| | Terrific. Let's see if we can wind this up, at least where I'm concerned.
Now, stop me if you think I'm making this up.
We have a drunk + car & a drunk + flu scenario, where in both cases, Gary, you agree that drivers should not be allowed to drive because of impairment/reduced capacity.
By "not allowed", you mean: preemptively, before the fact & not upon the demonstration of clear & present danger. So although a driver that is over the legal limit may be driving in a manner that is *not* a danger to anyone else (ie, not exhibiting any swerving, speeding, shimmies, wobbles, lurches, etc.) then the law is correct in making it illegal to do so. Right?
And the same applies to a bad dose of the flu. And, since you said you'd be consistent, this also must apply to any other situation where a driver's performance is impaired to at least the degree that it is at the legal alcohol limit.
If that's not your position then your last post was perhaps unclear.
My position is that although a person's physical, emotional or psychological state may affect their ability to function optimally in a given situation, it is not the role of the state to determine that *prior* to an exhibition of clear & present danger.
Just as defending free speech is not about buddying up to the likes of Bob Guccione, Larry Flynt, et al, *this* isn't about defending the right of a some dumb lush to stumble into his car and fly it down the highway. It's about defending a principle. In this case, the principle that an individual has the right to go about their business until they demonstrate a clear & present danger to those around them. And, no, that doesn't mean a drunk has to slam into people on the sidewalk or that a gunman needs to blow someone's brains out for preventative action to be taken, but it sure as hell means that the mere *possibility* that something may happen is not a good enough definition of clear & present danger.
Gary, you said you live in Texas. As I understand it Texas has quite liberal gun laws. In fact, except for the need to acquire a license to carry a handgun in public it's essentially a free-for-all. I say great. Lock 'n' load. But do you know how disturbing, abhorrent and frightening that is to most of the world's population? Not to mention many of the other US states? And, not to mention many anti-gun advocates in Texas itself? Can you see where I'm going with this?
Why the hell should anyone, a Texan or otherwise, be allowed to own, transport & use a gun, especially a handgun, in such an unregulated and flagrant manner? The *mere possibility* that a gun *could* be (and demonstrably *is*) used to kill & maim, even accidently & without malice, should be enough to restrict firearms ownership in the most severe manner possible.
The driving drunkard & the unregulated gun owner are one & the same from the point of view of the preemptive law advocate. They're the same because they're based upon the *same principle*. That is, that individual actions must be proscribed not upon demonstrable danger but upon the mere *possibility* of danger.
Christ, the whole raison d'etre of the FDA & a hundred other government agencies is predicated on the *possibility* that something may go wrong. If drunks can't drive then the FDA must also be a reasonable response to food & drug production & consumption. And, if that's the case, then anything goes. Hell, let's rip up the Bill of Rights while we're at it.
So, I've gone from drunks, to the flu, to drugs, nasty guns, & the FDA, and the reason is that the same abstraction is applicable in a variety of contexts. You can't have your principles & eat them too.
Ross
|
|
