BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Dec 3 14:20:34 EST 2002
"Gray Shockley" <gray at compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BA0E8C1F003BB56811C295D0 at news-central.giganews.com...
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:20:43 -0600, Jhon Kignth wrote
> (in message <LY9G9.39804$kz4.1861412 at news2.west.cox.net>):
> > Even if someone were to believe your anecdotes, they remain anecdotes,
> > anecdotes don't even begin to make the case for our Draconian DWI laws,
> > particularly when so much scientific evidence disputes them. The
> > is a summary of the NHTSA data which shows how they arrived at "42% OF
> > FATALITIES ARE ALCOHOL INVOLVED"
> Jhon - I would suggest that my "antedotes" - based on experience - are
> more reliable than your specious webpages.
> When I was briefed on Louisiana laws in 1985, one of the things that was
> impressed on us was that the third DUI violation branded the criminal as a
> "habitual offender" and the resulting sentence usually included a period
> incarceration at Angola (state penitentiary).
> Sort of a "three strikes and you're in".
> Gray Shockley
A typical arrogant "liberal" response: "I don't care about the facts,
because how I feel is far more important than 'your statistics'".
Let's try a different approach, using statistics. At a time that your "news
media" was touting that "drinking drivers cause 42% of all accidents", the
US Statistical Abstract was reporting that there were only 19,233
alcohol-induced deaths http://christianparty.net/alcoholabuse.htm in the
entire nation, coast to coast, from ALL causes, including cancer and
Do you see the disconnect yet?
IF correct (and you now know that it is NOT correct), this is half as many
people as died in auto accidents, fewer than died of cirrhosis, or of AIDS,
or committed suicide, one third as many as died of diabetes, one fourth as
many as died of flu or pneumonia, half as many as died of all other
accidents besides autos, one fifth as many as died of pulmonary diseases,
one eighth as many as died of cerebrovascular disease, 1/28th as many as
died of cancer, and 1/38th as many as died of heart disease.
1.6 million people are arrested for drinking and driving each year, many of
whom lose families, jobs, and business as a result, and all of whom pay
fines and fees which average $15,000 each. Not counting the loss in human
suffering, this is an annual economic loss to the nation (and a booming
cottage industry to the "legal profession") which exceeds $24 billion. Has
it been a "success"? By the way you feminazis, jews, niggers, latrinos and
other "liberals" and muds define "success" it may be, but to normal
Americans this putative 20% reduction in the *rate* of alcohol-induced
deaths, from 8.4 per 100,000 population in 1980 to 6.7 in 1993, was far too
expensive. If correct, these 4,420 lives which were supposedly saved in
1993 cost $5.4 million each, PLUS the loss of personal freedoms and the
right to travel, PLUS the destruction of families, businesses, and careers.
Compare this to the $200 per cancer death that is spent for cancer
research. How many MORE lives might have been saved from heart disease or
cirrhosis if this $24 billion had been spent on real medical research?
Is that a good trade-off Gray?
More information about the Neur-sci