This is an entire legion of awesome.

A+ for effort.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

He lost it when she carded him but he was underage! The irony.

It was mostly enjoyable but I can't really agree with the drink driving.

I hope the store was in on the gag...

>> ^yellowc:

It was mostly enjoyable but I can't really agree with the drink driving.


Yep, my sentiments exactly.

Throwing shit around at the last store wasn't cool either.

>> ^yellowc:

It was mostly enjoyable but I can't really agree with the drink driving.

The drinking and driving was fine. He didn't hit anyone.

The smashing the store display. That was bullshit. Still, funny video.

*NSFW-language

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by Kevlar.

*nsfw

Video is already flagged NSFW - ignoring nsfw request by ant.

>> ^blankfist:

The drinking and driving was fine. He didn't hit anyone.
The smashing the store display. That was bullshit. Still, funny video.


While I agree that the store display was bullshit, just because he didn't hit anyone doesn't mean dinking and driving is okay.

If he only had the two drinks at the bar, his Blood alcohol level probably was below what it needed to be for him to drive, that's the only thing I can really say in his defense.

I would also like to comment about the stupidity of filming yourself buying and consuming alcohol while underage, and then putting it on the internet.

I was thrown off by the Gillette razor in the video - I didn't think those multi-bladed versions existed in the year 2000, but then I checked some historical cigarette prices, and it seems about right.

Plus the fact that it would have been too elaborate a hoax (and risky) to make a fake video and claim statute of limitations...

>> ^Shepppard:

I would also like to comment about the stupidity of filming yourself buying and consuming alcohol while underage, and then putting it on the internet.


The description says this is 10 years old and they sat on it until the statute of limitations was up.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^blankfist:
The drinking and driving was fine. He didn't hit anyone.
The smashing the store display. That was bullshit. Still, funny video.

While I agree that the store display was bullshit, just because he didn't hit anyone doesn't mean dinking and driving is okay.
If he only had the two drinks at the bar, his Blood alcohol level probably was below what it needed to be for him to drive, that's the only thing I can really say in his defense.
I would also like to comment about the stupidity of filming yourself buying and consuming alcohol while underage, and then putting it on the internet.


Drinking and driving isn't okay, but should it be illegal? The common BAC in the states is .08, which is easy to blow after a glass (maybe two) of wine. Is that fair? Now, here in the California, if you get three DUIs you're doing some serious jail time with some unsavory criminals (min 120 days to max 1 year unless it's a felony from what I understand).

You also have to attend religious AA meetings and take 'behavioral classes'. Oh, and you lose your license which means you either have to go grovelling to the judge to get a temp license to drive to and from work, or drive without a license and break the law.

But the reason these terrible laws stay on the books is because people say "but drinking and driving is wrong." I get that. If someone blows a .15, then lock them up for a night and tow their car. Done. Why all the other shit that goes with it? Going to jail is hassle enough. And it's obvious with all these other draconian punishments we're not stopping people from drinking and driving in this country (I know you're not from the US).

I say, if you're going to punish people, and I mean seriously financially punish them, then at least do so when a victim has been created. A victim means someone is hit or hurt by a drunk driver. There's no proof someone with a BAC over the legal limit will ever hit or hurt someone in their lifetime. Period. So DUI laws are just preemptive laws designed to engineer society and generate revenue. Minority Report anyone?

The comb-over still works at 45. I get beer all the time.

WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I just...I mean Jesus. Never mind, I have a feeling talking to you is going to be redundant.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^blankfist:
The drinking and driving was fine. He didn't hit anyone.
The smashing the store display. That was bullshit. Still, funny video.

While I agree that the store display was bullshit, just because he didn't hit anyone doesn't mean dinking and driving is okay.
If he only had the two drinks at the bar, his Blood alcohol level probably was below what it needed to be for him to drive, that's the only thing I can really say in his defense.
I would also like to comment about the stupidity of filming yourself buying and consuming alcohol while underage, and then putting it on the internet.

