corporations decide what to sell and what not to sell.

It would make sense to give a shit when the government decides to ban a product based on a few idiots hurting themselves and others. They could tax the shit out of it like they do with cigarettes, maybe.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOM! WHO SAID THAT COCAINE IN DRINKS IS DANGEROUS?!? IT SHOULD BE A PERSONAL CHOICE!!! *Knoell & Unclebob in the early 1900s*

Hope this belittling post is enough to hold you over until I can sit down and really tear apart your last string of posts.[/QUOTE]

Was the trace amounts found in coca-cola ever proved dangerous or habit forming? I read that in low doses, coca has similar effects to caffeine.

Of course - now that the resident clowns have entered the conversation it's going to be hard to discuss anything over the noise. It's going to be hysteria about so-called socialism vs their dangerous brand of anarcho-capitalism from here on out.
 
[quote name='Clak']You said the above, which is of course what led to drinking and driving being illegal. So you have people reacting to idiotic drunk drivers, did they also blow it out of proportion? I mean it's your car isn't it, shouldn't you be able to blow down the street drunk off your ass?

And at any rate, I'm talking about the mindset you and others like you have, not any one single instance. Seeing that something is doing harm to people and banning it, that's overeating? Or is acting like it's one step closer to having all our freedoms taken away overreacting? Because that's the way most of you act everytime the big bad gubment bans something.

And I'm not even defending this, I don't really even care, but you all freak out every time the government steps in and does....well practically anything.[/QUOTE]

Freaking out? Who is freaking out? I simply disagree with the policy. Although I don't think this particular policy means we are heading towards a dictatorship, it certainly shows that we are willing to blame EVERYTHING else for our actions but ourselves.

Who eats the double cheeseburger? McDonalds?
Who drinks enough to get wasted and then drives a car? Four Loco?
Who drinks enough to get wasted and rape someone? Alcohal?
Who plays violent video games and then goes out and kills someone? Epic?

If we ban alcohal, cheeseburgers, and violent media in your guys world people wouldn't commit rape, murder, drunk driving, or get fat.

People who do things like that are personally responsible for what they do. I don't care if they drank too much, or mcdonalds is just sooo tasty, stop putting yourself in those situations.

How many rapes, and dwis can be attributed to alcohal abuse by itself? Oh but wait now caffiene is similiar to cocaine so its different. We better stop hopping that alcohal with that drug caffeine that we don't use in EVERYTHING else.
 
[quote name='camoor']Was the trace amounts found in coca-cola ever proved dangerous or habit forming? I read that in low doses, coca has similar effects to caffeine.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether the amount was dangerous or habit forming (can't find anything about that) but if Wiki is right, it contained nine milligrams of cocaine per glass until they swapped over to using spent coca leaves.

- edit Also it's funny how Knoell keeps missing the fact that the problem with this type of drink isn't that it is alcohol or that it is bad for you but the fact that it is a mass marketed high content alcohol with other stimulants which mask the effects of the alcohol. As in, people drink it, feel buzzed but not drunk, drink more, caffeine/other stuff wears off and the user is extremely fucked up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']I stated before - I think it's ridiculous that Dems want to ban alcoholic sports drinks, and I think it's ridiculous that Republicans want to ban swears on the radio.

Both sides swear it's for the kids. Give me a fucking break.

Also - great reading comprehension Knoell. Get a fucking clue.[/QUOTE]

It's not the Democrats, it's the FDA, as stated in the damn thread title. Stop trying juxtapose things you don't like with the Democratic party. It's sloppy to say the least.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I don't know whether the amount was dangerous or habit forming (can't find anything about that) but if Wiki is right, it contained nine milligrams of cocaine per glass until they swapped over to using spent coca leaves.

