Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Chit Chat: New law makes it illegal for drivers under 22 to have any blood alcohol level
Bottom of Page-
Yeah, but just because a person is legally allowed to do something, doesn't mean they're as ready for it as someone much older and more experienced. Anyone over the age of 18 can get married, for instance, but most 18-year-olds aren't as emotionally and practically prepared for something like that as, say, a 30-year-old. Some are, of course, and some 30-year-olds still act like children, but those are exceptions. A 14-year-old girl can legally have sex with anyone she wants, as much as she wants, but that doesn't mean she's able to emotionally handle sleeping around with a bunch of 35-year-olds as well as someone 10 years older. If the powers that be want to put a couple of regulations in place to slightly limit the amount of responsibility that is given to a person that is at an age that means he might not be able to handle it all that well, then I can't see how that's altogether a bad thing.
I agree with you that this isn't the best way to solve the problem, but just because they could have done it better, doesn't mean that this is inherently a bad idea, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Your examples aren't analogous though. Let me fix one. You're allowed to marry at 18. There's a problem with divorce. Were going to pass a law saying if you're 18-22 you have to see a marriage counselor before getting married. The proposed change isn't linked to the cause of the issue. Make all people see a marriage counselor, or accept divorce as a necessary consequence of allowing people to marry at their will (i.e. force all drivers (or all new drivers) to drive sober, or accept accidents as a necessary consequence of allowing people to drive drunk).
Once again, I don't think there's anything suggesting that young drivers are inherently worse at driving near-drunk than older new drivers (just as unready 19 year olds are no worse at marriage than unready 35 year olds). Pointing the "fix" to young drivers is the incorrect solution.
It's not as if the current proposal was the only option, so they chose it in order to catch as many cases as possible. They chose the wrong criterion, when the better one would be just as easy to impose, and would catch more problem situations.
Also, as an aside, the age of consent has been raised to 16. I hope you haven't been sleeping with 14 year-olds the past couple years.
-
Shoot. Forget I mentioned that second example.
But really, isn't it possible that they jut chose the solution that would cause the least amount of push back? Who cares if some 19- to 21-year-olds are inconvenienced? No one. But a blanket zero tolerance policy would be met with revolt.
Sort of like the rule that prohibits driving while using a cell phone, but allows headsets. It's the dumbest rule ever, but better than nothing. (Though even this is a bad example because, in my opinion, it lends itself to the idea that it's the cell phone in hand that causes crashes, not the cell conversation.)
-
You're right. Infringing the rights of a non-vocal crowd is a positive solution because you won't have to deal with pesky complaints.
I see why they did it, but that's not the debate.
-
Man. Good stuff in here, kwij.
-
kwijibo:You're right. Infringing the rights of a non-vocal crowd is a positive solution because you won't have to deal with pesky complaints.
I see why they did it, but that's not the debate.
Oh come on. You had some great counterpoints until this one. Being able to drive isn't a right. It's a privilege, and one that can be taken away. It's also a responsibility, as is the ability to have a drink and then drive. And if those in charge of granting and taking away privileges deem a certain segment of the population as being unable to handle such a responsibility, then it's within their power to limit the privilege.
And if inconveniencing a small segment of the population for a limited period of time is going to work towards the greater good (not saying it necessarily will, but I assume that's the idea behind the new restriction), then seriously, who the hell cares?
-
My comment was hyperbolic to point out the danger in your reasoning.
You're also right re:privileges, but it's really just semantics once the privilege is granted to some. The government is not allowed to grant/restrict privileges based on certain discriminatory grounds, and age is one of them.
Not to be inflammatory/extreme, but if they said only males are allowed to drive, the "it's a privilege and it can be taken away" rebuttal seems ludicrous, and rightfully so.
The problem is it seems okay because people are often rightfully discriminated against based on age all the time, as it makes sense (like not allowing an 8 year old to drive). However, when the restriction is based on age when there is no sensible basis for it being so, that's a problem.
I also imagine the segment of the population inconvenienced cares. Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to start a crusade for young drivers, but in a debate regarding the sensibility of this change, it's clear where I stand.
-
OK, but if there is a sensible basis for it? If there is empirical evidence to suggest that the under-21 set is more likely to be involved in an alcohol-related car crash than someone older, then how is it needlessly discriminatory? If for some reason multiple, independent studies proved that people with green eyes are poorer drivers than everyone else, and the Man made a law that green-eyed-folk need to complete a Saturday course in driver's ed every five years, for the first 10 years they have their licence, just to make sure they're on track, is that the worst thing in the world?
We're not talking about a law that restricts the ability to drive. We're talking about something that could potentially save lives and be a minor annoyance to a few teenagers. This is an inconvenience at worst. No one's telling these kids they can't drive, and no one's telling them they can't drink, but just that for a couple of years, they can't do both at the same time, which, really, no one of any age should be doing anyway. Really. You're restricting the ability of some teenagers/kids in their early twenties to do something they shouldn't be doing in the first place. Perhaps the reasoning behind extending the "don't drink and drive" age is to nip in the bud the notion that it is OK to drink and drive in a new generation of drivers.
Like I said earlier, I agree that it's not the ideal solution, but for the amount of ruckus it causes versus the good it has the potential to do, I think it's at least a step in the right direction.
-
Fuck this shit, bring back prohibition. Everybody wins, especially me because then I can fulfil my dream of running a speakeasy.
-
When I drive drunk its probably over the feeble limit that exists anyway.
Thread negated.
-
905vivor MW please. Shes worse than Diana.
-
Less Than Bryan:Fuck this shit, bring back prohibition. Everybody wins, especially me because then I can fulfil my dream of running a speakeasy.
This seems like the ideal solution. I'm in.
-
krszwda:905vivor MW please. Shes worse than Diana.
Seriously. She needs to start making golden, worthwhile contributions like you do, with regularity and aplomb.
-
- Gregorious
- CommentTimeJul 29th 2010
- Comments: 578
Do you guys realize how much more expensive it's gonna be for us to drink if they bring back prohibition?
-
Yeah, but think of what it would mean to do away with all those pesky proof regulations.
-
wait, i'm not allowed to drink and drive?
-
No. That's one way that you are not allowed to beat up girls.
-
you're a girl?!!?
-
OK, but if there is a sensible basis for it? If there is empirical evidence to suggest that the under-21 set is more likely to be involved in an alcohol-related car crash than someone older, then how is it needlessly discriminatory?
The only possible counter-argument to this is that it takes young drivers longer to become experienced drivers than older people. I imagine this is false, but if so, the answer becomes reworking the graduated licensing system.
Like I said, I imagine it is false, but I'm admittedly working on assumption. I imagine the proportion at 0.07 accidents is the same between 21 year olds and older drivers of the same driving experience. Even if I'm wrong, I think the problem is then in the ages we've set as acceptable in the graduated licensing system.
I agree with Bryan. I want to be the bootlegger supplying his speakeasy.
-
I will be the Beer Baron in this simpsons fantasy!
-
and you have my bow.
-
Also accepting applications for rum runners.
-
Can I be the barmaid?
-
You can be the wench.
-
I was cleaning out my car (selling it today) and when I moved the passenger seat forward to vacuum under it I found a full can of Vokda Rockstar.
I should totally drink it WHILE driving.
-
Some punk, good-for-nothing kid is now challenging this law as unconstitutional, claiming it discriminates based on age. Here.
-
wiener...WEINER
-
I think I've flip-flopped on the argument and I see where the law is coming from but I am now going to side with the crusade for political brevity.
