Politicians, Bureaucrats Shocked That Citizens Think They Know What’s Best For Themselves

We’ve gone from government by the consent of the governed to government by bureaucrats and politicians who know better than you do.
A new survey about underage drinking indicates that most North Dakotans think it’s not a big deal. That, naturally, has big-government types upset because. Because how dare we citizens have an opinion on the matter of our own.

“The results of the survey were shocking,” Stenehjem said.
By middle school, one-third of North Dakota students have already used alcohol and 10 percent had their first real drink of alcohol (other than a few sips), before they were 11 years old, according to the most recent state risk behavior survey.
Also, a separate community survey results of attitudes in the state showed that 70 percent of North Dakotans believe it’s not difficult or only slightly difficult for youth to get their parents to give them alcohol.
About a third of the survey takers said that in their community, teens drinking is considered acceptable behavior. And more people think teen drinking is all right than approve of teens smoking.

Don’t worry, North Dakota! The government is on its way to save you from yourselves!

Stenehjem and state Human Services Director Carol Olson said those persistent attitudes, among parents, young people and others in North Dakota are evident in new survey results and has led them to launch a new campaign to lower the incidence of under-age drinking in the state. . . .
As part of the new campaign the state has sent brochures to all parents about under-age drinking, including the criminal laws and the risk of civil liability if they furnish alcohol.
The new education efforts aimed at young people will reach down into grade schools.

North Dakotans don’t have the right sort of attitudes about drinking. So the government is going to educate them. How…Orwellian.
And the justification for all this is Stenehjem’s assertion that drinking leads to crime. But then, when drinking is becoming increasingly criminalized, it’s not surprising that drinking leads to crime.

Stenehjem said North Dakota’s culture that condones drinking shows up in its crime statistics. A quarter of the adults arrested in the state on various crimes in 2007 were arrested for driving while under the influence. And 40 percent of all arrests for crimes in the state were alcohol-related.

Now, I’m not in favor of drunk driving. But it’s worth noting that drunk driving is illegal not because drinking in and of itself is inherently bad but because drunk drivers are dangerous. It’s a public safety concern.
Stenehjem is being rather alarmist about DUI’s in North Dakota. Yes, DUI arrests in the state are up. But that’s because of increased enforcement, not increased incidents of people driving drunk. Despite cops in North Dakota spending more and more tax dollars and law enforcement resources on drunk driving, nothing has changed in terms of public safety. Alcohol-related injuries and fatalities in traffic accidents have remained constant since 2002.
Put simply, Stenehjem and our DUI policies aren’t making North Dakota safer. They’re just putting more people in jail while simultaneously using up more tax dollars.
If North Dakotans want to drink they should be allowed to drink. And if they think their kids should be allowed to drink, then so be it. That’s their choice, and we’re still living in a free country right?

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array pparets

    You’re right, Zsa Zsa, 108 is truly dogmatic….

    2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.

    1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

  • dragon poker

    PP,
    As always, you make a rational and realistic assessment of the topic. As usual, our approaches are from two differernt directions, but we arrive at the same place.
    Onward!

  • Pilgrim

    That picture on the front page of this article freaks me out every time I see it. Yeeks.

    Anyway, to argue that DUI’s aren’t a safety hazard would be just silly. Of course they are. BUT – like eveything else, the government is using that to horn more and more into our lives.

    If you close your garage door on your foot, well, that’s a hazard. therefore in this state you MUST have a sensor now so that you can’t do that.

    In New York restaurants can’s cook with saturated fats. It bad for you. That whole “choice” thing? Fuggedaboudit.

    And the beat goes on. And on. And on.

    Too much government. Period.

  • pparets

    No, 108, I don’t lie. Lying is a conscious, deliberate attempt to decieve, a practice I do not indulge in.

    In the post to which I responded, you went out of your way to suggest that alcohol consumption took 10,000 lives annually, while automobile use expanded the economy.

    In your rush to condemn consumption of alcohol, you blithley ignored the role which the alcohol industry lays in our market economy.

    I simply corrected you.

  • robert108

    Your definitions are not shared by most(what a lie is/what freedom is). Your morals are not shared by most(authoritarian/prohibitionist/anti-freedom).

    The popularity argument. That doesn’t make it right; it only shows how successful moral degeneration has been, as a political tactic of the left.
    Your need to be immoral is noted. You confuse the license to be immoral and thoughtless with freedom. Pathetic. Our country has not been successful due to people like you, but in spite of your stupidity.

