In that case we’re more in agreement than I thought (was thrown because puritan groups often use ‘drunk-driving’ synomously with ‘drink-drinking’, so didn’t think about whether you intended a distinction or not).

Andrew’s other point about arbitrary limits is entirely fair, which is why I refer to drunk-driving — driving while drunk — rather than drink-driving &#151 driving after drinking an amount of alcohol decided by the government. I am aware that some people can drink vast amounts of alcohol without getting drunk. The law doesn’t allow for them; such is life. But people who get into their cars and drive them around public roads while pissed are the scum of the Earth. Fuck ’em.

> I’m broadly anti-car and keen to restrict the suffocating impact of cars on cities, but I don’t view demonising individual imperfect car drivers as a constructive way of doing this.

Oh, I agree: I wouldn’t demonise drunk-drivers as a way of achieving some other aim. I demonise them because they’re self-important self-absorbed selfish deluded bastards who have taken the idea of inconsideration to such an extreme that they are willing to risk the lives of strangers in order to affirm their own arrogance.

AB: I’m genuinely amazed by S2’s perspective, hence the sarcastic tone of question. There are people I like and respect who have drink-driven, who have sped inappropriately, and who have driven on too little sleep (the only reason a difference is drawn between the three is because of crazy drink-drive propaganda). Fortunately, none of them have crashed and caused harm. If they had, I’d mostly have viewed them as unlucky.

FWIW, I’m broadly anti-car and keen to restrict the suffocating impact of cars on cities, but I don’t view demonising individual imperfect car drivers as a constructive way of doing this.

Meanwhile, were someone I knew to murder someone else out of rage, I would view them as a fucking maniac, and never talk to them again.

Man’s murder ‘mistaken identity’

As for the argument that drunk driving is worse than murder – this would make sense IF each case of drunk driving led to a death. But it clearly does not. Each case of murder involves a death. The tremendous majority of drunk driving cases (even excluding the undetected) does not. If we say that increasing one’s risk of causing the death of an innocent in a traffic accident is worse than murder – then speeding is worse than murder!

And, as these are arbitrary limits – on both alcohol and speed – then we must say that any non-emergency use of a car is worse than murder!

Do you *really* believe that? Would you really consider a friend who you knew drove home after four pints last year worse than a friend who topped their (horrible, hence deserved) acquaintance last year?

> I guess you could work ‘doing horrible things for enjoyment/gratification is worse than doing them out of rage or desperation’ into it somewhere, which would allow you to say that child abusers were worse than the majority of murderers.

That is exactly my opinion, yes. Plus the fact that children never do anything that causes them to deserve child abuse in any reasonable person’s view.

Incidentally, for similar reasons, I think drunk-driving is worse than murder. Killing someone you know because they’ve made your life hell isn’t half as bad as killing a total stranger because you couldn’t be bothered getting a taxi.

I can think of less than abominable and depraved reasons to kill someone (though they’d still be wicked reasons). I can’t think of any reason to abuse a child that is not abominable and depraved. It’s nothing more than taking the liberal "if it feels good, do it" to the furthest extremes.