If someone disagrees with domestic drilling for oil should the be allowed to drive?

If someone speaks out against,votes against, petitions against, etc. domestic drilling for oil to reduce our dependency upon foriegn oil should they be allowed to use our limited supply. Should we take away their right to drive and limit them to public transpotation? Would this lower our demand on oil there by decreasing the price for everyone else?If someone disagrees with domestic drilling for oil should the be allowed to drive?
Great idea, stops them from bitching and puts their money where their mouth isIf someone disagrees with domestic drilling for oil should the be allowed to drive?
Must be Bush butt boys, haven't heard of the 1st amendment just like W Report Abuse

You'all seem to miss the point altogether. It's the OIL stupid. We need to quit oil altoghter Report Abuse

Yeah... why do you Repbulcians talk about the ';evil commies'; and then you want to do the same things, like restrict free speech... hahahah... you guys are about as un-American as it gets Report Abuse

You can't forbid driving because of someone's opinion. It is like if the State Department retires the passports of everybody in Yahoo Answers who is making statements against Mexicans. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.





And to blame environmentalists for the price of gas is like blaming astronomers for the sun going up. Europeans after 1973 oil crisis started developing and buying smaller cars. Brazil is using alcohol not to replace all the oil but at least part of it. American governments were more concerned about oil companies shares than environment and the American public has been more concerned about how big were SUV they may buy than environment.
If someone wanted to reduce dependency on foreign oil why would they vote against domestic drilling?
As a person who lives in Alaska and understands the truth about our oil here, I commend you for this question and agree wholeheartedly.
Moreacidthanalkaline asks a great follow-up to this question. I'd suggest directing that to the environmentalists who have been successful in keeping us from drilling for oil off of the Continental Shelf on the West coast...they've also kept us from exploring for oil in ANWR, the coastal regions of Florida and extracting oil shale in the Pacific Western states. Add to this, they've made the construction of new refineries so prohibitive, none have been built in the US since the late 70's. Same thing with nuclear power. Their policies and influence have had a direct influence on our dependency on foreign oil. In fact, the daughter of the founder of Earth Day recently admitted she thinks the cost of gas is too low. That alone should tell you where these people are in regard to this issue.
If oil companies receive huge subsidies from the American tax payers so they don't have to pay the costs of drilling for oil in the Unites States, shouldn't that oil be offered to the American people at a discount? You and the President apparently think it should not be.





Domestic oil belongs to America only so long as it remains in the ground. Once the American taxpayer foots the bill for getting it out of the ground, the company that extracts it has no obligation to use that oil to reduce American dependency on foreign oil. Most of the oil that comes out of Alaska has ALWAYS gone to Japan rather than to the USA.





If the American taxpayer is going to subisdize obscene salaries to CEO's of multi-national corporations plus allow all of that taxpayer money be taken off shore, isn't that a huge hit against our economic security? If the American taxpayer is going to subsidize petroleum extraction, the government should not then created disincentives against the creation of other-than-oil technology, but electic cars are being crushed at government exense rather than being offered for sale to the public.





If someone allows others to do their thinking for them, should they be allowed to say that propaganda is their own idea?