NationStates Jolt Archive

So I went to a party at a friend's house this past weekend. One of the guys there had a good bit to drink and then wanted to drive home since it was "just 2 miles away" (never mind that those two miles included some pretty dangerous roads). Anyways, people tried to talk him out of it, but he was dead set on driving himself home, despite the offer of several couches, a bed, $20 for a cab, or a separate ride home. The host of the party, one of my closest friends, decided to let him go.

I followed him outside to his vehicle, quickly memorized his license plate number, and told him very clearly that if he drove away, I would call the police. I did nothing to physically restrain him, nor did I stoop to insults. I simply made the consequences of his actions very clear to him.

He decided not to try and drive home. Because he had a stick-shift and none of the sober people were practiced enough to drive it, a sober friend gave him a ride home and he had to leave his truck there for the night.

Now, the host of the party claims that I "overstepped my bounds" somehow by taking the action that I did. Personally, I think doing whatever I can to ensure the safety of innocent bystanders is perfectly reasonable. What do you guys think?

you did the right thing, drink driving is really dangerous

The host of the party was probably drunk as well.

Never, ever, under ANY circumstances should you let someone drive drunk if you can possibly prevent it. I think you did the best thing possible, and I'm glad he didn't end up on the road.

Drunk driving is a crime, and you were well within your bounds to report him to the proper law enforcement agents if he chose to break the law. It's no different than if you knew your friend was going to kill someone and you told him you'd call the police.

id have to put you down in the category of HERO on this one
you didnt just maybe save your friend's life but those of the people he might have hit with his car.

we need more people with your courage to face the anger of his friends when doing the right thing.

You did the right thing. Seriously, drunk driving is a great way to kill yourself and possibly even others. It is simply out of the question. Good job.

Hell, I totaled my car and I was dead sober.

You absolutely did the right thing. I personally would have physically taken the keys from the drunken friend, and only threatened to call the cops if that failed, but that method worked just as well. Personal preference as to the method of accomplishing the same thing. :)
Kudos to you!

id have to put you down in the category of HERO on this one
I completely agree. I can't believe anyone thought you were in the wrong; they should have been pleased you stopped a potential accident! I say good for you, and if the others don't agree, they should just grow up.

Kudos to you. I think you possibly saved that guy's life. If he hasn't thanked you, he should--he sure owes you one. And the host of the party owes you an apology, as far as I'm concerned. If he couldn't recognize the dangers that one person was putting themselves in, they likely shouldn't have been distributing alcohol in the first place.

Of course, I could be rambling. That happens from time to time. Just my two cents.

you should have told the host that they'd be liable if they let a drunken guest drive home.

maybe then they'd thank you instead of telling you that you overstepped your bounds.

If someone was crossing the road and he killed them, it wouldn't matter if it was 2 miles or 200.

Now, the host of the party claims that I "overstepped my bounds" somehow by taking the action that I did. Personally, I think doing whatever I can to ensure the safety of innocent bystanders is perfectly reasonable. What do you guys think?
Screw that, man, you did the right thing. Drunks only think about themselves, they never think about the others on the road.

you did the right thing, drink driving is really dangerous

Drink Driving? I've never seen a Drinked Driver.

Just kidding.

I think you did the right thing. We Gots to keep them drunks off them roads.

How drunk was he?

you should have told the host that they'd be liable if they let a drunken guest drive home.

maybe then they'd thank you instead of telling you that you overstepped your bounds.

But they're not liable, that's an urban legend.

A very close friend of mine's brother was killed by a drunk driver, on a quiet country road - so I applaud you for your courage to stand up to him! You most certainly did not overstep any bounds and if there were more people like you around there would be far less drink related deaths.

depends if it was a threat or not, if it was just a threat kudos to you and im going to steal the idea but I wouldnt dob a friend in, im not sure why (i possibly would depending on the circumstances), so im going with both options one and three in the poll

But they're not liable, that's an urban legend.