- edit Also it's funny how Knoell keeps missing the fact that the problem with this type of drink isn't that it is alcohol or that it is bad for you but the fact that it is a mass marketed high content alcohol with other stimulants which mask the effects of the alcohol. As in, people drink it, feel buzzed but not drunk, drink more, caffeine/other stuff wears off and the user is extremely fucked up.[/QUOTE]

It is funny that you believe that kids do not drink beyond their limit already. Like somehow this drink causes kids to drink more than they would have otherwise, a good old bottle of vodka is unheard of with a bunch of kids right? it isn't the FDA's job to ban a substance because the user cannot be responsible with it. Or else we should ban, cheeseburgers, alcohol, tobacco, gambling because they can all lead to fucked up behavior. Well gambling is already banned in my state at least, (except for Indians, and the Government)


Does it have any health issues that alcohal doesnt? I thought the FDA was supposed to make products safe for us, not determine if we are allowed to use products because of the potential for poor judgement.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Freaking out? Who is freaking out? I simply disagree with the policy. Although I don't think this particular policy means we are heading towards a dictatorship, it certainly shows that we are willing to blame EVERYTHING else for our actions but ourselves.

Who eats the double cheeseburger? McDonalds?
Who drinks enough to get wasted and then drives a car? Four Loco?
Who drinks enough to get wasted and rape someone? Alcohal?
Who plays violent video games and then goes out and kills someone? Epic?

If we ban alcohal, cheeseburgers, and violent media in your guys world people wouldn't commit rape, murder, drunk driving, or get fat.

People who do things like that are personally responsible for what they do. I don't care if they drank too much, or mcdonalds is just sooo tasty, stop putting yourself in those situations.

How many rapes, and dwis can be attributed to alcohal abuse by itself? Oh but wait now caffiene is similiar to cocaine so its different. We better stop hopping that alcohal with that drug caffeine that we don't use in EVERYTHING else.[/QUOTE]
Well then why stop there Knoell? If this isn't right, then maybe people should be able to drink and drive. I mean the alcohol doesn't cause a wreck and kill someone.

I'm not even talking about you in particular, which is why I've said things like "you folks". You read comments on the government doing practically anything, you'll find at least small gubment type decrying the rise of our little socialist dictatorship. The government can't do anything anymore without your types blowing shit out of proportion. Hell, you'd think Canada was the new USSR from the way some of these people act.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is funny that you believe that kids do not drink beyond their limit already. Like somehow this drink causes kids to drink more than they would have otherwise, a good old bottle of vodka is unheard of with a bunch of kids right? it isn't the FDA's job to ban a substance because the user cannot be responsible with it. Or else we should ban, cheeseburgers, alcohol, tobacco, gambling because they can all lead to fucked up behavior. Well gambling is already banned in my state at least, (except for Indians, and the Government)


Does it have any health issues that alcohal doesnt? I thought the FDA was supposed to make products safe for us, not determine if we are allowed to use products because of the potential for poor judgement.[/QUOTE]

Again, it isn't because they can get fucked up on it quickly but because it has a ton of caffeine/guarana/sugar in it which masked the effect of the alcohol. Like let's take your vodka example. People drink it, they can tell when it is getting to be too much and can either decide to stop or continue on. It's also vodka so people know that it is a spirit and not a beer or something of that nature. These energy malt liquor things are cheap, available from any minimart and are the equivalent of a couple beers. People drink it, the stimulants mask the effect from the alcohol, people misjudge how it is affecting them, drink more, the stimulants wear off and the person is left way fucked up.

That is really bad when they are out and about but extremely dangerous if the dummy decides he is ok enough to drive...before the shit hits the fan.

And yes, taking alot of depressants/stimulants together is bad for your heart/body over the long run (or short run if you were like my brother with an undiagnosed heart condition from birth) but that's kind of irrelevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']The government can't do anything anymore without your types blowing shit out of proportion.[/QUOTE]

That's because we've been trained by the government to recognize that they can't do anything without blowing it out of proportion themselves. Look at airport security since 9/11. Some fools though "Oh, yeah, go ahead and treat us like cattle to make us safer, Mr. Bush." Then, presto! Less than 10 years later, here we are with government agents feeling up little boys with 100% government immunity.

