 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2007They said it couldn't happen, now it's documented.
http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html 'The arresting officer, inaptly named Dennis Fair, insists: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance....Anything above 0.01, we can arrest." Fair recognized that nearly everyone in D.C. was unaware of this zero tolerance policy. Still, he told The Washington Post, if "you don't know about it, then you're a victim of your own ignorance."' Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of governing themselves. nate > http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of > governing themselves. If it were only so easy. That aside, I think your post can be considered home grown terrorism under the not-yet-passed-by-the-senate-but-passed-by-the-house HR1955. http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10252007.html See bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959 N8N: > Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of > governing themselves. Give it back to the British.....  SignatureLoco Laura demonstrates how inconsistent its thinking is: "and besides there is no way to enforce slow driving speed limits. THINK" --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 1/30/06 Message ID: <1138602667.405570.55400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > N8N: >> Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of >> governing themselves. > > Give it back to the British..... Are you sure they don't already own it? (see ownership of the federal reserve) Brent P: > > N8N: > >> Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you sure they don't already own it? (see ownership of the federal > reserve) Good point. AFAIC, we can give back most of the northeast to the UK, let the south go on as the CSA and give the west (including texas) back to Mexico. Signature"Don't taze me, bro! <Bzzztzzztzzztzzt> Owwwwwwwwwwwwww" --Andrew Meyer > http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Can't we just give DC back to Maryland? They're clearly incapable of > governing themselves. I don't see a problem with this. Nothing "documented" here on Usenet is anything shocking or out of the ordinary. Simply put, it means don't drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel, and it really is as simple as that. Drivers who do consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel can be arrested if they have essentially any measurable blood alcohol content. The officer clearly explained what a zero tolerance DUI law is. Several states have had them before Washington D.C. Don't like it? Don't drink and drive, or don't live in the state (or national captial city, in the case of Washington D.C.) that has a zero toleranace DUI law. Concerning the people being unaware of such as zero tolerance DUI laws, well, all it takes is for the zero tolerance DUI law to be covered in a mainstream newspaper or the evening news report on TV, and now everyone becomes aware. (Please say that "documenting" this wasn't an attempt to equate a zero tolerance DUI law with the "loss" of personal "freedom".) >> http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The officer clearly explained what a zero tolerance DUI law is. Several > states have had them before Washington D.C. f.ck that liberty sh.t, let's have a zero-tolerance police state. The state owns the people. The people are the state's children. Mamma government said don't drink so you best not drink or else! *snort* > Don't like it? Don't drink and drive, or don't live in the state (or > national captial city, in the case of Washington D.C.) that has a zero > toleranace DUI law. It's all the fault of the people who have been turned into subjects.... it's not like they are supposed to have rights from their creator or any silly radical ideas like that... Where does one run now anyway? > Concerning the people being unaware of such as zero tolerance DUI laws, > well, all it takes is for the zero tolerance DUI law to be covered in a > mainstream newspaper or the evening news report on TV, and now everyone > becomes aware. Oh bullshit. I cover things that are in the mainstream news and am called a consipracy theorist. I cite government studies and I'm a kook. I cite legislation and I'm a nutjob. The whole idea is to keep the public thinking that it's not real until the jaws have completely closed. Or to act like you and shrug off, thinking that it's just a small intrusion... sure, why not... no big deal... Something about a frog brought to slow boil comes to mind. > (Please say that "documenting" this wasn't an attempt to equate a zero > tolerance DUI law with the "loss" of personal "freedom".) Maybe you should have read the article... It's about documenting the neoprohibionist movement. On Oct 31, 3:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <yp-dnSXYO4xkUrXanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Maybe you should have read the article... It's about documenting the > neoprohibionist movement. The next step will be side of the road piss tests for narcotics, too bad if you like poppy seeds. nate > >> http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > state owns the people. The people are the state's children. Mamma > government said don't drink so you best not drink or else! *snort* It still isn't about liberty. It's about the government governing that which The People obviously cannot adequately govern for themselves. But, the People are still free to consume alcohol, as long as they are of legal drinking age. The People are still free to drive, with possession the proper driver's license. The zero tolerance DUI laws prohibit consumption of alcohol and then getting behind the wheel when there is still a measurable amount of alcohol in their blood. I still don't see a problem with that, because the law addresses not just scenario A (consumption of alcohol) or scenario B (driving), but it specifically addresses a combination of scenarios where (A and B) = a blood alcohol content of > 0.01. This is why I don't view it as a loss of liberty. People never had the *right* to consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel, and the frequency of DUI arrests and accidents nationwide--especially during certain holidays--justifies such a law in a city or state where it may be a problem. So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. If that scares people from even having a can of beer or a glass of wine before getting behind the wheel, then the zero tolerance DUI laws have done their job without any police intervention. Or, if that scares people into waiting something like 3 to 4 hours after drinking a can of beer or a glass of wine before getting behind the wheel, then again that essentially guarantees that a driver will not be impaired due to the consumption of alcohol, and the zero tolerance DUI laws have again done their job without any police intervention. That also doesn't mean I advocate a police state because I support a law that makes perfect sense. [snip...] On Oct 31, 4:36 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > In article <yp-dnSXYO4xkUrXanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse > Jr. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > specifically addresses a combination of scenarios where (A and B) = a blood > alcohol content of > 0.01. You honestly didn't read the article, did you? You don't think it's possible that a stone cold sober person, or at least an unimpaired person, could blow a small but positive reading into a breathalyzer? And that an overly zealous officer wouldn't just stand up in court and say "well, your honor, the defendant *looked* impaired, so I administered a breathalyzer and he blew a 0.011, so I charged him with DUI." What do you think is going to happen to you then? Three guesses, first two don't count. > This is why I don't view it as a loss of liberty. People never had the > *right* to consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel, and the frequency > of DUI arrests and accidents nationwide--especially during certain > holidays--justifies such a law in a city or state where it may be a problem. It doesn't justify sh.t. We're talking about ruining the lives of people who are unimpaired and innocent of the crime with which they are charged. You can't honestly say that you know ONE person who, even after consuming a quantity of alcohol necessary to blow a "legitimate" 0.01, is in any way more impaired than the vast majority of drivers legally on the road today. This law is about oppression and prohibition, plain and simple. And above and beyond that, a breathalyzer simply isn't accurate enough to discriminate between 0.00 and 0.01. > So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws > over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. What if YOU are the person arrested? Will you still be in favor of it? > If that > scares people from even having a can of beer or a glass of wine before [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That also doesn't mean I advocate a police state because I support a law > that makes perfect sense. You can't have it both ways. You can't support this asinine law and say that you don't support a police state. So which is it? nate >> So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws >> over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. > > What if YOU are the person arrested? The incompetent drivers should lose their licenses first. I just passed somebody that was driving around at night with no lights on. That's more than 10 no-lights drivers this week, and most of them were in the wrong lane. The problem with such nonsense drink-driving laws is that they punish people who were not really intoxicated. Passing-lane blockers, no-lights drivers, and MFFY behaviour are more dangerous than a driver who has had a few alcoholic drinks but can still safely-operate a car. Alexander Rogge: > >> So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws > >> over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. > > > > What if YOU are the person arrested? > > The incompetent drivers should lose their licenses first. I just passed But then you will remove 90% of the drivers from the road who then will not beable to drive to work. They can't drive to work, they can't earn money to pay taxes. Government wil never allow that to happen. > somebody that was driving around at night with no lights on. That's > more than 10 no-lights drivers this week, and most of them were in the > wrong lane. I see that from time to time also. Around here, its usually someone pulling a trailer who didn't hook up the electrical or otherwise in such a situation as to have no functioning taillights. > The problem with such nonsense drink-driving laws is that they punish > people who were not really intoxicated. Enforcing such a law is more politically expediant than actually going after a dangerous driver. <sarcasm> After all, we got to get all those deadly drunks off the children or yo are with the terrorists. </sarcasm> > Passing-lane blockers, > no-lights drivers, and MFFY behaviour are more dangerous than a driver > who has had a few alcoholic drinks but can still safely-operate a car. Too bad that MADD and other nanny-nazi organizations have our alledged, "leaders," by the 'nads.... Signature"<motorcycle crashes through bar> Fenderbaum: What in the hell was that? Blake: Ohhh, that must be the entry for the National Safety Council!" > Alexander Rogge: >> The incompetent drivers should lose their licenses first. > >But then you will remove 90% of the drivers from the road who then will >not beable to drive to work. They can't drive to work, they can't earn >money to pay taxes. Government wil never allow that to happen. Government can prevent that by increasing funding to public transit. Unfortunately, the drama that is taking place in Illinois as I write these words is proof that Government just doesn't get that simple concept. Scott in SoCal: > Government can prevent that by increasing funding to public transit. That's precisely the problem with publuc transit: Its run by the government. I can't even begin to remember the time government at any level did anything right. SignatureAunt Judy demonstrates its lack of understanding of the concept of "</killfile>," and "<killfile>," and what a "thread," is: "Now that takes nerve. You claim to killfile me TWICE in the same thread and you expect people to take you seriously???" Ref: http://tinyurl.com/r5qp9 > Scott in SoCal: >> Government can prevent that by increasing funding to public transit. > >That's precisely the problem with publuc transit: Its run by the >government. I can't even begin to remember the time government at any >level did anything right. I seem to recall that roads are also run by the government... >> Alexander Rogge: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > these words is proof that Government just doesn't get that simple > concept. So, do you want to pay an extra sales tax for the CTA Scott? It makes as much sense for you to pay it as any other person who doesn't live within the CTA's service area. Afterall the black hole of the CTA requires people who don't use