Almost true. Alot of states and cities and towns have laws that make you liable if you serve alcohol, but I think it's only for commercial establishments like bars and pubs. I don't think that someone could be held responsible if they had a private party from which people drove home drunk.

You did Ab-sol-ut-ely the right thing ,Drunk Drivers are a menace :)

How drunk was he?

Does it really matter ? 1% drunk or 100% drunk you can still kill someone because your judgement and reflexes are impaired.

Drunk is drunk it doesn't matter "how much".

But they're not liable, that's an urban legend.

Actually, you are dead (pardon the pun) wrong. It varies from state to state. In Wisconsin for example, a bar or private person (including the bartender of said bar) are fully liable for serving an intoxicated person who they allow to drive. Normally it isn't taken to that extreme, but if the drunk driver kills someone, they will go after the bar, bartender or private person who was responsible for serving them the alchohol.

How drunk was he?

Yeah, I'd have to know how drunk. A few drinks shoulda been fine.. but it depends.

Actually, you are dead (pardon the pun) wrong. It varies from state to state. In Wisconsin for example, a bar or private person (including the bartender of said bar) are fully liable for serving an intoxicated person who they allow to drive. Normally it isn't taken to that extreme, but if the drunk driver kills someone, they will go after the bar, bartender or private person who was responsible for serving them the alchohol.

wow glad im not in America, lawyers have really screwed that place up. In Australia YOU are responcible for your OWN actions.

wow glad im not in America, lawyers have really screwed that place up. In Australia YOU are responcible for your OWN actions.

Nah, it's not really like that guy says.. I mean, he's talking about cases of gross negligence, where you're basically told the exact consequences.. in the U.S., unlike parts of Europe, you have no duty to rescue others from harm, and bartenders have no duty of care in most states here.

You did right, and I can't imagine why anyone would say otherwise. I'd say the same thing even if you'd had to physically restrain him.

How drunk was he?

Drunk enough to threaten to punch my boyfriend for offering him $20 for a cab.

depends if it was a threat or not, if it was just a threat kudos to you and im going to steal the idea but I wouldnt dob a friend in, im not sure why (i possibly would depending on the circumstances), so im going with both options one and three in the poll

Put it this way. I don't know my own license plate number, but three days later I can still recite his. -- So I guess you can go with 3 then.

He, personally, wasn't really a friend - just a guy I met at the party.

Mass edit of story

I would've done the exact same thing...
...Except I probably wouldn't have warned him before I called the police.

But they're not liable, that's an urban legend.

Hey you! I want my Fatwah, dammit!

It was probably the right thing to do. I am for an alcohol-free society altogether.

But my personal opinion is that you went too far. I hate people who will use such traitorous tactics (as calling the police). It is like saying, If you do not give me that toy of yours, I will break it.
I agree with the host, because if my friend did that, I would be severly dissapointed with him.

It was probably the right thing to do. I am for an alcohol-free society altogether.

But my personal opinion is that you went too far. I hate people who will use such traitorous tactics (as calling the police). It is like saying, If you do not give me that toy of yours, I will break it.
I agree with the host, because if my friend did that, I would be severly dissapointed with him.


I disagree. I think that the threat was exactly the right thing to do, and if the guy hadn't reconsidered his actions, I would have called the police. If you're going to drive drunk, it's my opinion that you fully deserve to be arrested. If you're going to put innocent people and yourself at risk for no good reason, you should suffer the consequences.

It was probably the right thing to do. I am for an alcohol-free society altogether.

But my personal opinion is that you went too far. I hate people who will use such traitorous tactics (as calling the police). It is like saying, If you do not give me that toy of yours, I will break it.
I agree with the host, because if my friend did that, I would be severly dissapointed with him.

