CompuServe Thread

No, not right. The cop has _one_ course of action open to him that is "right". He can wait and see if said drunkard walks to drivers side of car, gets in, turns key, starts engine, and moves car .000001 inch. Then he can arreast the drunk. He cannot arrest the bartended unless he wants to be a party to a law that has no place in a free society, as this one is supposed to be. The bartender is not responsible for anyone he serves… if the person is legally responsible for himself, then he's responsible for the alchohol he drinks, it's effects on the society around him, and any consequences thereby. If he's NOT responsible for himself, say he's retarded or a minor (another issue that needs work — what constitues a minor — 21 is stupid) then who ever IS responsible for said youth or disadvantadged person is the one to arrest… along WITH said violator. You know, on the speedlimit question, looky here: as you drive faster, on a curve that goes from .01 mph to say, 200 mph, consequences of an accident get worse and worse, in terms of destructive potential everyone involved in the accident. 55 is _not_ a magic number. The speed at which virtually all collisions that don't involve falling off a cliff or some other factor would be "safe" is probably around 15 or 20 mph, IF you assume that all participants are wearing safety harnesses (seat belts — good ones), see the accident coming, prepare themselves optimally, and that said accident involves only people in vehicles that can sustain their structural integrity at those energy levels. When you head on at 55, that's 110 mph into a wall made of glass, metal, and other fun things, while a seat belt tries it's level best to cut you into two or three pieces. The notion that 55 is the "right" speed is absurd, and no less valid than 65 or 70. or 45. Differentials in speed are much more important for highway accidents, and the current lane system makes no provision to cope with that factor. –Ben–

No, not right. The cop has _one_ course of action open to him that is "right". He can wait and see if said drunkard walks to drivers side of car, gets in, turns key, starts engine, and moves car .000001 inch. Then he can arreast the drunk. He cannot arrest the bartended unless he wants to be a party to a law that has no place in a free society, as this one is supposed to be. The bartender is not responsible for anyone he serves… if the person is legally responsible for himself, then he's responsible for the alchohol he drinks, it's effects on the society around him, and any consequences thereby. If he's NOT responsible for himself, say he's retarded or a minor (another issue that needs work — what constitues a minor — 21 is stupid) then who ever IS responsible for said youth or disadvantadged person is the one to arrest… along WITH said violator. You know, on the speedlimit question, looky here: as you drive faster, on a curve that goes from .01 mph to say, 200 mph, consequences of an accident get worse and worse, in terms of destructive potential everyone involved in the accident. 55 is _not_ a magic number. The speed at which virtually all collisions that don't involve falling off a cliff or some other factor would be "safe" is probably around 15 or 20 mph, IF you assume that all participants are wearing safety harnesses (seat belts — good ones), see the accident coming, prepare themselves optimally, and that said accident involves only people in vehicles that can sustain their structural integrity at those energy levels. When you head on at 55, that's 110 mph into a wall made of glass, metal, and other fun things, while a seat belt tries it's level best to cut you into two or three pieces. The notion that 55 is the "right" speed is absurd, and no less valid than 65 or 70. or 45. Differentials in speed are much more important for highway accidents, and the current lane system makes no provision to cope with that factor. –Ben–

Statistics isn't proof of anything. Suppose the drunken dummy has already made plans to be taken home? You're saying he should be arrested in the bar? Ridiculous. Should the barkeep? No. If someone chooses to drink themselves into a stupor, of their own accord, that's their business. It only becomes properly the law's business if that person gets into a car and drives off, posing an *immediate* threat to anyone else on and off the road.

Statistics isn't proof of anything. Suppose the drunken dummy has already made plans to be taken home? You're saying he should be arrested in the bar? Ridiculous. Should the barkeep? No. If someone chooses to drink themselves into a stupor, of their own accord, that's their business. It only becomes properly the law's business if that person gets into a car and drives off, posing an *immediate* threat to anyone else on and off the road.