Drinking and driving isn't okay, but should it be illegal? The common BAC in the states is .08, which is easy to blow after a glass (maybe two) of wine. Is that fair? Now, here in the California, if you get three DUIs you're doing some serious jail time with some unsavory criminals (min 120 days to max 1 year unless it's a felony from what I understand).
You also have to attend religious AA meetings and take 'behavioral classes'. Oh, and you lose your license which means you either have to go grovelling to the judge to get a temp license to drive to and from work, or drive without a license and break the law.
But the reason these terrible laws stay on the books is because people say "but drinking and driving is wrong." I get that. If someone blows a .15, then lock them up for a night and tow their car. Done. Why all the other shit that goes with it? Going to jail is hassle enough. And it's obvious with all these other draconian punishments we're not stopping people from drinking and driving in this country (I know you're not from the US).
I say, if you're going to punish people, and I mean seriously financially punish them, then at least do so when a victim has been created. A victim means someone is hit or hurt by a drunk driver. There's no proof someone with a BAC over the legal limit will ever hit or hurt someone in their lifetime. Period. So DUI laws are just preemptive laws designed to engineer society and generate revenue. Minority Report anyone?

@blankfist

Just because you disagree with the punishment for it doesn't mean the crime itself shouldn't be enforced.

Drinking and driving IS bad, I highly doubt you know anybody who has a family member that's been the victim of a drunk driver, but try making your argument with them.

There NEEDS to be a deterrent for something that's quite capable of being fatal, I don't care how it's done but it needs to be there. Should the BAC be raised? I don't know, I don't drink so I've no opinion on the matter, but as far as I know, there's been testing on the subject and those test results dictate what's best.

>> ^Shepppard:
Drinking and driving IS bad, I highly doubt you know anybody who has a family member that's been the victim of a drunk driver, but try making your argument with them.

Are you suggesting laws should be written from emotion not reason? Bringing in someone who experienced hardship to argue a similar law is not how laws should be written.

And as a matter of fact, I do know someone who had a loved one die from a drunk driver accident. I don't change my opinion about DUI laws around her, because law isn't meant to be personal. If it is, then it's a bad law.

@blankfist

How bout we take the other parts of my post that answered your question directly.

Specifically: There NEEDS to be a deterrent for something that's quite capable of being fatal

I'm not speaking of emotion, I'm talking about something that has proven time and again to be deadly. I don't need emotion, I have facts. In 2007 there were an estimated 15,000 deaths in the U.S. related to drunk driving alone. A specific quote from that link:

My friends and I were at a party. After having only 2 drinks each, we decided to go home. No one was designated to drive, and we got careless on the road. Alcohol debilitated my reaction time. I was driving. I hit another car coming directly at us after crossing over the center line. I killed two people that night – one of them a friend in my car… it is something I will never forget and it will always haunt me.

After two drinks. Now, for all we know, the two drinks could have been pitcher sized. It's also just as likely that they were, oh, say, an Amstel and a White Russian.

But deterrents aren't effective, @Shepppard. If harsher penalties were deterrents, then we'd not have murder because of the death penalty. But that hasn't worked as a deterrent so why would you think DUI laws would? Let's look at the numbers:

15,000 deaths in the US related to drunk driving, you say? My numbers say it's more like 11,000, but whatever. According to the Department of Health's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (that's a bureaucratic mouthful, ain't it?), "1.2 million adults aged 21 or older" were arrested for DUIs during the past year.

So, for 15,000 (or 11,000) deaths we're preemptively locking up 1.2 million people. That's a deterrent? My numbers say that automotive fatalities are estimated around 33,963 a year with 1/3 being from DUIs. Shouldn't we just outlaw driving altogether with such high numbers? 3/4 of the deaths are male, which is a higher amount of crashes than caused by DUIs so maybe we should ban men from driving?

If the numbers add up, then men should be banned before those driving with a BAC of .08 or higher.

And of those 15,000 (11,000?) is it proven that driving under the influence caused the wrecks? Probably not. From what I've learned (unless the information received was bogus), if you're in an accident in California and it's the other guy's fault but your BAC is above .08, then it becomes your fault and you're charged with a felony. That could easily skew numbers in any statistic.

