On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:20:34 -0600, John Knight wrote
(in message <6u7H9.4784$K64.72437 at news2.west.cox.net>):
>> "Gray Shockley" <gray at compcomm.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BA0E8C1F003BB56811C295D0 at news-central.giganews.com...>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 15:20:43 -0600, Jhon Kignth wrote
>> (in message <LY9G9.39804$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'".
You need to learn to read for comprehension without thrusting your raging
hormones into what you read. If you can't learn to control your passions,
sooner or later, you'll find yourself in trouble with the law.
I made no use of emotions, Sonny; I based my responses on observed fact
rather than your rather juvenile manipulation of statistics.
> Let's try a different approach, using statistics.
Sorry, Sonny; your only use of statistics is to manipulate them. I go by my
own observations rather than your rather pathetic attempt to exist using
polls as your morality and statistics as your gospel.
> 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?
Nope; I don't have a news media.
> 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.
And your inference is that because more people die from other causes,
automobile accidents are unimportant.
Wrong, Sonny. I lost my first wife to a car wreck caused by someone who
shouldn't have been driving.
Don't try to feed me your moronic crap.
> 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.
Here in Vicksburg, second offense is about $1,100. That's total. I don't
think many of the perps use a lawyer as it wouldn't do them any good in any
but the strangest cases.
> 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"?
Like a typical liberal, you're trying to turn the perp into the victim.
Sorry, Sonny; it doesn't wash. If people are so stupid that they can't figure
out how to separate their drinking and driving, maybe they should be
incarcerated or have their licenses taken away permanently for stupidity.
> 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?
>> John Knight
Whoa, Sonny! You just pulled a switch of topics. Or do you think that drunk
driving and cancer are related?
If you'll check the statistics, you'll find that more people die from drunk
driving than from dying from cancer while driving.
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier