Inexcusable

[unixronin]

A montage of 20 years of Australian Transport Accident Commission driver-safety videos.

I've never understood why people intentionally get drunk.  Personally, the few times I've drunk too much, I've found it rather unpleasant.  (I tend to find drunk people rather unpleasant on the whole, too.)

But for the people who get drunk and then knowingly go out on the roads and drive while drunk — let alone the ones who do so habitually — I have no words.

It's said Nature recognizes only three crimes — misdemeanour stupid, felony stupid, and capital stupid.  Now, if you want to go out and commit capital stupid, I figure that's up to you.  It's long been a principle of mine that any arguable "right to life" is close to meaningless without an equal right to end your life in the time, place and manner of your choosing — provided you don't take anyone else with you who didn't make a free and informed decision to join you in it.  But drunk drivers go out and make other people involuntary accomplices in their own capital stupid.

And that is inexcusable.

Comments

[ithildae]

bbwoof posits that the purpose of alcohol is to make people stupid. I see evidence to support that position.

I worked as a paramedic for a number of years. You tend to run into, the comic, the tragic and the infuriating. Your post tends to fall into the last category.

[merlinpendragon]

"It's long been a principle of mine that any arguable "right to life" is close to meaningless without an equal right to end your life in the time, place and manner of your choosing — provided you don't take anyone else with you who didn't make a free and informed decision to join you in it. "

I think all rights (like the "right to life") should have that reverse right inherently enshrined. And openly, clearly explained. A right to free speech? Ok, then also a right to refuse to listen when someone else is talking (includes changing the channel, turning off the set/radio, etc.) A right to bear arms includes a right to choose not to. And so on . . .

[unixronin]

Exactly. "You have a right to do X" should not mean "You are required to do X". No-one is free in a world where all that is not forbidden is mandatory.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

for while, some news agency was going to courts to record the hearings of drunks attempting to get their licenses back.

the best part was them tagging guys driving to court, going to court, being reamed by the system, and then driving home... without a license! yar. best thing of course, when asked "so, do you intend to keep driving with a license, driving drunk, and breaking the laws" was almost almost met with a heart "fuck off!"

nice

#

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's fixable. You show up at OR LEAVE the courthouse driving on a suspended or revoked license, the car you're driving is impounded. You loaned the car to someone you knew had a suspended or revoked license? Sucks to be you. It was a rental and now the rental company is coming after you? Sucks to be you.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

yeah, except "the system" doesn't really care so much.

back in Merrimack growing up, my brother nearly got clipped but his two friends, not so lucky, got hit by a drunk driver, habitual, no license, and he tried to RUN but got 1/4 mile down the road before being nabbed. it was probably his 5th time...

most of these habitual offenders almost never see serious jailtime, or other such. steal a RIAA protected MP3, and 10 years supermax for you bubbah. sold crack and killed 29 people (but not cops?) 10 years with 9 years probation time served ;)

some countries claim to take your license for increasingly long periods leading to permanently or massive fines and foreclosures on property (like they take your car, period); some just go for permanent. claims of lifetime prison or worse in others. people still do it, but it's more rare i think.

#

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well, drunk driving doesn't impact the bottom line of our Corporate Masters, so it's not really an important crime evenif you kill someone (or someones). But copying an MP3 that they could have made ninety cents on ... multiply THAT by 300 million Americans, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money. :p

(Though I think the RIAA has decided it's more profitable to take music listeners to court for copying MP3s, than to offer to sell them the MP3s at a fair price in the first place...)

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

that reminds me, Alaric. I've been meaning to pass this story along to you....

It seems that a few Canadian musicians' estates have had enough of labels using music without paying royalties on them until forced. So Chet Baker's estate has opened a class action lawsuit against the Canadian branches Sony, EMI, Universal and Warner Music....currently looking at $300Bn in penalties on Baker's music alone.

Don't you just love it when the system works against the assholes for a change?

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

correction: $60Bn. Mixed up my numbers the first time.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup, I heard about that. The amount of the penalties has gone up since I read about it, though.

Today, CRIA. Tomorrow, RIAA, with any luck — they've been robbing their artists blind for fifty years...