Again, I'll state, just because you disagree with the punishment @blankfist, doesn't mean the law shouldn't be there.

A death is a death is a death. 11,000 is no better then 15,000. 11,000 people won't be going home to their families because one way or another someone driving under the influence was involved in a crash. The difference between drunk driving and murder is that it's much easier to avoid driving drunk then it is to avoid getting shot.

Take a cab, designate a driver, bus it, call for a ride. All of these are simple things that could easily avoid any form of drunk driving, there was a taxi service on the sift a while back called "Home Jeeves" or something, where people would actually come to you and drive your car home.

And, whereas locking up 1.2 million people may seem like it's ineffective, that's a helluva lot more people that could only ADD to the statistic of fatatalities.

@Shepppard, I'll explain this easily: if there's no victim, there's no crime. Out of the 1.2 million locked up, only 15,000 (11,000) of them created victims. That's a disparagingly low percentage.

Yes, I disagree with the punishment, but more importantly I'm disagreeing with the law. Read what I'm writing. It's not just the draconian punishment, but how stupid the law is. Yes, the punishment is draconian, and isn't that important to point out, as well? If jaywalkers were sentenced to death, would it be okay to point out how stupid that is as well as maybe how stupid jaywalking tickets are? I'm sure you're violating some logical fallacy I'm too lazy to look up at the moment.

"And, whereas locking up 1.2 million people may seem like it's ineffective, that's a helluva lot more people that could only ADD to the statistic of fatatalities."

@blankfist

This is my last response to you, it's quite obvious you're clinging to your attitude that laws are there for no reason, and that the government is just out for your money.

If there's no victim, there's no crime. It's just unfortunate that you see it as that and not as the preventative measures put in place so there doesn't have to BE a victim. The bottom line is simple: if you don't want to spend a night in jail and be traumatized (As you seem to think that sitting in a cell for a few hours will scar you for life) then just don't fucking do it. Use a different method of getting home.

The way to resolve all of the victims, all of the jail time, all the fines, don't drive drunk.

You continuously compare apples to oranges by trying to equate it to some other "crime". We're not discussing murder, we're not discussing jaywalking. We're discussing driving drunk. Find me a statistic that shows how jaywalking kills thousands annually, or that murders could've been avoided by the person making a better choice.

Before you yet again try to twist my words, no, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do (A) to prevent (B) because it will once again be something completely unrelated, and you'll be trying to make a point about something once again completely irrelevant.

If you let 1.2 million drivers on the road, the odds of some of them having an accident, sober or not, is increased. Putting 1.2 million drivers on the road who ARE inebriated, so their reaction times are slower, they're not seeing straight, and probably swerving on the road, puts them at a substantially higher statistic to have an accident, that's common sense.

However, I guess I should've seen your selfishness coming.

This is my last response to you, it's quite obvious you're clinging to your attitude that laws are there for no reason, and that the government is just out for your money.

Find me a statistic that shows how jaywalking kills thousands annually

However, I guess I should've seen your selfishness coming.

...it will once again be something completely unrelated, and you'll be trying to make a point about something once again completely irrelevant.

If you let 1.2 million drivers on the road, the odds of some of them having an accident, sober or not, is increased. Putting 1.2 million drivers on the road who ARE inebriated, so their reaction times are slower, they're not seeing straight, and probably swerving on the road, puts them at a substantially higher statistic to have an accident, that's common sense.

"Again, I'll state, just because you disagree with the punishment doesn't mean the law shouldn't be there."

@Shepppard. Isn't the punishment also a determination whether a law is just or not?

So blankfist, do you think that pilots should be allowed to handle a plane drunk? After all, no one gets hurt by him drinking, right?

