Ryan Dunn.

[root]

I disagree when you're drunk you're not absoloutaly sure on what you are doing.

not sure what you're doing?
If you're so drunk that you don't know what you're doing to not realise that you're driving. (that would be very wasted).
or you're so drunk that you don't know how fast you're going.
Or you're so drunk that you can't drive properly?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. but whatever the case, if you;re not drunk enough to "be sure what you're doing" however you meant that, you sure as shit shouldn't be driving.

As more details have come out.
he was twice the legal limit for blood alcohol level for driving.
he was going ~125MPH on a 55MPH road.

Yeah, but the law couldn't really be clearer.

I agree that the law could be clearer, it's difficult to tell what your blood alcohol level is since this will depend on body composition metabolism, how much you drank when you drank it etc. but I find that there is a really simple thing that you can do. either drink and don't drive, or drive and don't drink.

one or the other, not a combination of both.

If your drunk. You still kind of know what your doing.

quite, if you're compus-mentus enough to be able to open a car door after drinking, and able to fit the key into the ignition then you should be in enough of your own mind to know not to drive.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

There was a very clear run of TV-adverts in the UK a little while ago, they might still be going on some channels. The message was basically don't drink any alcohol at all if you're the designated driver, that way it's impossible for you to become dangerous unless you're a $hit driver anyway.

Personally, i don't and won't drink anything alcoholic, for philosophical reasons.

 

[iPwn]

for philosophical reasons.

??

 

[clacker]

not sure what you're doing?
If you're so drunk that you don't know what you're doing to not realise that you're driving. (that would be very wasted).
or you're so drunk that you don't know how fast you're going.
Or you're so drunk that you can't drive properly?
.

I mean he is not in complete control, I'm sure he wouldn't of thought I know I'm going to get pissed then go driving and nearly kill someone.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

??

I just don't see a positive side to it personally, maybe it stems from a life-long desire to join the fuzz, but perhaps it's just because i've seen it destroy the lives of many people, including close family members. Trying to explain my dislike of such substances is like trying to do triple-bypass surgery wearing boxing gloves. I just don't see the attraction; it's expensive, unnecessary, legal imports pay off the government, illegal imports pay off criminals, causes fights, domestic violence, unfaithfulness, and so on.

Less Philosophical in that sense, more observational - I suppose i'm sort of 'religious' without being 'religious' - i just think the ideology/lifestyle is good. I guess, almost every religious group is opposed to substance abuse (and technically speaking, ingestion of ethanol is substance abuse) and there's usually a good reason behind it. A person should always be in complete control of themself, and one cannot hide from the responsibilities of tomorrow by evading them today.

 

[iPwn]

Touché. I personally don't drink but it's not due to any belief system. Just don't like the effects of alcohol. I've never been arrested or had any legal trouble but it has gotten me in trouble before. I recently quit poking smot because I'm trying to get a job with the state. I personally don't see anything wrong with either of the substances, it's really the person and how they let the substance effect them... In this scenario, the person in question let the alcohol get the better of them and took another human life in consequence.