Wayne.B wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 21:46:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

So I take it your view is that unless a boater has committed a crime for
which he can be imprisoned, he should be free to continue serial episodes of
boating while drunk?

Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in
many jurisdictions.

I see an inconsistency in your argument. If you believe that
government should institute and enforce laws against drunk boating,
then you grant that they should have a role and be able to make
restrictions. You concede that government should be able to step in
and prevent a drunk from getting on the water (and lock him up to make
sure of it). This isn't qualitatively different, it seems to me, from
reuiring that in order to have the privilege of operating a power
vehicle on the water (I already conceded that it might be different for
sailboats, I'm not sure), one must not only stay sober, but also be
able to prove that they've had basic safety instructions. In either
case, we both agree that the government rightfully can be involved in
restricting your "rights" and freedoms.

I guess I'm a loony leftist, in that I think it's okay for the
government to be involved in deciding who can own guns, who can drive
cars and boats, and potentially restrict some people from doing those
things and others. Not everything, but I don't think it's a slippery
slope where, as was sarcastically suggested earlier, next I'll need a
license to swim.

I DO however, see a slippery slope situation, wherein if you let
environmentalists pan pwc's from any public waterways, they'll be
coming after your bigger powerboat next!

richforman