If drunk driving wasn't taken seriously, there'd be a _lot_ more people doing it, and it would _certainly_ lead to more damages and death. Even with these strict laws, 1/3rd, 1/3RD of traffic deaths were caused by drunk driving. In some states, it's 50%. Your arguing that even with these laws, we have these deaths. So your solution is removing these laws altogether? What would the situation be if we allowed unconditional drunk driving?
You said that majority of the deaths were caused by males, so it'd be like banning men from driving. But that's like saying majority of the murders were made by men, so we should ban men from existing. Drunk driving is EASILY avoidable, and is directly co-related to driving skills.

I do not understand your point of only punishing them "when a victim has been created. A victim means someone is hit or hurt by a drunk driver"; when the likelihood of an accident gets sky high when the driver is drunk; you seem to be either forgetting or denying that part. It's like allowing people to carry bombs and guns in an aircraft: no one was injured yet, and we'll never know until he takes the plane down, so why punish them for something they haven't done and there is no proof, zero proof, that he'd actually bomb the plane?

Anyway, how difficult is it to NOT get drunk before you drive?

Curious to know more about your views or possible alternatives, blankfist.

@raith, the airlines would rightfully make it company policy for the pilots (or any employee) not to be intoxicated during the hours they need to be operational. I wouldn't want to get into a plane where someone is intoxicated. That would be silly.

You're putting words in my mouth. I was never arguing this: "Your arguing that even with these laws, we have these deaths. So your solution is removing these laws altogether?" No. I was responding to Shepppard's remark, and I quote, "There NEEDS to be a deterrent for something that's quite capable of being fatal", and I was showing how it doesn't work as a deterrent.

As for your "bombs on the plane" analogy: airlines typically are owned and operated privately, and they should determine what is allowed on the plane. No one will fly on a plane that allows passengers to bring bombs. It would be a terrible business strategy. Just like no one would want to fly with an airlines that allowed its pilots to drink before takeoff.

Driving on public streets is completely different than flying a commercial plane. It's a completely different paradigm, because the streets are (supposedly) publicly owned and paid for, so we all have a right to use them.

"Anyway, how difficult is it to NOT get drunk before you drive?"


You and Shepppard keep using the term "drunk", but just above the legal limit isn't drunk. To a high school girl having her first Kool•Aid and Vodka drink, it may be. To a fifty year old Navy veteran who sips whiskey all day long, it probably isn't.

Also, don't confuse my stance on this matter as me condoning drinking and driving. I understand it's not good behavior, but I just don't like our desire as a society to punish people for their behavior instead of when they create victims. It's called social engineering, and we've come to accept it as part of civilized society which is dangerous. Examples of social engineering are sin taxes for alcohol & cigarettes and tax incentives for marriage. It's not the hallmark of a free society.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you when you said "And it's obvious with all these other draconian punishments we're not stopping people from drinking and driving in this country"; I thought you meant that we should remove them as they're not helpful, when you were just commenting on their effectiveness.

"airlines typically are owned and operated privately, and they should determine what is allowed on the plane." - I don't think that's true; airline threats are regulated by the government; they won't be allowed to have bombs on the plane even if they wanted to. Otherwise, we'd have the taliban having private airlines. But then this brings my original question again; it _should_ be okay to allow bombs and guns on a plane, since we have no proof of any potential wrongdoing? What do you think?

"because the streets are (supposedly) publicly owned and paid for, so we all have a right to use them." That doesn't make sense to me; you mean to say it should be all-right for people to drive without a license or training? Because the road is public and we have the right to use them?

You might have a point that the legal limit may be too low; or rather it depends on the person. But my agreement ends there; there _should_ be some sort of strict regulation; a drunk person on the steering wheel is a hazard, and deserves the punishments for being so inconsiderate, for the cost of a cab or ride home.

Prevention is better than cure, my friends. I've done a lot of stupid things in my time, but driving drunk is not one of them. It's pure selfishness.