HAHAHAHA! So while preaching prohibition, you dare claim that this honorable person who not only warned the person of the consequences of his actions, followed through in his obligatory duties as a good Samaritan, AND gave a heads up to the would-be criminal/perpetrator/murderer, is guilty of using traitorous tactics?
He was the only person acting honestly and by the book.

Yeesh. You're ignorance has gotten me so upset that I'm using dramatic language and automatically calling drunk drivers murderers; and I haven't even ever been affected by a drunk driver or death caused by one... AND I'm a nihilist.
Maybe it's just you're hypocritical authoritarian tone [that reprimands the righteous person while simultaneously lauding the difficult yet necessary actions taken] that has so obviously struck a nerve in me.

It was probably the right thing to do. I am for an alcohol-free society altogether.

But my personal opinion is that you went too far. I hate people who will use such traitorous tactics (as calling the police). It is like saying, If you do not give me that toy of yours, I will break it.
I agree with the host, because if my friend did that, I would be severly dissapointed with him.

No, it's more like "You may be my friend, but I will not allow you to commit a crime."

My opinion is that drunk driving should be totally legal, and that it's illegality is morally abhorrent. So although you theoretically, and perhaps even statistically, could have been doing your friend a favour, I think your method leaves a little to be desired.

My opinion is that drunk driving should be totally legal, and that it's illegality is morally abhorrent. So although you theoretically, and perhaps even statistically, could have been doing your friend a favour, I think your method leaves a little to be desired.

How do you justify that?

How do I justify what?

How do I justify what?

The idea that drunk driving being illegal is morally abhorrent.

Well, making drunk driving illegal punishes people for...doing nothing. It punishes people who might very well have driven home and gone to bed. Sober drivers drive home from parties and go to bed all the time without any legal threat hanging over their head. I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent for sober drivers to be arrestable. I find it the same for drunk drivers.

Eh, I suppose. I guess out of every 10 drunk drivers, 9 of them make it home accident free. But the spirit of the law is to potentially save that 10th person from killing someone because they were driving drunk.

Eh, I suppose. I guess out of every 10 drunk drivers, 9 of them make it home accident free. But the spirit of the law is to potentially save that 10th person from killing someone because they were driving drunk.

Yes, it's something like 3 out of 5 drunk drivers get into accidents, whereas 1 in 10 sober drivers get into accidents... or something.

So would you think that the 40% of drunk drivers who are perfectly capable of driving should be punished? You know, I'm sure one gender commits more crimes than the other. Would you like to see either all males or all females imprisoned?

You quite possibly saved that dumbass's life. He and your friends should be thanking you, not ragging that you were "too tough."

What next, are they gonna complain that you didn't let them murder the folks next door?

You did what the law, and honour, required.

Your host was an irresponsible asshole, and you may very well have saved them both from a lawsuit or criminal charges.

If your "friends" don't like it, they can suck it.

Does it really matter ? 1% drunk or 100% drunk you can still kill someone because your judgement and reflexes are impaired.

Drunk is drunk it doesn't matter "how much".


Instead of rejecting your "argument" for its silliness, I'll come down to your level:


If it doesn't matter how drunk you are then nobody should ever drive, even if they're 0% drunk.

Put it this way. I don't know my own license plate number, but three days later I can still recite his. -- So I guess you can go with 3 then.

He, personally, wasn't really a friend - just a guy I met at the party.

no matter what I say, you did the right thing.

my views are skewed because of my deep loyalty, to certain people but as you say he was basically a stranger so I would probably react the same

Instead of rejecting your "argument" for its silliness, I'll come down to your level:


If it doesn't matter how drunk you are then nobody should ever drive, even if they're 0% drunk.

that follows the same logic as recently here in South Australia, the speed limit of city streets was dropped from 60km/h to 50km/h the road toll has dropped by something like 3 people, there is now a movement to drop city roads down to 40km/h and most roads down to 50km/h, next people will want to ban cars altogether

You most definatly did the right thing.

