Where's the outrage over drunk driving?

[Stitch]

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.

 

[Raiders]

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

 

[Point of Order]

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

 

[RickStain]

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.

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.

 

[Stitch]

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?

 

[RickStain]

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

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.

 

[DanOregon]

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.

 

[Point of Order]

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

 

[Stitch]

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

 

[RickStain]

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.

 

[Point of Order]

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

 

[Mark2010]

Yep. It's the same reason certain people don't get outraged at politicians who have extra-marrital affairs and such: Cause they're doing it, too.

Even the biggest of hypocrites struggles to bash someone who gets caught for the very same thing he/she is doing. If the truth were known, the number of people who drink and drive would be staggering.

 

[Azrael]

As **** points out, there's plenty of well-organized outrage in this country over drunken driving, and has been since at least the founding of MADD in 1980.

One could just as easily ask "where's the outrage over lung cancer?" or "where's the outrage over the eating of fatty red meats and the cardiac deaths that result from it?" or "where's the outrage over the manufacture of automobiles, since they kill 50,000 Americans a year?"

Where's the outrage over false equivalencies?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

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

Jim Leyritz, chairperson.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I think what Stitch meant to write was, "Why isn't everyone who is railing against Sarah Palin and nasty political rhetoric also railing against CEOs of alcohol companies, like I do every day??"

 

[Point of Order]

Speaking of texting and driving, how many of you have continued to text someone after you knew they were behind the wheel? Do you consider it irresponsible for you to do so?

 

[RedHotChiliPrepper]

What happened to holding people responsible for their own actions? Why must it be the alcohol companies' fault someone was drinking and driving? Why is it the tobacco companies' fault for manufacturing cigarettes when the healthy warnings are right on the package?

At some point don't we need to look at someone who dies of lung cancer caused by smoking and say, 'sorry, but it was your choice'?

This irritates me more than just about anything. Always looking for someone else to blame instead of looking at the person in the mirror. We all have the choice to drink or not drink, smoke or not smoke, eat red meat and be lazy or workout like an Olympic athlete. Hold the people who make the choices responsible.

 

[RickStain]

What happened to holding people responsible for their own actions?

Someone discovered the concept of "the logical fallacy of false choice" so we stopped committing us. Well, most of us.

You can simultaneous hold people responsible for their choices *and* criticize people who influence them.

 

[outofplace]

What happened to holding people responsible for their own actions?

Someone discovered the concept of "the logical fallacy of false choice" so we stopped committing us. Well, most of us.

You can simultaneous hold people responsible for their choices *and* criticize people who influence them.

Exactly. Yes, smokers are responsible for their own actions, but that doesn't mean you can't hold tobacco companies responsible as well. They produce, market and distribute products that kill people and they rely heavily on getting their customers hooked when they are way too young to be making life and death decisions.

Find a way to make sure the laws against people smoking before they turn 18 and I would have a much harder time blaming tobacco companies for the damage their products do. How many people smoke their first cigarette after they turn 18? Seriously, does anybody even know? I bet it is a damn small percentage.