Oh, and to suggest that punishment is no deterrant for anything is absurd. Here in Aus, the last 20 years has seen a concerted effort to reduce drink driving, with happy results:

http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=098D40B17F00000100E9B48BE7365CB0&navLink=null&pageID=164

>> ^kymbos:

Oh, and to suggest that punishment is no deterrant for anything is absurd. Here in Aus, the last 20 years has seen a concerted effort to reduce drink driving, with happy results:
http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=098D40B17F00000100E9B48BE7365CB0&n
avLink=null&pageID=164


Your voting is also compulsory. Boo on Australia! A statist paradise.

@raith, where to begin? You wrote, "airline threats are regulated by the government", but does that matter? Everything is regulated by the government. Everything. Name one thing in your life that isn't regulated to some extent by the government. Even sleeping (do not remove under penalty of law).

I'm not saying airlines should start allowing bombs into the sky. That's a bit extreme isn't it? I mean, I've pointed out a couple times above how any argument against less regulations and less laws always is met with extreme scenarios to justify the need for government intervention. Look, bombs on a plane are a distraction from what we were originally talking about here: driving under the influence laws.

You wrote, "you mean to say it should be all-right for people to drive without a license or training? Because the road is public and we have the right to use them?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You say that doesn't make sense, but why? Barring any extreme scenarios where a raving lunatic lets his dog drive, why isn't this a plausible idea? I know it's a tangent from the original DUI conversation, but at one point driving required no license.

Let me pause and point something out. My biggest issue here is you have a single monolithic system (government) that offers services, administers privileges, arbitrates punishment and also maintains a monopoly on violence. That's one system that does all of that. What if Verizon sold you phone service, maintained a monopoly on all phone services, created a compulsory licensing system where they could reject or allow the use of the phone service, and then were allowed to judge and execute punishment for any misuse they determined? That's basically what the government does.

If you can't understand why having the same monolithic system that takes out your trash also police you is a bad thing then we're in trouble.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Jury Duty is compulsory in the US. The main difference is that we consider voting to be a duty in Australia. In the US it is a right.>> ^blankfist:

>> ^kymbos:
Oh, and to suggest that punishment is no deterrant for anything is absurd. Here in Aus, the last 20 years has seen a concerted effort to reduce drink driving, with happy results:
http://ww
w.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=098D40B17F00000100E9B48BE7365CB0&n
avLink=null&pageID=164

Your voting is also compulsory. Boo on Australia! A statist paradise.

@dag, good point. Jury duty is also a civil service. I doubt voting should be considered a civil service. Still you bring up a good point.

I am amazed that you are all-right with the scenario of people who had never handled a car drive in a highway alone. If you think that's perfectly okay, I really don't know what to say. I suppose you believe there should not be be any maximum or minimum speed limit as well? Or any punishments for crossing the red light?

There is one example of a country that has extremely little regulation, that does not have what you detest: "a single monolithic system (government) that offers services, administers privileges, arbitrates punishment and also maintains a monopoly on violence". This lead to multiple factions, previously civilians, trying to take control and lead to a complete mess in Somalia. The lack of the monopoly of violence lead to killings that was unheard of; you may be forgetting that everyone is not as nice as you think they are.

You said: "I've pointed out a couple times above how any argument against less regulations and less laws always is met with extreme scenarios to justify the need for government intervention. Look, bombs on a plane are a distraction from what we were originally talking about here" - but it is completely related. Where do you draw the line? You seemed to have drawn it when it came to bombs in planes, because of the potential deaths. I, and I assume most others, draw it at drunk driving, for the exact same reason: potential deaths. Neither of these two acts can guarantee victims, but it makes sense for an authority to ban them because it's something unnecessary that may cause harm for little benefit.

BTW: you also said "What if Verizon sold you phone service, maintained a monopoly on all phone services, created a compulsory licensing system where they could reject or allow the use of the phone service, and then were allowed to judge and execute punishment for any misuse they determined?" - there is an exact example of a telecom like this in a country with camels, where using a voip app can land you in jail and lead to deportation. So I understand the necessity of less government intervention, but your scale of deregulation is a bit extreme, though I also understand that a slow creep of more control can actually lead to situations like this in other countries as well. But I maintain that road regulations, at least, are done for the greater good.