Where's the outrage over drunk driving?

Why aren't we calling for the heads of alcohol company CEOs when someone under the influence kills someone in the car crash? After all, all those glitzy ads could have made someone weak enough to drink a lot and they had to get home.

 

Where's the outrage over texting while driving?
Why aren't we calling for the heads (and lobbyists) of the phone companies?

 

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/78572/

 

Those companies generally pay a lot of their money toward anti-DD campaigns, and there are very strict rules about how they can advertise such that they don't implicitly encourage drunk driving.

 

Only three pages for a crime that kills far more people in this country than any other?

Anti-DD messages are just window dressing. I never see those ads displayed prominently in a bar or restaurant. Never in a menu.

So basically political ads that use violent imagery could be OK if a politician says don't go out and actually hurt someone? It's glib, but why not?

 

We've had quite a few threads on the subject, iirc.

But more importantly, the issue isn't up for debate.

There are a few idiots out there who think it's okay to tell funny stories about the time they drank and drove and argue that it's not really a big deal. When they pop up, a large number of people are usually right there to tell them how wrong they are.

Just like a few people think a certain type of rhetoric is no big deal, and a lot of smart people are there to tell them how wrong they are.

 

I'd love to hear a political ad with the same type of disclaimers the alcohol ads have.

- The rhetoric spoken here is not an endorsement for violence against any political opponent, and is used only as a dramatic enhancement to get your attention.

 

Let's hear from the pro drinking and driving faction.

 

If you can prove that Palin wanted politicians dead, I'll find someone for drinking and driving.

 

No one's accusing her (and others) of intent. We're accusing them of gross recklessness.

 

what he said.

 

I think there is a lot of outrage.

There has been an enormous crackdown on it since the early 1980s. The number of alcohol-related vehicle deaths per mile dropped 63 percent from 1982 through 2002.

But your point does make me think.

Part of it, perhaps, is that our country already tried Prohibition, and it didn't work.

Part of it is that, "everybody drinks." And a lot more people have driven drunk than have shot to kill.

Part of it is that while gun fatalities are largely seen as purposeful acts of senseless violence, vehicle deaths are largely seen as reckless acts. I know that the result is the same, but intent does matter. At least psychologically.

Part of it is simply our own irrational fears. We're scared to death of flying, even though we're more likely to die in a car crash. We're scared to death of Swine Flu while we continue to gobble down processed garbage and sit on our fat asses, waiting to die. We're scared to death of guns, when we are much more likely to be wiped out by a drunk driver.

EDIT: In 2004, there were 10,000 or so homicide deaths by firearms. In 2009, there were about 11,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities. A lot of those traffic fatalities were probably the driver him or herself. I would still posit that the risk of being killed by a drunk driver, randomly, is much, much higher than being randomly killed by a gun. Most gun violence, I imagine, is targeted violence and related to drugs, etc., etc.