Ah now now reach back home, an' dis is what I read?
noobie wrote:d spike wrote:
Attempting to curtail people's activities in public to ensure the safety of others can be argued to be one of the responsibilities of government, however, saying what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your home is a totally different thing - and much harder to oversee.
"If you drink, don't drive" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking, and leaves you free to perform your acts of insobriety - as long as it doesn't involve motor-cars - and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms that they are so fussy about, while making them well aware of their responsibilities that accompany such rights.
Let's say first that I don't drink, and I don't smoke. So take that emotion and misplaced self righteousness out of the scene as well.
There wasn't any emotion or "misplaced self righteousness" in what I wrote. I was being quite clear, calm and tactful. Your posts were well put together, but judging from this odd remark, you (and this is in the singular sense, differing vastly from the above quote which is the plural 'you') apparently have some cocoa in the sun. For your erudition, the following is an emotional response as well as having a goodly sized helping of well-placed self-righteousness:
I didn't ask whether you drank (not in the least interested), or concerned myself with the question of your being a smoker (highly irrelevant).
I just do not see why, after I have spent my money on acquiring a vehicle, worked hard on building, modifying and maintaining it, all to ensuring that I and my loved ones are safe when we travel in it, that some damned sot should endanger our lives, and damage or destroy my car, simply because his senses were impaired due to alcohol. Personally, if I get in an accident in which the other driver just smells of alcohol, he had better hope there are plenty of witnesses around...
