Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
When drinkers drive drunk, they put every person they are near in immediate danger, public or private. The family that is killed by a drunk driver didn't have drinks forced on them, they had a several thousand pound vehicle, manned by a drunk, forced on them.
And....anyone that has been in an accident with a drunk driver has "their health compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".
What about the kid beaten and abused by an alcholic parent? Would you say that "their health [was] compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".
Sounds very parallel to me.....drinking should be banned because of the risks/dangers it inflicts on the unwilling in society.......oh yeah, we tried that.
Edit: Jinx
|
I would just like to add....since the direction of the converstation is going this way....the person affected by the drunk driver doesnt in have to be in public.
They can be sitting in their house, minding their own business, and have their vehicle completly demolished by a drunk driver.....I know....its happened to me twice