Quote:
Originally Posted by amorak
How can someone be so blind?
All the conditions you listed, save one, are UNCONTROLLABLE AND WITH SOMEONE 24/7. Those conditions could, at any time, without any DECISION by the affected person, make operating a car dangerous.
ONE of these conditions is totally USER-DEPENDANT and is CONTROLLABLE and relies ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ON AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE PERSON. A person who is an alcoholic can also operate a car safely 100% of the time, if they so choose. NO ONE ELSE WITH ANY OTHER CONDITION ON THAT LIST CAN SAY THAT.
Seriously, am I the only one who sees how different choosing to get drunk is over being afflicted with diabeties?
|
To further my point - look at this:
uncontrolled diabetes
So if you, as a person, ARE ABLE TO ADMINISTER insulin to CONTROL your diabetes, you can drive.
However, if you cannot control your diabetes by actively medicating yourself, you cannot drive.
THIS IS THE SAME AS AN ALCOHOLIC, so how can you give a diabetic who can mange his disease the right to drive, while taking it away from an alcoholic who can make the same choice.
This is a ridiculous infringement on personal freedoms and I find that your argument helps to completely cement my view that this lady was wronged, regardless of how wrong a DUI is, banning someone from driving because they have a clean driving record by are a lush and may be slightly more statistically likely to cause an accident is such a slippery slope, I don't want to even start down it.