  • robert108

    BTW, in another refutation of your lies about “authoritarianism”, I have never told you what to do or not to do: I encourage you to drink, smoke and take drugs to the highest degree, in the service of Darwinism. I just object to scum like you having any effect on impressionable children.
    What scum like you can’t stand is being told the truth about your immorality and its consequences.

  • dragon poker

    I mean, I wuv iwony

  • Spartacus

    Robert, perhaps Obama can create a new branch of government that polices morality for us. Wouldn’t that be great? It would lift the burden of judgment from you and every other citizen of the country. Saudi Arabia has such an organization and it seems to produce the results you desire.

  • dragon poker

    Have another drink, moron.

    I drink rarely. Ironic huh? A person who defends personal freedom who isnt married to the freedom being defended.
    You obviously do not understand principle at all.

  • dragon poker

    Alcohol kills and degenerates people. Fact.

    So what? Freedom is risky, both for the owner of that freedom and for those who live with other free persons. Fact!

  • dragon poker

    Morality is not a “stupid argument”, except for those who want to see this country destroyed.
    License is not freedom, no matter how many times you spew that lie.

    Your definitions are not shared by most(what a lie is/what freedom is). Your morals are not shared by most(authoritarian/prohibitionist/anti-freedom).

    Incidently, I didnt say morality was stupid, you said that. I said your argument was stupid.

    This is a stupid argument

    You can assume I was saying you personally are stupid as well. Morality, not so much. Just your personal use of it.
    After all, morality is the last desperate line of defense to a losing argument. By the time the morality card is tossed out like a turd on a wedding cake, the argument has already been decided.

  • robert108

    Prohibition “didn’t work” because we cut and ran from it, behind promises that it would “improve our lives, cut crime and bring in tax money” if we went back to freewheeling alcohol consumption. How’s that working?
    It’s still a matter of moral courage and principles.
    Do we let the country be run by those with the lowest impulse control? How’s that working?

  • robert108

    You, as always, refuse to recognise the argument being made here.

    I have both recognized it and have refuted it. Do you have an answer to any of my questions?

    Again, dumbass, it’s not “authoritarian” to espouse high moral standards. You have a choice to be irresponsible, stupid, destructive and immoral, and the results of those choices are apparent: sickness, moral decay and death.
    If you think that’s “freedom”, then you should be allowed to drink yourself into sickness and death on your own, but should never be permitted to be in charge of anything.
    How much death are you willing to endorse in your quest of “freedom”(license)?

  • robert108

    Since you have no rebuttals for anything I have written, you go adolescent insults. This is always the only thing you have.
    Again, why do you want to kill Americans, little groupie stalker?

    Despite your lie, you did say that the moral argument was stupid, so answer the question, little groupie: Why do you think morality is stupid?

  • robert108

    Weird little groupie stalker: Why are you so uncomfortable with morality? Why do you want so many Americans to die?

  • duh moments

    There is a little more to this story. Go out to the pen. Ask the inmates how many of them are there because they smoked one too many Marlboro’s and beat their spouse/significant other and/or children. Yet we spend millions for smoking cessation. Now ask them how many are there because they drank too much and “got a little crazy”. The results certainly tie into the 40% arrested related to alcohol consumption. Ask yourself how many tax dollars are spent by the Department of Human Services dealing with the aftermath of violence and neglect due to alcohol consumption. Ask yourself how many tax dollars are spent employing the law enforcement to deal with domestic violence, robbery, and assaults involving alcohol. Ask yourself how many tax dollars are spent by the Department of Education to employ counselors and special training for teachers, admin and staff to deal with children being neglected and abused because of alcohol consumption. And then, lump them all together and ask yourself how much tax money is spent because kids live what they learn from their parents/caretakers…It’s not just about the money, though. It is the pain of a harmless beer gone awry, over and over and over again. And I hate government interference. But again, there is more to the story than drunk driving…

  • robert108

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban alcohol consumption, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from alcohol. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of alcohol sales, the money made by advertising alcohol use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to drink alcohol, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

  • robert108

    108… the consumption of alcohol and the abuse of alcohol are seperate issues, just as driving a vehicle and being an aggressive driver are. False analogy, since driving has payoffs in terms of mobility and economic growth. The consumption of alcohol leads to abuse. It’s not 100%, but enough to kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. Is that OK with you?

    To paint all three with a single brush stroke as you did here… I did no such thing; I have enumerated the costs to all of us from alcohol consumption. It’s a fact.