it, who are outside its service area, to be taxed to support it. If it were really the whole state it served rather than just the city of Chicago and a couple of stops in neighboring suburbs, then the black hole's event horizon would be lapping at your doorstep right now. Brent P: > >> Alexander Rogge: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the city of Chicago and a couple of stops in neighboring suburbs, then the > black hole's event horizon would be lapping at your doorstep right now. BTW, aren't most public transit systems rather heavily subsidized? Signature"Here comes another con hiding behind a collar His only God is the all mighty Dollar He ain't no prophet, He ain't no healer He's just a two bit, goddamn money stealer!" --Suicidal Tendencies > Brent P: >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > BTW, aren't most public transit systems rather heavily subsidized? The CTA seems a special animal. Every year they put forth a budget where if they don't get large additional amounts of funds they will have to make huge cuts in service. They get funds and cut service. As some one in chi.general said, the CTA acts as if it's goal is provide one ride for one passenger at a cost of $500,000,000 or some such. >The CTA seems a special animal. Every year they put forth a budget where >if they don't get large additional amounts of funds they will have to >make huge cuts in service. They get funds and cut service. As some one in >chi.general said, the CTA acts as if it's goal is provide one ride for >one passenger at a cost of $500,000,000 or some such. SEPTA (Southeast Pennsylvania, i.e. Philadelphia area) does the same thing. Only not only do they "have to" make huge cuts in service, they "have to" raise fares too, if they don't get the money. As soon as they get the money, the unions go on strike. All the extra money and then some goes to the unions, they still raise fares, and they still cut service. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The CTA seems a special animal. Every year they put forth a budget where >>if they don't get large additional amounts of funds they will have to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thing. Only not only do they "have to" make huge cuts in service, they > "have to" raise fares too, if they don't get the money. My mistake, the CTA also has 'raise fares' too... > As soon as > they get the money, the unions go on strike. All the extra money and > then some goes to the unions, they still raise fares, and they still > cut service. Pretty much the same with the CTA, minus the strike. >>> Alexander Rogge: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So, do you want to pay an extra sales tax for the CTA Scott? Nope. I don't think taxes should pay for ANY transportation modes. Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying costs. With 90% of (former) drivers unable to drive, there would be a critical mass of transit users even without subsidies. > Nope. I don't think taxes should pay for ANY transportation modes. > Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace > them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying > costs. With 90% of (former) drivers unable to drive, there would be a > critical mass of transit users even without subsidies. I would bike (as in bicycle) on dirt trails on ice before I giving in to the the bus utopia. >> Nope. I don't think taxes should pay for ANY transportation modes. >> Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I would bike (as in bicycle) on dirt trails on ice before I giving in to >the the bus utopia. I believe you. But you've got to realize you're on the tail end of the bell curve on this one. :) >>> Nope. I don't think taxes should pay for ANY transportation modes. >>> Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I believe you. But you've got to realize you're on the tail end of the > bell curve on this one. :) Note, I said 'ice' not 'snow'. It's easier to ride on ice :) > I don't think taxes should pay for ANY transportation modes. > Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace > them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying > costs. With 90% of (former) drivers unable to drive, there would be a > critical mass of transit users even without subsidies. Lol. What you are essentially proposing is that less money be spent on transportation infrastructure, which, if I correctly assume that you include yourself among the "Incredibly rich" 10% of drivers, will make your driving experiences much more miserable than you find them now due to increased bus traffic and even shittier roads. It would not make sense to attempt to support the current state of road infrastructure, since far fewer vehicles will be using it, and few will be able to afford a two $10K bus tickets to and from work 5 days a week. Eventually nothing would be left but one lane in each direction, and toll booths and slothy buses everywhere. OTOH, it would make it much easier for LE to pick out your dumb a.s in traffic, so there is a bright side. ----- - gpsman >Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace >them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying >costs. With 90% of (former) drivers unable to drive, there would be a >critical mass of transit users even without subsidies. No, there wouldn't. No matter how you slice it, the majority of money for roads is already coming from road users. That's because statistically, there isn't anywhere else it could come from; most people with money to tax use the roads. So if you repealed all the taxes used for roads and transit and replaced them with direct user fees, prices for road users could only go up modestly (and I believe they would go down). Prices for TRANSIT users, on the other hand, would skyrocket. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > people with money to tax use the roads. So if you repealed all the > taxes used for roads and transit and replaced them with direct user > fees, prices for road users could only go up modestly (and I believe > they would go down). If done correctly (big if), almost all road users should see less outlay in a 100% user fee system. Truckers and those people who drive something like 30,000+ miles a year, would see an increase. > Prices for TRANSIT users, on the other hand, would skyrocket. Yep. *BUT* it would force transit to actually serve the needs of the people or die. Once it started being useful for more people, it would be a viable alternative to driving. With tax funded transit, people are supposed to base their lives around transit to use it. >> people with money to tax use the roads. So if you repealed all the >> taxes used for roads and transit and replaced them with direct user [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in a 100% user fee system. Truckers and those people who drive >something like 30,000+ miles a year, would see an increase. Another BIG advantage is that road fees would go for ROADS, not into the government's general fund. >> Prices for TRANSIT users, on the other hand, would skyrocket. > >Yep. *BUT* it would force transit to actually serve the needs of the >people or die. Once it started being useful for more people, it would be a >viable alternative to driving. Just as it was at the turn of the last century, before public subsidies for rail transit existed. >> people with money to tax use the roads. So if you repealed all the >> taxes used for roads and transit and replaced them with direct user [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in a 100% user fee system. Truckers and those people who drive >something like 30,000+ miles a year, would see an increase. Truckers would just pass the costs on, which is fine with me. People who drive 30,000+ miles for other than commercial reasons are probably pretty rare, but even they'd see only a modest increase, since the majority of road funding is already paid for by usage-based fees (namely, the gas tax). >> Prices for TRANSIT users, on the other hand, would skyrocket. > >Yep. *BUT* it would force transit to actually serve the needs of the >people or die. Once it started being useful for more people, it would be a >viable alternative to driving. IMO, if you could keep this system in place, nearly all transit would just die. You never could, of course. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace >>them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >they would go down). Prices for TRANSIT users, on the other hand, >would skyrocket. Then you should embrace my proposal. >>>Repeal all the taxes that are used for roads and transit, and replace >>>them with direct user fees that accurately reflect the underlying [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Then you should embrace my proposal. I'd love to see it implemented. But it ain't going to happen. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Alexander Rogge: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Government can prevent that by increasing funding to public transit. Won't work. Increasing funding to public transit is like pouring water into a sieve; it ain't ever going to get full. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws > over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. If that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > zero tolerance DUI laws have again done their job without any police > intervention. I'd rather have to use my defensive driving skills to deal with the occasional alcohol drunk driver than have to drive in constant fear of power drunk cops (their power trips are bad enough as it is). Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin On Oct 31, 3:50 pm, necromancer > Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > occasional alcohol drunk driver than have to drive in constant fear of > power drunk cops (their power trips are bad enough as it is). Damn straight. It's far more often that I spot a cop than I spot a driver that I suspect of being drunk. It's legal to evade a drunk driver. It's not legal to evade a cop. nate > Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: >> So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >occasional alcohol drunk driver than have to drive in constant fear of >power drunk cops (their power trips are bad enough as it is). IAWTP Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en On Oct 31, 7:24 pm, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: > > Daniel W. Rouse Jr.: > >> So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -- A second to the agreement. Somehow the sound in the distance of approaching goose-steps seems louder. On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:24:16 -0400, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: >IAWTP I Am Way Too Pretty? >On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:24:16 -0400, "Murderous Speeding Drunken >Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I Am Way Too Pretty? Scott, I didn't know you cared.... :-) I Agree With This Post. Saw it from Necromancer the other day, and had to consult Dr. Google for a bit more info myself. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > It still isn't about liberty. It's about the government governing that which > The People obviously cannot adequately govern for themselves. So I read you exactly correct, it's that you fail to understand what liberty really is. Liberty is not being treated as a child of the state. 'governing that which The People obviously cannot adequately govern for themselves' is 180 degrees against the concept of liberty. You're basically telling me, 'f.ck liberty, let's be ruled by mother government'. > But, the People are still free to consume alcohol, as long as they are of > legal drinking age. The People are still free to drive, with possession the > proper driver's license. Until the next bit of incrementalism. Licensing, control, watching, tracking. It's the construction of a police/nanny state which will eventually go bad in horrific fashion. > The zero tolerance DUI laws prohibit consumption of alcohol and then getting > behind the wheel when there is still a measurable amount of alcohol in their > blood. I still don't see a problem with that, because the law addresses not > just scenario A (consumption of alcohol) or scenario B (driving), but it > specifically addresses a combination of scenarios where (A and B) = a blood > alcohol content of > 0.01. Zero tolerance has worked so well in the schools... *snort* just carry it over to the rest of society. No. That's not a free society, it's the direct opposite. Schools are essentially prisons and brining 'zero-tolerance' policies into the greater society will not make the general society anything but more prison like. > This is why I don't view it as a loss of liberty. People never had the > *right* to consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel, We have the right to do what ever doesn't harm others. And there's no way in hell having a drink with dinner and driving home is harmful to anyone. > and the frequency > of DUI arrests and accidents nationwide--especially during certain > holidays--justifies such a law in a city or state where it may be a problem. DUI arrests are a PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE. Just like speeding tickets and parking tickets. > So, I'd rather have the few extra DUI arrests under zero tolerance DUI laws > over the potential or actuality of extra accidents due to DUI. And the check points? And the ID checks? And the searches? And the jackbooted thugs who just get off on hurting people... The government cannot be trusted. It proves that it cannot be trusted day in and day out. > If that > scares people from even having a can of beer or a glass of wine before > getting behind the wheel, then the zero tolerance DUI laws have done their > job without any police intervention. The neo-prohibitionist agenda. I see you are one of the faithful. Why don't you get your nose out of other people's lives instead of giving statists more power? Eventually, they are going to come for you too, ya know. > That also doesn't mean I advocate a police state because I support a law > that makes perfect sense. The law doesn't make a lick of sense and has no place being in existance. It leaves us all open to the arbitary will of government thugs. Some reading for you: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/rondeau1.html And the initial article: http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html And more on the police state and it's attack on the people through DUI laws: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/10/bloodsuckers-in-blue.html On Oct 31, 1:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <36CdncMSEs-mRLXanZ2dnUVZ_uCin...@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > policies into the greater society will not make the general society > anything but more prison like. Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. Randy Cassingham of This Is True has a couple good essays on the topic of "Zero Thought" as he calls it: http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html http://www.thisistrue.com/zt3.html -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) > Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. > > Randy Cassingham of This Is True has a couple good essays on the topic > of "Zero Thought" as he calls it: > http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html > http://www.thisistrue.com/zt3.html Read at least one of those in the past... it's just idiotcy all over. The only one that wins under zero tolerance is government. >Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. So you disagree with California's "Zero Tolerance" law for drivers under age 21? >>Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. > > So you disagree with California's "Zero Tolerance" law for drivers > under age 21? The 21 drinking age is a world of stupid in and of itself. All it does is push out the age of 'growing up', creates a taboo, is as effective as prohibition, and lastly in part creates the disturbing concept of a nation that will send 18-20 year olds off to die in foreign wars of empire but won't let them have a beer. > >Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. > > So you disagree with California's "Zero Tolerance" law for drivers > under age 21? I'm not familiar with California's law; Is it in regards to DUI/DWI? -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> >Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. >> >> So you disagree with California's "Zero Tolerance" law for drivers >> under age 21? > >I'm not familiar with California's law; Is it in regards to DUI/DWI? Yes. The logic is that, since kids under 21 are not allowed to drink, if they get caught drinking and driving with even a 0.01% BAC they immediately lose their license and their car is impounded. > >> >Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if they get caught drinking and driving with even a 0.01% BAC they > immediately lose their license and their car is impounded. It's also the case in MO except that IIRC the level is .02. However, if one under 21 in MO is caught in possession of alcoholic beverages prior to age 21, he/she has quite a wait just to apply for a license. > >> >Zero tolerance (in any application) is a *really* bad idea IMO. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > if they get caught drinking and driving with even a 0.01% BAC they > immediately lose their license and their car is impounded. I can understand a .02 limit for those under 21 (leaving aside whether I think 21 is a reasonable drinking age...), but to have such stiff penalties with absolutely zero leeway or discretion is idiocy approaching Judy's level. With a true zero tolerance policy, it is conceivable that some kid might lose their license and their car if they have a bad cough and took some cough syrup for it. -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >With a true zero tolerance policy, it is conceivable that some kid >might lose their license and their car if they have a bad cough and >took some cough syrup for it. While that's certainly possible, I have never heard of such a case. Generally the kids will get pulled over for a reason, e.g. driving erratically, driving at night with their headlights off, etc. which gives the officer probably cause to perform a sobriety test. Someone who merely has a swig of cough syrup probably isn't going to show any visible signs of impairment. Not that driving while under the influence of NyQuil is a great idea, either, as Driving While Drowsy is a big killer in the US: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/lf_nm_life/usa_highways_sleep_dc NEW YORK (Reuters) - Darla Drentlaw was sleeping on her daughter Katie's bed, waiting for her to come home, when she woke to the sound of police radios. When the officers knocked on her door, she knew they had bad news. ADVERTISEMENT Katie, an 18-year-old high school track star with blonde hair and a bright smile, had been driving home from a track meet that ended late at night. She fell asleep behind the wheel about 12 miles from her house in Prior Lake, Minnesota. She crashed into a dirt embankment and was killed. "I thought it was just a bad dream, but no," said Drentlaw, 55. "I couldn't believe she fell asleep and we lost her." Drowsy driving kills more than 1,550 people a year in the United States and causes 71,000 injuries, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which estimates there are 100,000 sleep-related crashes a year. Brent P: > Zero tolerance has worked so well in the schools... *snort* just carry it > over to the rest of society. No. That's not a free society, it's the > direct opposite. Schools are essentially prisons and brining 'zero-tolerance' > policies into the greater society will not make the general society > anything but more prison like. That's their aim: to condition the children while they are young to just accept what ever atrocity government throws their way.... Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > > In article <yp-dnSXYO4xkUrXanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse > Jr. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > specifically addresses a combination of scenarios where (A and B) = a blood > alcohol content of > 0.01. The normal rule of law is that you must show actual harm or an unreasonable risk of harm for an activity to be made unlawful. > This is why I don't view it as a loss of liberty. People never had the > *right* to consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel, and the frequency [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > [snip...] SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > f.ck that liberty sh.t, let's have a zero-tolerance police state. The > > state owns the people. The people are the state's children. Mamma > > government said don't drink so you best not drink or else! *snort* > > It still isn't about liberty. It's about the government governing that which > The People obviously cannot adequately govern for themselves. How can you trust people in a government who were elected by people who can't govern themselves? On Oct 31, 3:57 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > 'The arresting officer, inaptly named Dennis Fair, insists: "If you > > get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > (Please say that "documenting" this wasn't an attempt to equate a zero > tolerance DUI law with the "loss" of personal "freedom".) or don't eat old bread and drive. or don't use mouthwash and drive. Or, just, don't drive. Of course, my policy for a long time has been to avoid driving in DC as much as possible, due to their long track record of motorist- unfriendly laws. Thus, DC gas stations, restaurants, clubs, etc. get none of my business. If that is the effect they're going for, more power to them. I don't feel that being in DC is worth the risk of having my life ruined by an overly enthusiastic policeman. nate N8N: > Or, just, don't drive. Methinks that is the real direction that the gover-wolf wants to lead the sheeple. Signature"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson > N8N: >> Or, just, don't drive. > >Methinks that is the real direction that the gover-wolf wants to lead >the sheeple. Of what possible benefit to the gummint would that be? >> N8N: >>> Or, just, don't drive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Of what possible benefit to the gummint would that be? Freedom of movement is something that makes people difficult to control. >I don't see a problem with this. > >Simply put, it means don't drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel, and >it really is as simple as that. Or cold medicine. Or poppyseed bagels. Or any of a thousand other things that can fool a drug or alcohol test. Maybe you'll see something wrong with it when they impound YOUR car based on a false positive from some roadside test. By then, of course, it will be too late. >> http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >The officer clearly explained what a zero tolerance DUI law is. Several >states have had them before Washington D.C. There's no such law in DC. Nor, except for minors and a few other limited categories, in any other US state, See the problem yet? If such a law existed, it would be unreasonable on the part of the D.C. city council. Since it does not, the arrest is abuse of power by the police. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > If such a law existed, it would be unreasonable on the part of the > D.C. city council. Since it does not, the arrest is abuse of power by > the police. I don't think the police should have the 'just following orders defense'. > http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Washington Post, if "you don't know about it, then you're a victim of > your own ignorance."' Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? You can blow a 0.0 and still be impaired. Is Officer Fair an idiot? It appears so, but I don't think anyone ever said idiots could not become LEOs. ----- - gpsman > >http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? All of the people who have repeatedly stated that pointing out more and more government encroachment on civil rights is evidence of tinfoilhattery. Those that state "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to be afraid of." Those that don't think these kinds of things can ever happen to them. > You can blow a 0.0 and still be impaired. Sure. That's not DUI though, that's just "stupid." AFAIK "stupid" isn't a crime. Yet. > Is Officer Fair an idiot? It appears so, but I don't think anyone > ever said idiots could not become LEOs. Heh. I most certainly didn't. nate > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you don't have anything to be afraid of." Those that don't think > these kinds of things can ever happen to them. Oh. The whack theory supported by incidents of a few whacked individuals exceeding their authority and/or common sense interpreted and exaggerated by a few whacked individuals with no common sense. It's funny how so many of those whack jobs are white, and how few are black or illegal immigrants, and how many whites don't take the minor precautions to lessen their chances of meeting government officials face to face. > > You can blow a 0.0 and still be impaired. > > Sure. That's not DUI though, that's just "stupid." AFAIK "stupid" > isn't a crime. Yet. No, being completely stoned on opiates can cause one to be impaired and still blow a zero. ----- - gpsman >> > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >No, being completely stoned on opiates can cause one to be impaired >and still blow a zero. One doesn't have to be under the influence of any substances, and yet they are still impaired, as you prove with every post. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > precautions to lessen their chances of meeting government officials > face to face. I'm sure the person wrongfully charged with DUI mentioned in the article appreciates your characterization of her as a "whack job" and not a "victim." nate > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > article appreciates your characterization of her as a "whack job" and > not a "victim." I don't recall her forwarding any theory, much less one of a whack job, so your conclusion that I was referring to her is spurious. In fact, your source contains not a single quote from her. The incident occurred in May 2005 and your source dated this month fails to mention anything that happened afterward, ie., disposition of the case, even though that would be a matter of public record. That is most likely, IMO, because it was dismissed. Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously absent, as is the case here, which, IMO, strongly suggests your source is "unreliable". They attempt to support their conspiracy theory with a lot of speciously related blahblahblah, and that fools some people into believing they have actually supported their theory, when it is obvious to those who are not predisposed to buy into conspiracy theories that it's all smoke and mirrors, and a very light smoke at that. Give me facts, nothing but facts and -all- the facts, and I'll make up my own mind, thanks. A lack of easily obtainable facts suggests to me I am being led to believe that which is not true. That's just me, YMMV. ----- - gpsman > > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > case, even though that would be a matter of public record. That is > most likely, IMO, because it was dismissed. So if you are arrested for DUI and are arrested, taken to jail, and forced to spend thousands of dollars to defend yourself, you're not a victim if the charges are eventually dismissed? When are you a victim? If it's murder? Rape? When? We're not talking parking ticket type stuff here; were it I that was arrested I could conceivably have lost my job. But I suppose that's OK, so long as I don't have a conviction on my record. > Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to > support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's just me, YMMV. I gave you the facts. The fact that you willfully choose to ignore them is not my problem. nate > > > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > conceivably have lost my job. But I suppose that's OK, so long as I > don't have a conviction on my record. Pfft. There's nothing from your source to suggest this woman was not, in fact, "impaired". That's an assumption you seem comfortable making even though she was operating her vehicle at night without headlights, but I was still not convinced until I searched and found reports of the disposition of her case from a more reliable source; it was dismissed.. > > Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to > > support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I gave you the facts. The fact that you willfully choose to ignore > them is not my problem. Your "facts" from your source are old news, and relatively irrelevant at this point. Google News Archives provides this, of which you seem completely unaware: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401959_ pf.html or http://tinyurl.com/2nsm4q ----- - gpsman > > > > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > the disposition of her case from a more reliable source; it was > dismissed.. There's nothing to suggest that she WAS impaired, either. I consider it a bad practice to rely on automatic headlights (I always manually turn them on even in my company car which is so equipped) but it is understandable that someone might, and that in a well lit area (like, say, within a major city) one might not immediately notice that one's headlights were not lit. The explanation given that a valet might have turned them off would suggest that, as well. Therefore, unless the driver was actually showing signs of impairment, the worst she was guilty of was failure to turn on her headlights. Don't get me wrong, I think that the officer SHOULD have pulled her over for not having her lights on, but having lived in this area for a number of years, I can tell you that the lengths that cops in both DC and NoVA will go to "find drunks" is nothing short of ludicrous. At one point bar patrons were being arrested for "public drunkenness" in Fairfax County for simply being in a bar with a BAC of over 0.08 with no evidence necessary that they were even in posession of car keys. It is not any kind of stretch of the imagination that this Officer Fair (heh) was of a similar mindset. Let's be clear here, it is definitely a state of police vs. citizens. There is no cooperation. It is definitely an antagonistic relationship. Unless you can prove that the victim was actually showing signs of impairment, not simply driving with her headlights off? Seems to me that a warning to pay attention to the state of her lights would have been just as effective in terms of safety with little downside. > > > Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to > > > support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > unaware:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR200... > orhttp://tinyurl.com/2nsm4q In what way does what is presented in that article negate the fact that the DC police put into place an ill-advised, unfair, and abusive policy, and made arrests that otherwise wouldn't have been made? And that similar things have also happened right across the river here in VA? In a state (or district, as the case may be) with proper government, such ideas would be laughed at and promptly dismissed, not implemented. nate > > > > > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > nate I guess you also missed this, from the article: "Mendelson, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said he asking Chief Charles H. Ramsey for the names of officers who have been making low blood alcohol arrests and asking D.C. Attorney General Robert J. Spagnoletti why Bolton had to come to court four times, only to have the charges against her dropped. "I just think that's harassment of a citizen," he said." nate > > > > > > > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > There's nothing to suggest that she WAS impaired, either. > Therefore, unless > the driver was actually showing signs of impairment, the worst she was > guilty of was failure to turn on her headlights. Which to me suggests she might have been impaired. What do you think when you see drivers operating in the dark sans headlights? > Don't get me wrong, > I think that the officer SHOULD have pulled her over for not having [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > kind of stretch of the imagination that this Officer Fair (heh) was of > a similar mindset. Oh, I'll grant you all that. > Let's be clear here, it is definitely a state of police vs. citizens. > There is no cooperation. It is definitely an antagonistic > relationship. Yeah, but the citizens tolerate it, perhaps due to apathy, perhaps due to what passes for journalism these days. My bet is -your- concern for such things