Awesomeness to you

I'd have done the same thing, and I don't care if it sounds uncool. I don't like drunk drivers. I don't want them on the road with me or anybody else. It's the height of irresponsibility to drive drunk, and anyone who takes my life into their hands, or anyone else's, deserves what they get.

I have no tolerance with drunk drivers. NONE.

Just to play devil's advocate:


http://www.getmadd.com/

Like the majority of people who have replied, I think you did absolutely the right thing.
Maybe it was a form of blackmail, but it meant the guy got home safely and stopped any numbr of others from being endangered. I think the host's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. If it were plausible at all, I'd be all for some kind of test before a person was allowed to drink legally. I support the decriminalisation of all drugs, but I think education, awareness and responsibility are vital. Do such people not believe driving drunk is dangerous?

As for the person who thinks that prosecuting drunk drivers is discrimination, I wonder how s/he would feel about allowing a blind person to drive since, y'know it would be discrimination not to...

Well, making drunk driving illegal punishes people for...doing nothing. It punishes people who might very well have driven home and gone to bed. Sober drivers drive home from parties and go to bed all the time without any legal threat hanging over their head. I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent for sober drivers to be arrestable. I find it the same for drunk drivers.

Making shooting guns randomly into a crowd illegal punishes people for...doing nothing. It punishes people who might very well have missed everyone in the crowd. People shoot guns at targets all the time without any legal threat hanging over their head. I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent for people shooting at targets to be arrestable. I find it the same for people shooting randomly into crowds.

Just to play devil's advocate:


http://www.getmadd.com/

Wow.

They even suggest that alcohol won't cause birth defects.

So I went to a party at a friend's house this past weekend. One of the guys there had a good bit to drink and then wanted to drive home since it was "just 2 miles away" (never mind that those two miles included some pretty dangerous roads). Anyways, people tried to talk him out of it, but he was dead set on driving himself home, despite the offer of several couches, a bed, $20 for a cab, or a separate ride home. The host of the party, one of my closest friends, decided to let him go.

I followed him outside to his vehicle, quickly memorized his license plate number, and told him very clearly that if he drove away, I would call the police. I did nothing to physically restrain him, nor did I stoop to insults. I simply made the consequences of his actions very clear to him.

He decided not to try and drive home. Because he had a stick-shift and none of the sober people were practiced enough to drive it, a sober friend gave him a ride home and he had to leave his truck there for the night.

Now, the host of the party claims that I "overstepped my bounds" somehow by taking the action that I did. Personally, I think doing whatever I can to ensure the safety of innocent bystanders is perfectly reasonable. What do you guys think?

You have nothing to be ashamed of apart from that you went to a party where the host was dangerously irresponsible.

As for the person who thinks that prosecuting drunk drivers is discrimination, I wonder how s/he would feel about allowing a blind person to drive since, y'know it would be discrimination not to...

Good morning, I believe that was me, although I hate the word discrimination. Should blind people be allowed to drive? Well, yah, sure. I'm sure most of them would end up in jail for ploughing into people and property whilst driving negligently, and they could hang out with all the drunks there who had ploughed into people and property while driving negligently. But if there's a blind dude zipping along the interstate in his Beamer and not ploughing into anything, I say let 'im.

Thank you Dempublicents for getting my point. If I don't shoot someone in the face, don't send me to jail for it. Although, Dempublicents, your particular example might be complicated by intent. Am I shooting into the crowd because I want to kill, but missing because I'm a bad gunman?

Wow.

They even suggest that alcohol won't cause birth defects.

even so I wouldnt want to test that theory, lucky I wont have too being a guy

Wow.

