Quote:
|
Originally Posted by firstdown
True but if the state had a limit that the person could drink than we would have less deaths from drunking driving. It would be in the puplics best interest to have this limit to save lives. Its funny how the role of goverment changes to meet your needs but when its something that effects you its not a good pratice or the role of the goverment. You even addmitted yourself that it would not be good law because it effected what you wanted and listed how and why it would effect you.
|
Firstdown, I listed drunken hookups, funny stories from nights out with your buddies, and bachelor parties. You think that's me?
You must have missed getting to know me over the last year on the Warpath because I am married with a child on the way in October, I think ATVs are extremely dangerous, and I haven't been to a bar in like six months. This whole bar argument doesn't apply to me at all. I don't go to bars. I'm simply arguing the point based on my sense of right and wrong.
The argument is not about how it would affect ME. The argument is that it prevents all responsible people from getting drunk and having fun, in addition to preventing drunk driving. It limits EVERYONE's freedom to CHOOSE to get drunk; it doesn't just limit the drunk drivers. A ban on indoor smoking still allows people to smoke outside, which barely limits freedoms at all. So you have to walk 10 feet to get outdoors for five minutes to catch your smoke. Oooh, big inconvenience.