Trust is something that has to be earned and nurtured. Our government has failed at that. Some day, you'll recognize this as well.

Hey, how about all that money The Chosen One just handed over to Israel? Whoo-hoo!
 
"You are a fucking fool. It's the reactionary, blowing everything out of proportion morons like you who hold the rest of us back."

So, I'm glad to know that freedom is holding man-kind back as a species. So, I suppose freewill altogether is an evil that we cannot tolerate, perhaps we should just have a computer determine the most logical and safe way we can live and anything that isn't necessary in this should be prohibited. It's for the good of the species.

And don't tell me that this is different, because it's the same thing we are discussing here.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well then why stop there Knoell? If this isn't right, then maybe people should be able to drink and drive. I mean the alcohol doesn't cause a wreck and kill someone.

[/QUOTE]

Think about what you are saying. Why stop there? Maybe we should be able to drink and drive? What is the difference between banning drinking and operating a motor vehicle, and just drinking four loco? Think hard now. I hope you can figure out the difference.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Again, it isn't because they can get fucked up on it quickly but because it has a ton of caffeine/guarana/sugar in it which masked the effect of the alcohol. Like let's take your vodka example. People drink it, they can tell when it is getting to be too much and can either decide to stop or continue on. It's also vodka so people know that it is a spirit and not a beer or something of that nature. These energy malt liquor things are cheap, available from any minimart and are the equivalent of a couple beers. People drink it, the stimulants mask the effect from the alcohol, people misjudge how it is affecting them, drink more, the stimulants wear off and the person is left way fucked up.

That is really bad when they are out and about but extremely dangerous if the dummy decides he is ok enough to drive...before the shit hits the fan.

And yes, taking alot of depressants/stimulants together is bad for your heart/body over the long run (or short run if you were like my brother with an undiagnosed heart condition from birth) but that's kind of irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Your entire argument is based on people not realizing they are drunk. I am still not seeing why this should means it should be banned. People figured out pretty quickly that liquor will get you hammered pretty quickly, I am sure they can figure out this stuff. Nyquil can knock ya out too, but at first you don't feel like it will, should we ban that too?

Since when is the health effects of a product irrelevant? Isn't that the FDA's primary responsibility?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your entire argument is based on people not realizing they are drunk. I am still not seeing why this should means it should be banned. People figured out pretty quickly that liquor will get you hammered pretty quickly, I am sure they can figure out this stuff. Nyquil can knock ya out too, but at first you don't feel like it will, should we ban that too?

Since when is the health effects of a product irrelevant? Isn't that the FDA's primary responsibility?[/QUOTE]

Again, no, it isn't. My entire argument is that there are ingredients in the drink which mask the effects of the alcohol. As in, most people would misjudge how intoxicated they are due to the effects of the high amount of caffeine/guarana/sugar in it.

If you notice that the big thing that got them in trouble in the first place. This already happened once before with Sparks. Multiple states requested that they take the caffeine out, MillerCoors complied and nothing happened. The same thing happened with these brands, they refused and the FDA officially stepped in. There drink isn't banned but they have to remove the caffeine/guarana.

And there is health effects but I was trying to avoid the strawman of comparing this to junk food/smokes/gambling/any other "vice"

[quote name='FDA press release']The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today warned four companies that the caffeine added to their malt alcoholic beverages is an “unsafe food additive” and said that further action, including seizure of their products, is possible under federal law.

FDA’s action follows a scientific review by the Agency. FDA examined the published peer-reviewed literature on the co-consumption of caffeine and alcohol, consulted with experts in the fields of toxicology, neuropharmacology, emergency medicine, and epidemiology, and reviewed information provided by product manufacturers. FDA also performed its own independent laboratory analysis of these products.