They even suggest that alcohol won't cause birth defects.

what they are suggesting is that the case for fetal alcohol syndrome is overstated. yes an alcoholic mother who gets drunk every day will damage her child, its a terrible problem.
but to suggest that ANY alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman damages her baby flies in the face of evidence. in the past (as in when *I* was born and before) it was recommended that a pregnant woman have a drink now and then. there are not huge numbers of damaged people because of it.

what they are suggesting is that the case for fetal alcohol syndrome is overstated. yes an alcoholic mother who gets drunk every day will damage her child, its a terrible problem.
but to suggest that ANY alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman damages her baby flies in the face of evidence. in the past (as in when *I* was born and before) it was recommended that a pregnant woman have a drink now and then. there are not huge numbers of damaged people because of it.

You will never know how many more IQ points you would have had if your mother hadn't drank when carrying you. Lordy knows you could use them! ;)

I think it should be the host's responsibility to prevent someone at his party from driving drunk, but since he shirked his duties, I'm glad you did what you did. You might have saved his life or the life of someone else.

You absolutely did the right thing.

Well, making drunk driving illegal punishes people for...doing nothing. It punishes people who might very well have driven home and gone to bed. Sober drivers drive home from parties and go to bed all the time without any legal threat hanging over their head. I'm sure you'd find it abhorrent for sober drivers to be arrestable. I find it the same for drunk drivers.

Same with firing off automatic weapons over Times Square on New Years Eve. Only a few people would end up hitting someone, so the rest are innocent, right? And it would be abhorrent for those who fired nothing to be arrestable.

P.S.: fucktard! :)

You will never know how many more IQ points you would have had if your mother hadn't drank when carrying you. Lordy knows you could use them! ;)
we all could, darlin', but the generations havent gotten any smarter since we started advising women to utterly abstain from alcohol while pregnant

Anyone should act like you did.

Well if he was only 2 miles away, why didn't he go by walk?

Thank you Dempublicents for getting my point. If I don't shoot someone in the face, don't send me to jail for it. Although, Dempublicents, your particular example might be complicated by intent. Am I shooting into the crowd because I want to kill, but missing because I'm a bad gunman?

I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of your point, but apparently it flew right over your head.

If you endanger someone else against their will, regardless of whether or not you actually hurt them, you are trampling their rights. *That* is why drunk driving is illegal, and it is why firing a gun into a crowded street is illegal.

what they are suggesting is that the case for fetal alcohol syndrome is overstated. yes an alcoholic mother who gets drunk every day will damage her child, its a terrible problem.
but to suggest that ANY alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman damages her baby flies in the face of evidence. in the past (as in when *I* was born and before) it was recommended that a pregnant woman have a drink now and then. there are not huge numbers of damaged people because of it.

No one has suggested that ANY alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman will absolutely cause damage. What they have stated is that alcohol is known to cause problems, and that they don't know how much or exactly when it may cause them. It is entirely possible that a woman who gets a little tipsy at a very specific point in development may cause damage while a woman who gets falling down drunk at another point may do nothing. The warning doesn't make it illegal for her to drink (although I would never personally serve her alcohol), it simply tells her that there is a chance she may cause harm.

we have driving laws for good reason. its easy to kill people with bad driving. they shouldnt have to pay for your incompetence.

therefore you can get arrested for speeding, drunk driving, driving without a license, driving under the influence of other drugs, driving while too sleepy, even driving without insurance in some states.

we need minimum standards for driving. not driving while drunk is a big one.

I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of your point, but apparently it flew right over your head.

If you endanger someone else against their will, regardless of whether or not you actually hurt them, you are trampling their rights. *That* is why drunk driving is illegal, and it is why firing a gun into a crowded street is illegal.
On the other hand, prople have a right to move. You can't limit their freedom to move, just because one out of 1000 will kill someone ... bla bla bla ... guns don't kill people people kill people ... bla bla bla ... it is a human right to drive a car ... everybody should have the freedom to choose to drive or not to drive.

