Monday, October 06, 2008

Times: Britain decides against a new lower limit for drink-driving

Times: Britain decides against a new lower limit for drink-driving

"Britain is to become the only European country that allows motorists to have at least one alcoholic drink and still be legally fit to drive."

Good. Changing the law would have resulted in the closure of hundreds of country pubs and the criminalising of thousands of decent motorists.

Will Palm Boy give me any libertarian brownie points for this?

16 comments:

Rose~ said...

interesting. i am not aware of the law currently here but it used to be that they went by the blood alcohol level and I think keeping it at an acceptable level was by drinking one drink an hour or less.

Celestial Fundie said...

Too much like mathematics.

Palm boy said...

You and your nation absolutely get some points for this.

Rose, thats pretty much how it is in texas. A smaller man like myself would need 3 beers in an hour to be at the level of intoxication, and then continue with a beer an hour to maintain that level.

Celestial Fundie said...

Yay!

Only Look said...

What about the 65 lives?

Are they less important than the pubs and the motorists?

Celestial Fundie said...

It is not always easy to calculate the exact number of lives that could be saved by a particular measure.

In a piece of legilsation there is trade-off between restricting liberty and cutting risks.

There might be possible adverse effects in lowering the limit too.

Perhaps people who lost their licence as a result of the new lower limit might continue to drive their cars- but without insurance and without the statutory motor tests?

Bhedr said...

What if one of the lives in this "trade off" were your son, daughter or wife? Would that change your view of legislating liberty for those who love booze?

Grace upon grace,

Brian

Celestial Fundie said...

It might give me strong feelings on the subject.

Just out of interest, are you in favour of restricting the right to gun ownership?

Only Look said...

I would agree with Ted Nugent on the issue of guns but not booze and his celebration of a life of women and drugs and enjoyments at the Playboy mansion if that is what you are wondering. Perhaps he has left some of that behind but he does still continue to encourage it for others today in his libertarian views. I enjoy shooting rifles although I don't own any and I guess perhaps got a lot of that out of my system in the military as a machine gunner.

Just out of interest?

Does England have an open policy towards gun ownership?

Are guns easily accessible over there as booze is in pubs over there?

Of course that is an anecdotal point anyhow, but out of interest I wonder if they are as easily accessible as booze.

Here in America they are not. There are many restrictions and waiting periods. Do you ever wonder why that is?

Grace upon grace,

Brian

Celestial Fundie said...

"Does England have an open policy towards gun ownership?"

You surely know we have the strictest gun laws in the world.

Would you change your mind about gun ownership if your son or daughter or your wife was killed by a firearm?

Only Look said...

No.

Is there an epidemic with gun drivers killing people in England?

Only Look said...

BTW

>You surely know we have the strictest gun laws in the world.<

I figured as much.

Now I need to have something to defend my family from all the Obamanites who will be coming to take us away one day and that is guns and that is why we have them in America. To protect us from dictatorships and whatever socialist aggenda there is that would overtake our nation. It is also one reason nations have not invaded us, but I am sure those same nations would love to make us all drunk and take us over...come to think of it, they may already have.

Grace upon grace,

Brian

Celestial Fundie said...

My point, dear Brian, is that your argument about lowering the drink driving limit could just as easily be applied to gun ownership.

The gun control people will give you the same argument you have used here; that is that banning guns would (or might) save lives.

Only Look said...

>My point, dear Brian, is that your argument about lowering the drink driving limit could just as easily be applied to gun ownership.<

Yes, I knew your point when you first said, "Out of interest..."

:-)

I knew it wasn't out of interest, but a foothold to a point in a Perry Mason shot.

I will grant you that it is a respectable attempt, but the two points are exclusively in differant catagories and cannot be compared. Britain strains out gnats with their gun control and then swallows camels by opening their own footholds to further points at helping breweries and merchandising for helping to destroy families and lives.

Indeed, guns do save lives. Are they used to destroy lives?

yes, but unlike booze, they have a positive element.

We had a problem in our subdivision while back with break ins and a nearby shooting. I kept my Dad's old luger in my house for a while to protect my family and keep my wife from being raped or something. I should probably go buy another gun for myself now and not borrow my Dads, so I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. Thank you. My family means the world to me and my wife is the apple of my eye, I would destroy anyone that would perilously harm her if I can help it:-)

Grace upon grace,

Brian

P.S- If you feel booze saves lives and is helpful toward the health of your nation in a positive way then I am interested in seeing the statistics. Also, while the drinking of wine is witnessed in the scriptures, the Bible clearly mentions it constantly in a negative light and even says it is for fools or for those perishing, so it is a good tool in God's mind that would help destroy a nation and perhaps he has allowed Satan to use it to contribute to making us drunk before God Himself judges us.
Unfortunately there are always takers and exonerations in this category in my opinion.

Celestial Fundie said...

Have a beer and you might discover it does have a postive element.

Only Look said...

I used to drink, but not anymore. I find this advice to be more helpful:

"It is not for kings, O Lemuel—
not for kings to drink wine,
not for rulers to crave beer,lest they drink and forget what the law decrees,and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
Give beer to those who are perishing,wine to those who are in anguish;let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."

Proverbs 31:4-7

If you want a nation to perish, then advise them to let up on the laws that help people continue to perish and live in anguish.

Pass this on to the Queen, but never you mind, we in America shan't be far behind you.

Grace upon grace,

Brian