“FDA does not find support for the claim that the addition of caffeine to these alcoholic beverages is ‘generally recognized as safe,’ which is the legal standard,” said Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein, Principal Deputy Commissioner. “To the contrary, there is evidence that the combinations of caffeine and alcohol in these products pose a public health concern.”

Experts have raised concerns that caffeine can mask some of the sensory cues individuals might normally rely on to determine their level of intoxication. The FDA said peer-reviewed studies suggest that the consumption of beverages containing added caffeine and alcohol is associated with risky behaviors that may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
19thomas-600.jpg


as predicted
 
Maybe we should all be able to decide everything on our own. Personal liberties are the only thing that matters, right?

Maybe I should be able to drive at .15 BAC because I'm real good at driving drunk. I'm better driving at .15 that most people are driving sober so it should be allowed right?

Libertarians sound more like Republicans every day. They should just make bumper stickers that say, "It's all about me and mines. fuck y'all."
 
[quote name='depascal22']Libertarians sound more like Republicans every day. They should just make bumper stickers that say, "It's all about me and mines. fuck y'all."[/QUOTE]

That has always been the libertarian mantra. They talk social darwinist bullshit about their system being better for everyone - but noone really buys it.
 
"Maybe we should all be able to decide everything on our own. Personal liberties are the only thing that matters, right?

Maybe I should be able to drive at .15 BAC because I'm real good at driving drunk. I'm better driving at .15 that most people are driving sober so it should be allowed right?

Libertarians sound more like Republicans every day. They should just make bumper stickers that say, "It's all about me and mines. fuck y'all."
Click to expand...

Actually, I do think you should be able to drink and drive. The thing is people need to be held more responsible for hurting or killing other people or damaging their property. Killing someone while drinking and driving is murder as far as I'm concerned. With freedom comes responsibility.

It's the same way as I believe that the air and oceans should be private property, then companies could be held liable for property damages. No government intervention, just a way to protect the environment and be consistent with individual liberty.

Something to ponder on.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Maybe we should all be able to decide everything on our own. Personal liberties are the only thing that matters, right?

Maybe I should be able to drive at .15 BAC because I'm real good at driving drunk. I'm better driving at .15 that most people are driving sober so it should be allowed right?

Libertarians sound more like Republicans every day. They should just make bumper stickers that say, "It's all about me and mines. fuck y'all."[/QUOTE]

I actually agree with this. If someone can drive with a .15 BAC, then good for them. There are people who's ability to drive is impaired at levels below the legal limit... (hell, there are those who can't drive sober.) There are those who do things like text and drive, which studies have shown to be more dangerous than driving drunk. The various drunk driving laws have pretty much picked an arbitrary number and decided that it fits everyone, when, in fact, a good majority of people probably fall above or below that number before being impaired.

If I'm driving down the road and I plow over a kid on a bike, should it matter if I had a .07 BAC, a .09 BAC, a .15 BAC, was texting on my cell phone, was playing with the radio or was shaving my face? Either way, the kid's dead because of my irresponsibility. Why should I get off easier because I was shaving vs. drinking?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Ok, this has to be trolling. Nobody would seriously argue for drunk driving to be legalized.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that drunk driving is already legal, right? The illegal part comes in based on an arbitrary number.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Ok, this has to be trolling. Nobody would seriously argue for drunk driving to be legalized.[/QUOTE]

This is why it's useless to argue with these fools.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is why it's useless to argue with these fools.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, yeah. It's foolish to point out that some people are less coordinated at .07 than others are at .1. It's foolish to claim that the penalty for two reckless acts, each resulting in the same outcome, should have the same penalty. It's foolish to realize that throwing a number out there and calling it a day is a lazy and ignorant way to create a law when that number means virtually nothing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Think about what you are saying. Why stop there? Maybe we should be able to drink and drive? What is the difference between banning drinking and operating a motor vehicle, and just drinking four loco? Think hard now. I hope you can figure out the difference.[/QUOTE]
I know the difference you moron, but your libertarian ideal of individual freedom and responsibility would imply that drinking and driving should be legal, because what right does anyone have to stop you?

edit- Making the air private property? I'm going to start bleeding out of the ears if this shit continues.
 