No one has suggested that ANY alcohol consumption by a pregnant woman will absolutely cause damage. What they have stated is that alcohol is known to cause problems, and that they don't know how much or exactly when it may cause them. It is entirely possible that a woman who gets a little tipsy at a very specific point in development may cause damage while a woman who gets falling down drunk at another point may do nothing. The warning doesn't make it illegal for her to drink (although I would never personally serve her alcohol), it simply tells her that there is a chance she may cause harm.

actually they HAVE suggested that. pregnancy has become a terrifying experience of avoiding all potential hazards to your baby. there are so many warnings out there that it has become impossible to just enjoy being pregnant (on those days where you arent puking or getting your bladder stomped). the likelihood that a glass of wine now and then will damage your baby is vanishingly small. the likelihood that getting drunk every day, esp in the early months, will damage your baby is almost guaranteed.

but thats irrelevant to this thread, i was just responding to you exclaiming over tha anti-madd site. im not FOR drunk driving but they do go overboard in their hatred for alcohol (as perhaps i would if i had a loved one killed by a drunk driver).

What do you guys think?

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3373065.stm for what can happen when a drunk doesn't even want to drive out of the street he's in.

A man has pleaded guilty to drink driving after causing an estimated £150,000 damage to 11 cars outside his home....The court heard that Arliss returned home from his local pub at 2345 GMT on 2 December and decided to move his Range Rover to a better parking space.

Stephen Rushton, prosecuting, said: "He [Arliss] turned the engine on and reversed his vehicle into the car behind, which went on to push two further cars behind.

"He then drove the vehicle forward, hitting vehicles parked in front of his own vehicle.

"He pushed them a considerable distance down the road with some force."

Riaz Sheikh, defending, said the damage was caused after his client accidentally knocked the Range Rover into gear.

Arliss's foot then became stuck between the accelerator and the brake pedal, which caused a domino effect, he added.

The caption to the picture (not a very good one, you can probably find better elsewhere) says "One car ended up on its roof".


My full opinion? Any alcohol at all can be detremental. I'll admit to once a week having a small glass of wine, pressed upon me by my parents when I visit, but they know it can't be more than a splash. I don't even have a half when I'm (otherwise) driving, and yet I don't stay away from the alcohol at all. I drink spirits, wines, bitters, ciders, (though stay away from lagers probably because none that I've tried are any good... :)) both at home and when I'm out and not driving.

Tiredness is as bad. I've been under the influence of sleep-deprivation a couple of times and it is frightening. Perhaps it doesn't help that you aren't constantly drunk and dellusional about yourself, but that you have sudden insights and moments of clarity where you realise that you weren't paying attention to the road and had essentially drifted off (into sleep/into the curb) for a moment.

Messing about with the stuff in the car (from mobiles and stereos to maps and written directions) have varying issues, but I'm afraid to say that I'm as likely as anyone else to reach for the play button on the tape, attempt to speed-read a map to check how many junctions it is to the exit I want or lift a can of pop to my lips while driving.

The other day, I was stood at some lights, second car back, the lights went green, the bloke in the car at the front was still rumaging in the passenger footwell and didn't move, so I didn't move, the van behind me did though. Slight bump. No damage. At least one of the kids in front seat of van had hit her jaw against the dashboard, though, it seems. After stopping round the corner to check there was no damage to the vehicles, I let him deal with his main problem. I think he was suffering enough (compared with the non-existent vehicle damage) and didn't want to compound the issue of the crying youngster with a slightly bloodied front lip with any further non-essential swapping of details that'd never need to be used. No sign of him being 'under the influence' of anything but generally impatience, slight stupitity and possibly the distraction of the kids.

On the other hand, prople have a right to move. You can't limit their freedom to move, just because one out of 1000 will kill someone ... bla bla bla ... guns don't kill people people kill people ... bla bla bla ... it is a human right to drive a car ... everybody should have the freedom to choose to drive or not to drive.