    I encourage you to drink, smoke and take drugs to the highest degree

    … is neither accurate or fair. It’s accurate, because that’s what I want here, in order to blow up the phony “freedom” argument. If some freedom is good, then more freedom is better, right? So, if drinking, smoking and taking drugs is “freedom”, then the more the better, right? You see the error in the freedom argument, right? Your use of the phrase “to the highest degree” is irrelevant and inflammatory since Dragon Poker – as near as I can tell – was making no such reference in regards to alcohol. Again, it’s the bullshit “freedom” argument.

    The desire to be “free” from any regulations on the use of intoxicants is obviously a matter of license, not freedom.
    The fact that droolers like little groupie stalker can’t abide hearing about the moral dimension of what they advocate is evidence of intolerance and authoritarianism. They can’t tolerate any diversity of opinion.
    The hatred of morality is typical of those who wish to destroy our society. The free use of intoxicants hastens moral decay.

  • SHADY

    Why should’nt they be surprised.

    They thought they took away the “1st. amendment!!!

  • robert108

    It’s not “authoritarian” to advocate for higher moral standards; only a rebellious teenager would drool such nonsense. What’s right is right, no matter how much you idiots want to twist the truth.
    Alcohol kills and degenerates people. Fact.

  • dragon poker

    Dear cheese,
    Freedom, self determination, self reliance,and the right to succeed or fail, are all more important in the risk/reward calculation than what some old geezer sees as whats right for everyone(prohibition/authoritarianism). Freedom to choose for ones self the destiny they pick is the very essence of freedom. These are things cheese doesnt need to concern itself with very often, I know. I understand that you have a hard time relating to people, after all you are a block of cheese. Please try and listen though because even a block of cheese can love freedom.
    Personal freedom, personal responibility and self determination far outweigh the risk that they(personal freedom/responibility and self reliance)create. Personal freedom to choose ones own destiny, to succeed or not, outweigh the needs of a few cheesy authoritarian nannystaters who think they know best for everyone else.

  • pparets

    108… the consumption of alcohol and the abuse of alcohol are seperate issues, just as driving a vehicle and being an aggressive driver are.

    To paint all three with a single brush stroke as you did here…

    I encourage you to drink, smoke and take drugs to the highest degree

    … is neither accurate or fair. Your use of the phrase “to the highest degree” is irrelevant and inflammatory since Dragon Poker – as near as I can tell – was making no such reference in regards to alcohol.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    juh moments,

    You are familiar with the history of Prohibition?

    We certainly can’t tell that from what you wrote…

    And heaven knows we don’t need another Kennedy Klan at this point in our history…

  • pparets

    108… the number of Americans killed annually in automobile crashes far exceeds the number of those [tens of thousands] you claim are killed by alcohol consumption.

    You blithley ignore the enormous economic growth attached to the alcohol industry; the millions of Americans who work in brewries and wineries, as truckers, in retail outlets, bars and restaurants.

  • dragon poker

    This is like arguing with a block of cheese.

  • robert108

    Robert, perhaps Obama can create a new branch of government that polices morality for us.

    You might want that, but I support high morality as an individual choice. How can people make an informed choice if they are fed propaganda with no other side to the story?
    I have taken an individual stand here for high moral standards, and it has certainly brought out the hateful personal attacks, but no factual or logical arguments for lower moral standards. Interesting.

    Saudi Arabia has such an organization and it seems to produce the results you desire.

    Wrong again! You try to speak for me from a position of ignorance, which is typical of haters.
    Again, I favor high standards of personal morality. In fact, I encourage the morons who promote license to drink themselves into a stupor, so that they will cease to be an influence on anyone. After all, you regard that as “freedom”, right? The more you drink, the more freedom you have, right?
    I encourage you to make the right choice, not the stupid, degenerate one.

  • robert108

    You hate freedom, but encourage its excersize. Odd.

    Only to the reality-challenged. I love freedom, but tell the truth about the damage done by license, which is what you really support. You’re lying about the “freedom” part.
    I encourage the indulgence and license you advocate, so that you can get the “benefit” as soon as possible, so you can finally learn the error of your ways by bitter experience. I’m actually supporting your education. I have schooled you many times, but you are too stupid to learn by facts and logic, so only bitter experience will teach you. Your choice.

    Your bullshit “freedom” argument is really an argument for license and indulgence. I have schooled you on this multiple times, but you aren’t bright enough to learn, apparewntly.
    Real freedom comes from morality, not license.

  • dragon poker

    No; hypocritical. Assuming you are telling the truth, of course

    Not hypocritical at all. I dont skydive either, but I have no problem with others doing it. In fact I would defend your right to skydive. Principle is not so subjective as you think. In fact I dont think you understand principle at all.