Jesus, you pick a number to make it concrete, or do you want vague-ass laws? And you punish further than a sober person to discourage people from drinking and driving since the act of drinking and driving makes that kind of shit more likely to happen.

For Christ's sake it isn't that complicated.
 
Kudos @ UncleBob.

It amazes me that libertarian minded people can make a really well thought out argument with legitimate points and principles to back them, to only get shrugged off with a "that's crazy."

What the government really does is provide a safety net from the "scary" world of total responsibility. Many people can't manage their own money (or in some cases, even make any money on their own, lol), protect themselves, or apparently be expected to have enough common sense to know that alcohol is a poison.

I really have no problem with people wanting to live under the protection of a government, but I do have a problem with the government telling me how to live.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Jesus, you pick a number to make it concrete, or do you want vague-ass laws? And you punish further than a sober person to discourage people from drinking and driving since the act of drinking and driving makes that kind of shit more likely to happen.

For Christ's sake it isn't that complicated.[/QUOTE]

I agree that, if there's going to be a law, it needs to be concrete with little wiggle room for such vagueness.

It's this particular law that I disagree with.

Again, some people are more coherent at .09 than others are at .07. To give the .07's a free pass while locking up the .09'ers seems silly. Hell, considering the closest I've ever come to drinking is gurgling with Listerine, I'd probably be unable to control a vehicle at .008 - let alone coming anywhere near .08.

Then, you get this guy, tested with a BAC almost twice what's considered "dead", able to have a coherent conversation. I'd almost bet this guy could drive better at .08 than the majority of people in the Walmart parking lot sober.

As for drinking and driving making "that kind of shit" more likely to happen - *anything* that takes your mind off the road makes that kind of crap more likely to happen. Playing with the radio/MP3 player. Fixing your hair/make-up. Screaming kids in the backseat. Yet, all of these things are perfectly legal - and all of them have lead to fatal car crashes. Should driving while any of these things are happening be illegal?

You're setting a gray line (.08 might be exact, but the amount at which that effects an individual varies - a lot) and saying that anyone who crosses that line is breaking the law because they could potentially be doing something dangerous.
 
Hungover driving causes accidents too. Hell, some people are safer driving drunk then they are the next morning with a hangover.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Hungover driving causes accidents too. Hell, some people are safer driving drunk then they are the next morning with a hangover.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I'd like to see us raise the bar for obtaining a driver's license period. It'd get a lot of people off the roads, make 'em safer and increase the usage of public transportation.
 
Personally, I'd like to see us raise the bar for obtaining a driver's license period. It'd get a lot of people off the roads, make 'em safer and increase the usage of public transportation.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with you here. I really don't like the idea of the government choosing who drives and who dosen't, even though they already do so.

Where I live, if you can't drive, you can't work, because everything is so spread out. I fail to see how people not being able to get to work benefits society in any way.

That's my two cents, anyway.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I can't agree with you here. I really don't like the idea of the government choosing who drives and who dosen't, even though they already do so.

Where I live, if you can't drive, you can't work, because everything is so spread out. I fail to see how people not being able to get to work benefits society in any way.

That's my two cents, anyway.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, there would have to be more improvement given towards public transportation... but I have no problem with the government determining who is qualified to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, so long as the testing was done fairly for all individuals, based on the same criteria.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] but I have no problem with the government determining who is qualified to operate a motor vehicle on public roads[/QUOTE]

Unless they are drunk, apparently.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Strell is correct on this one, you are sounding kind of like a hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

'meh. Don't care enough about what he said to spend the energy opening his post and reading it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top