« Well … At Least He’s not Gay. Right? | Main | Toke or treat »

Common Sense Lesson #157

uncle-sam.jpgAgain and again, our Common Sense Lessons seem to return to the issue of drunk driving. This time, I’m not going to focus on a Michigan man who was busted for a DUI on a Saturday evening (although he’s especially an asshat for having his 12-year-old son in the car with him). No, this lesson focuses on the man’s wife. When he was pulled over and busted for blowing a 0.11, he asked his son to call his mom to come pick the pair up. Fair enough.

Of course, and you surely see where this is going, the mother showed up with the couple’s 9-year-old daughter in the car and was also arrested for DUI after blowing a 0.13 of her own! By now, I realize that many folks lack the common sense to know not to drive drunk, and especially not to drive drunk with their kids in the car. But I was still just a smidge surprised that wifey-poo lacked the common sense to know that she maybe shouldn’t be drunk when she goes to pick up her drunk driving husband from the cops. Live and learn, I guess.

| Comments (3)


What about the guys who have had sex with bikes and sidewalks???

"The Daily Telegraph reports on a bizarre case in which a man staying at a hostel was surprised by workers with a master key, having sex with a bicycle. He has been placed on the sex offenders register, despite apparently indulging in his practices in private with an inanimate object. I am wondering how this is different from using, say, a vibrator or blow-up doll? Do people in hostels have no right to privacy?
The real killer paragraph is the last one - apparently someone was jailed in 1993 for having sex with the pavement - or sidewalk in US English."

was it a freshly-poured sidewalk or a well-seasoned sidewalk? just curious

Drunk driving. Dwi and dui. A license to drink.
Madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and alanon/al-anon related.

Copyright: 1987-2007 � Bruce Alm. Documentation is available upon request.

The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.

If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

There could also be many other positive results;

Families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we've all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

This new law could go something like this:

Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcoholic beverages.

For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcoholic beverages.

What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

This permit doesn't seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, (or whatever,) on the back of any driver's license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.

Most people of drinking age have a driver's license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don't drive. This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type ID specifically for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. All states have these already for the purpose of identification.

This would be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking ID's at the time of purchase.
In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check ID's at the door, as they do now.

Would this be a violation of rights?

There can be no argument here since they already check IDs of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

This could be a good saying, "If a person who doesn't know how to drive shouldn't have a license to drive, a person who doesn't know how to drink shouldn't have a license to drink."

Here are some other pluses to this idea:

A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically. The need for A.A., alanon, madd, sadd, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.

What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance, and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult in most cases.

Even though A.A. members as a group don't become involved in political movements, it would seem as individuals they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

A woman from MADD, on the NBC TODAY show, said "One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcoholic beverages sold in the U.S." If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue 'down the drain,' and so on. But it doesn't seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.


What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

Please note:
There is no correlation in the above article to the advocacy of prohibition, which was as much of a worthless fiasco as the "war on drugs" is today, for all the same reasons. The email criticism has mostly been "prohibition didn't work," even though the word "prohibition" has not been mentioned until now.
The argument would therefore have to be more compared as to whether or not there should be a law for people to have a driver's license to drive, rather than as to whether or not motor vehicles should be legal, or illegal.
These are separate issues altogether, and no connection should be made between the two.