  • dragon poker

    You, as always, refuse to recognise the argument being made here. You do this with everyone. I understand, its not personal. Its just your way.
    I have a block of cheese that is a better debater than you are. Of course the cheese is also dense(like you), but thats because it is cheese. Whats your excuse?

  • dragon poker

    Dear cheese,
    Your scraping the bottom of the cheese bowl.

    I have both recognized it and have refuted it. Do you have an answer to any of my questions?

    I talk personal freedom, you want to know why alcohol is good for us, bypassing the point, as always. Not refuted, bypassed.

    What scum like you can’t stand is being told the truth about your immorality and its consequences.

    The desperate argument of an authoritarian with no other fallback position.

    How much death are you willing to endorse in your quest of “freedom”(

    None. I am certainly willing to endorse freedom at the cost of some human life though. Grow up Mr. Rogers. No matter what you do, you are gonna die. Thats the irony. Authoritarians who espouse this stuff will also die, suffer, see others suffer. The issue is more about control and emotionalism. The saving lives argument is justification for the need to control others and emote selfishly.

    I encourage you to drink, smoke and take drugs to the highest degree

    Then what are we arguing about? You hate freedom, but encourage its excersize. Odd.

    You have a choice to be irresponsible, stupid, destructive and immoral, and the results of those choices are apparent: sickness, moral decay and death.

    Again, why are we arguing? I agree that you have the right to be all those things. In fact, thats my entire point. Freedom goes both ways. You have the right to succeed, you have the right to fail, you have the right to fall somewhere in the middle. What you dont have the right to do is tell everyone else what freedom is, and you certainly dont have the right to enforce your whacked out version of freedom(or lack of) on everyone else. They can decide what freedom means and how they will excersize it without your interference.

  • Spartacus

    ^ area should have been areas…

  • Spartacus

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban alcohol consumption

    You know it was tried once, and it didn’t work. What has changed since then that would cause prohibition to work now?

  • dragon poker

    Yeah, that’s why I think he’s like a governmental organization similar to virtue police in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They seem to fit his M.O.

    At least those crazies are over there. knobert is among us…..luckily he is powerless and obsolete, like a 73 pinto with the gas tank removed.

  • Spartacus

    Saudi Arabia has such an organization and it seems to produce the results you desire.

    Wrong again!

    Robert, I mean this is the kindest way, but you are an idiot!

  • robert108

    BTW, licensing alcohol consumption is also a cost/benefit decision. Is the cost worth the benefit? You non-thinkers try to make it an absolutist matter, just like the enviros. They, like you, are unable to make a valid cost/benefit decision. What is the positive argument for alcohol consumption? How is it beneficial? Does that “benefit”(if any) outweigh the tens of thousands of deaths? Please make that argument, if you can.

  • pparets

    In a debate, never give an inch…

    robert108

  • robert108

    Have another drink, moron.

  • robert108

    Two big lies from you:

    The environmentalist/authoritarian dipshit version:

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban automobiles, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from automobiles. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of driving, the money made by advertising cars use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to drive cars, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

    The hippydippy PETA dipshit authoritarian version:

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban the eating of meat, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from a meat diet. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of meat sales, the money made by advertising meat use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to eat meat, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

    I know you’re monumentally stupid, so you don’t know that driving a car is a cost/benefit decision, and that eating meat is natural for humans, and so your feeble attempt at twisting my words to make a faulty equivalence is typical of your lack of intelligence, and attempt to make an emotional appeal.

    If you can ever come up with a rational argument, give it a try. Until then, you will just keep spewing your nonsense, little groupie.

  • Spartacus

    meant to say that he’d like a governmental organization similar to virtue police in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But my fat little fingers got in the way of each other.

  • Spartacus

    luckily he is powerless and obsolete, like a 73 pinto with the gas tank removed.

    LOL…’73 Pinto never had any power even with a gas tank…I see you’re point!

  • dragon poker

    In a debate, never give an inch…

    This is better decribed as a dictate.

  • Spartacus

    thank you, I believe I will.

  • Spartacus

    This is better decribed as a dictate.

    Yeah, that’s why I think he’s like a governmental organization similar to virtue police in Saudi Arabia and Iran. They seem to fit his M.O.

  • http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

    I don’t think Robert108 is an idiot at all. I do think he is very dogmatic and sticks to his guns.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    “Public Safety” and “It’s for the children” are the two phrases which should cause any reasoning person to guard their wallet.