ends exactly where your exertion of any effort begins, besides bitching here. > Seems to me that a warning to pay attention to the state of her > lights would have been just as effective in terms of safety with > little downside. Yes, of course, but here we have an officer supposedly specially trained to detect signs of impairment, so that's what he does. The fact that DC implemented their own zero tolerance policy and allowed him to run wild with the support of prosecutors is a failure of the system, and does not constitute a conspiracy. > > > > Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to > > > > support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that the DC police put into place an ill-advised, unfair, and abusive > policy, and made arrests that otherwise wouldn't have been made? They didn't. Cops don't legislate, nor do they convict. > And > that similar things have also happened right across the river here in > VA? In a state (or district, as the case may be) with proper > government, such ideas would be laughed at and promptly dismissed, not > implemented. We all get exactly the government we deserve. Half of the population can't be bothered to vote and the other half obviously prefers those who, once elected, place their hands on the constitution and vow to uphold the bible. Don't worry. The world isn't perfect, not will it ever be, but these things have a way of working themselves out over the long run. Eventually, the way things are going, maybe enough "Christians" will be convicted of felony sex crimes and everything will swing toward rationality. Now might be a good time for you to begin practicing rational thought so you aren't left behind. ----- - gpsman >>>>>>>>>Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Which to me suggests she might have been impaired. What do you think > when you see drivers operating in the dark sans headlights? Honestly, I don't think "chemically impaired," I just think "oh, look, another idiot thinking about something other than driving." Keep in mind that this happened in *Georgetown* where it never really gets dark, even at night. I was going to say that I hadn't actually suspected another driver of being drunk behind the wheel in a long time, then I got stuck behind one on my way home from work (10 MPH on a city street, kept drifting over into oncoming lane, finally just came to a stop at an intersection and stayed there) although without actually being able to see what the guy was doing (I don't live in Georgetown...) he may very well have been reading a map, talking on the phone, eating, who knows. >>Don't get me wrong, >>I think that the officer SHOULD have pulled her over for not having [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for such things ends exactly where your exertion of any effort begins, > besides bitching here. You probably shouldn't place that bet. Granted I have not been active recently, having moved to VA only about a year ago, but should any of the shenanigans that happened a couple years ago restart, you better believe I'll be saying something, *both* here and to my representatives. And probably my local paper as well. >>Seems to me that a warning to pay attention to the state of her >>lights would have been just as effective in terms of safety with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > him to run wild with the support of prosecutors is a failure of the > system, and does not constitute a conspiracy. Tomayto, tomahto. It's well known that DC is chronically short of cash, and they make no bones about the fact that they expect their "traffic safety" initiatives to help make up for it. In this case the difference between "failure of the system" and "conspiracy" is merely either perspective or semantics. >>>>>Conspiracy theorists are allergic to facts that contradict or fail to >>>>>support the conspiracy, so those are almost always conspicuously [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > They didn't. Cops don't legislate, nor do they convict. Actually, if you read the article, it is implied that the PD put this policy into action on their own initiative, merely taking advantage of a law that allowed them a little more latitude and discretion. Which just goes to show you that if you don't define the boundaries of the police very strictly, they WILL take all the leeway they can get, and they WILL use their power to f.ck over citizens. >>And >>that similar things have also happened right across the river here in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who, once elected, place their hands on the constitution and vow to > uphold the bible. Damn, Scotty, there *are* signs of intelligent life here! Seriously, that got a chuckle out of me, and not a nasty one either. I think you're for the most part right, but at least on a national level, I predict a blue Thanksgiving next year. Not that that'll be all that much better. > Don't worry. The world isn't perfect, not will it ever be, but these > things have a way of working themselves out over the long run. > Eventually, the way things are going, maybe enough "Christians" will > be convicted of felony sex crimes and everything will swing toward > rationality. Nah, people will just vote Democrat until they realize all the ways that Democrats suck, and then... etc. At least until a truly charismatic third party candidate steps up and can combine good ideas with good sound-biteability (which is damn hard to do; you can't always explain a complex concept adequately and memorably in a 15 second audio clip.) > Now might be a good time for you to begin practicing rational thought > so you aren't left behind. You were doing so well until you slipped into a.shole mode again. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> > > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > article appreciates your characterization of her as a "whack job" and > not a "victim." gpstroll is one of those people who deny things have gone bad when he inside the barbed wire of a FEMA camp. >> > Who is "they", and what did "they" say couldn't happen? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >individuals exceeding their authority and/or common sense interpreted >and exaggerated by a few whacked individuals with no common sense. Or, to summarize Nate's paragraph, YOU. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > http://reason.com/news/show/122456.html > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > nate Clearly someone needs to follow Dennis Fair around and get him on video leaving a restaurant after 1 drink. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.