And I suppose we should do away with driver's licenses then as well? You know, since *anybody* should have the right to drive. =)

And I suppose we should do away with driver's licenses then as well? You know, since *anybody* should have the right to drive. =)
bingo. Driving license are another way the government have to control our daily lives. The cops are nazis. Let me choose the side of the road I feel more confortable driving on. It is not govrenment's job to control that.

bingo. Driving license are another way the government have to control our daily lives. The cops are nazis. Let me choose the side of the road I feel more confortable driving on. It is not govrenment's job to control that.

You are absolutely right. And why should you be limited to the street at all? If I want to drive through someone's yard or even right through their bathroom, that is my right. How dare the government say anything about it?

we all could, darlin', but the generations havent gotten any smarter since we started advising women to utterly abstain from alcohol while pregnant

Source, please? :)

??\0\0\0\0?)?\0icents]You are absolutely right. And why should you be limited to the street at all? If I want to drive through someone's yard or even right through their bathroom, that is my right. How dare the government say anything about it?[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? I guess you'd love it if someone drove into your living room. Especially if you happen to be in it at the time. Some idiots think they have the right to drive drunk and endanger the lives of everyone around them and this position is really nuts. For all the thousands of people who die on the roads of America because of drunk drivers, if anything the driver is a murderer and shouldn't get it easy on a lesser charge. Criminal stupidity.

Are you serious? I guess you'd love it if someone drove into your living room. Especially if you happen to be in it at the time. Some idiots think they have the right to drive drunk and endanger the lives of everyone around them and this position is really nuts. For all the thousands of people who die on the roads of America because of drunk drivers, if anything the driver is a murderer and shouldn't get it easy on a lesser charge. Criminal stupidity.

Of course I'm not serious. We were simply pointing out the absurdity of the statements by the guy who thinks drunk driving should be perfectly legal.

In case you didn't notice, I'm the one who started the thread.

OK how's abouts this:

1) no laws against DUI.

2) death penalty for traffic fatalities when DUI.

Source, please? :)
*sticks her tongue out*
THERES your source

I think it should be de-criminalized though.
Drunk driving is dangerous but it is not like shooting a bullet in a crowd.

Of course I'm not serious. We were simply pointing out the absurdity of the statements by the guy who thinks drunk driving should be perfectly legal.

In case you didn't notice, I'm the one who started the thread.

Trying to make a point to Psylos, that's all.

I think it should be de-criminalized though.
Drunk driving is dangerous but it is not like shooting a bullet in a crowd.

Actually, it is. If you drive while drunk, you are endangering every person on the road, every person who might be in a house along the road, and (legally) every person who was at the place you left.

If you fire a bullet into a crowd, you are endangering every person in that crowd. There's a chance you won't hurt anyone, but it simply isn't worth taking.

Actually, it is. If you drive while drunk, you are endangering every person on the road, every person who might be in a house along the road, and (legally) every person who was at the place you left.

If you fire a bullet into a crowd, you are endangering every person in that crowd. There's a chance you won't hurt anyone, but it simply isn't worth taking.

Agreed. Drunk drivers are obviously selfish people, not caring that they endanger other people on the road. Those who do will be lucky to only kill themselves and not someone else.

*sticks her tongue out*
THERES your source

A sample of one is entirely inconclusive. :cool:

And you should never stick your tongue at someone unless you intend to use it. ;)

A sample of one is entirely inconclusive. :cool:

And you should never stick your tongue at someone unless you intend to use it. ;)
and who's to say i DONT?

*licks the back of druthulu's neck and runs away*

hmmmmm was that vanilla?

and who's to say i DONT?

*licks the back of druthulu's neck and runs away*

hmmmmm was that vanilla?

No, it's cumin. :)

Good choice to stop him from driving.

Do what I do. Sleep overnight to wear the alcohol off. Simple. You might get lucky with a drunk chick in the process. :P

Good choice to stop him from driving.

Do what I do. Sleep overnight to wear the alcohol off. Simple. You might get lucky with a drunk chick in the process. :P
You will probably not be in good shape to do anything though.