  • Spartacus

    I don’t think Robert108 is an idiot at all. I do think he is very dogmatic and sticks to his guns.

    Robert has his area of expertise, I agree. However preaching is not one of them.

  • robert108

    You blithley ignore the enormous economic growth attached to the alcohol industry; the millions of Americans who work in brewries and wineries, as truckers, in retail outlets, bars and restaurants.

    You lie; I didn’t “blithely ignore” anything. In fact, if you will read with comprehension, you will discover that I asked specifically if the cost of alcohol consumption was worth whatever benefits you assign to it. Remember that question?

    Now, if you have a real argument, not misguided personal attack, let me know.
    You might also claim that the additional medical care required due to alcohol consumption employs tens of thousands of people, along with the tow truck drivers to haul away their wrecked vehicles, the additional work for coroners and forensic pathologists, not to mention undertakers, is some sort of economic benefit. How about all the psychologists who are employed to treat the relatives, spouses and loved ones of the alcoholics? Isn’t that a growth industry? By your logic, more alcohol consumption might even be considered an “economic stimulus”, right?

    Once again, you don’t do the cost/benefit calculation.

  • dragon poker

    The moralist/authoritarian dipshit version:

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban alcohol consumption, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from alcohol. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of alcohol sales, the money made by advertising alcohol use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to drink alcohol, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

    The environmentalist/authoritarian dipshit version:

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban automobiles, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from automobiles. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of driving, the money made by advertising cars use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to drive cars, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

    The hippydippy PETA dipshit authoritarian version:

    We lack the moral and political courage to ban the eating of meat, so we get tens of thousands of deaths every year from a meat diet. Cause and effect.
    We prattle on about the tax money that goes to govt as a result of meat sales, the money made by advertising meat use to make it sound romantic and “cool” to eat meat, the tens of thousands die. Cause and effect.
    How soon until some adults decide it’s not worth it?

    This is a stupid argument, no matter what the context. Amazing the way some folks are so willing to dismiss others freedom when that freedom is uncomfortable to them personally.
    They are easy to spot, no matter what political spectrum they think they are part of. Right or left, they are the same. They crave control.

  • dragon poker

    I have schooled you on this multiple times, but you aren’t bright enough to learn, apparewntly

    Apparewntly you are not “bright” enough to school anyone.
    cheese in cheese out.

  • dragon poker

    Again, it’s the bullshit “freedom” argument.

    This says it all.

  • robert108

    I drink rarely. Ironic huh?

    No; hypocritical. Assuming you are telling the truth, of course.

  • robert108

    Morality is not a “stupid argument”, except for those who want to see this country destroyed.
    License is not freedom, no matter how many times you spew that lie.

  • sayanything-5371

    What has changed since then that would cause prohibition to work now?

    Would muslims like us and not attack us if we gave up beer? I believe the reason that muslims are so pissed off and violent is that they are not allowed to drink beer, wine or spirits, or to enjoy a BLT, or to enjoy the company of beautiful women. Taking away life’s pleasures makes for a discontented populace.

    As Ben Franklin said:

    “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    When did our employees (elected officials and their bureaucratic appendages) get the notion that we the people answered to them?

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Quite well, actually.

    While the odds of being struck and killed by a drunk driver are not as poor as the odds of being struck by lightning, they are far lower than being involved in a serious accident not involving alchohol.

    Plus, one family of rum runners transitioning into quasi royalty is one too many.

  • robert108

    In your rush to condemn consumption of alcohol, you blithley ignored the role which the alcohol industry lays in our market economy.

    I simply corrected you.

    I did not such thing, again, so this time, you can’t spin it as not being a lie; you did it purposely.

    I already referred to where I dealt with the faulty argument about alcohol contributing to economic growth, so your defense is nullified. I asked you several questions about other economic effects of drinking, and you have “blithely” ignored them. Why? Can you defend your position? Is the benefit worth the cost?

    I have corrected you, once again.

  • dragon poker

    I love irony.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Anyway, to argue that DUI’s aren’t a safety hazard would be just silly. Of course they are. BUT – like eveything else, the government is using that to horn more and more into our lives.

    Sure. I’m not arguing that DUI’s aren’t a safety hazard. But it seems as though we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns on enforcement. We keep making DUI punishments more draconian, and yet road safety stays the same.

    Far too often we let a distaste for “drinkers” or “alcoholics” color our policy decisions. Rather than making moral judgments on what other people do, why not just act to make the public safer?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development