Government Dollars At Work

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 18, 2004, 11:42 am

Talk about assinine government invasion..

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... alcohol_dc

State Mulls Drunk Driving Locks on All Cars

SANTA FE, N.M. (Reuters) - New Mexico is considering a law that would make all drivers exhale into an alcohol detection device in their cars before they could start the engine.

The New Mexico House of Representatives on Monday passed a bill to require an ignition lock that will prevent a car from starting if the driver fails a breath test. The bill is being debated this week in the state's Senate.

New Mexico has one of the highest rates of fatalities caused by driving under the influence in the United States and the bill would mandate the ignition lock to be installed in all cars sold or registered in the state by 2009.

One of the devices available now costs about $1,000. It works by requiring a driver to blow into a tube that detects the presence of alcohol. If no alcohol is detected, then the car's ignition unlocks.

"It's not just about prosecuting criminals but stopping drunk driving before it starts," said Ken Martinez, a Democratic representative who sponsored the bill.

Critics of the bill called the cost of the device prohibitive, adding the measure would penalize people who do not drink and drive by forcing them to buy an expensive gadget.

According to advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, New Mexico ranked fifth among U.S. states in the percentage of traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers.

"People called seat belts and air bags inconvenient at first but it's just an issue of getting used to it. I think in the long run it will save money and lives," Martinez said.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 18, 2004, 11:53 am

don't drink and leave your cell phone in your car.

i'm guessing putting a breathalizer on every car will cost people quite a bit of money. i wonder if the state senator who proposed this bill happens to have family members who have an ownership stake in a breathalizer manufacturing business!!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 18, 2004, 12:07 pm

Drunk Driving prevention advocates are morons. They keep wanting more and more laws passed and it does no good because the governemnt refuses to actually prosecute those assholes that get their 4th DUI. Oh no, take their license away for another year. The crackpots here in WI just got the alcohol limit lowered to .08. If I remember right that is about 2 drinks in an hour. Even my wife can handle that amount of alcohol. The government needs to get harsher on those assholes that are driving on .20 or higher instead of giving them a slap on the rest and fucking those of us that want to have a drink now and then. It isn't even worth going to the bar anymore because you can only have one or two beers and go home.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 18, 2004, 12:50 pm

This would be so nice, expecially if applied as a national law.
I'd gladly foot my portion of the bill for it.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 18, 2004, 12:53 pm

Akaran_D wrote:This would be so nice, expecially if applied as a national law.
I'd gladly foot my portion of the bill for it.

Especially the part about various substances causing false positives. Cough syrup.. sorry, no driving for you. Cough drops.. sorry, no driving for you.

Half a bottle patron silver tequila.. hey son, blow into this for dad. Thanks, see ya in a bit! Vroom..

Post by **Sylvus** » February 18, 2004, 1:04 pm

One of my best friends got two drunk driving tickets and ended up having to have one of those put in his car for a year. Once we ordered pizza, something in the sauce caused it to give a false positive. Another time his aftershave set it off on the way to a job interview, and he almost missed it. (Randomly, while the ignition is on, an alert will go off and you have to blow into the tube. If you fail three times, the iginition cuts off. The car started right up initially, and then 20 minutes into his drive it went off again and that's when he almost failed it.)

I'm not totally against them being mandatory, but you sure as shit better make it legal to sleep in your car or require all bars to have a room full of cots in the back or something. Or perhaps a drunk bus that drives around town and transports people home for free. Otherwise you're going to have 80% of bar patrons stranded at their cars overnight.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » February 18, 2004, 1:33 pm

NOTICE-NWS
[url=rtsp://a1703.v9950f.c9950.g.vr.akamaistream.net/ondemand/7/1703/9950/v001/comedystor.download.akamai.com/9951/insom/209_police_300.rm]NWS LINK - [mod edited so it wouldn't stretch page][/url]
Edit: Who gave me 10k?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » February 18, 2004, 1:50 pm

Deward wrote:Drunk Driving prevention advocates are morons. They keep wanting more and more laws passed and it does no good because the governemnt refuses to actually prosecute those assholes that get their 4th DUI. Oh no, take their license away for another year. The crackpots here in WI just got the alcohol limit lowered to .08. If I remember right that is about 2 drinks in an hour. Even my wife can handle that amount of alcohol. The government needs to get harsher on those assholes that are driving on .20 or higher instead of giving them a slap on the rest and fucking those of us that want to have a drink now and then. It isn't even worth going to the bar anymore because you can only have one or two beers and go home.

I'd love to see your wife do a reaction test after 2 drinks an hour, you'd find she isn't on top of her game and doesn't deserve the right to be behind a huge chunk of steel

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » February 18, 2004, 3:16 pm

This is BS, sometimes I can't fathom the links of control some people in this country want to madate on other in the name of "saving lives." The seat belt law is BS as well... If people drink and drive, lock their ass up, I'll pay for that but don't punish the innocent to stop the guilty!

Marb

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 18, 2004, 3:28 pm

thats out of hand,
for the reasons mentioned already, or what if your trying to get away from someone(someone assaults you around/in your car) and oyu gotta sit like a moron puffing at this thing to get it started
not to mention the obscene cost, seatbelts are mandatory but cheap, and i dont even wear those, its my life, my business wether i buckle or not

i just think they should have harsher penalties for those who do dui, and amke it so you can sleep in your car

i was at a party a few weeks ago, i guess some neighbors called the cops, they show up telling everyone to gtfo
my friend was drunk at the time(he doesnt handle alcohol well), and was telling the cop, im drunk, i cant leave yet, he didnt give a shit, said it wasnt his problem
sure he could get a cab(if he had hte money for that), im sure this type of thing happens OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS, or while leaving a bar, sleeping in your car being legal would alleviate that a bit, and allowing the key in the ignition(for music/ac or whatever), since i believe that technically makes it a dui

he was alright enough that he drove to my house(with me following him) to wait it out

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 18, 2004, 3:59 pm

Sylvus wrote:One of my best friends got two drunk driving tickets and ended up having to have one of those put in his car for a year. Once we ordered pizza, something in the sauce caused it to give a false positive. Another time his aftershave set it off on the way to a job interview, and he almost missed it. (Randomly, while the ignition is on, an alert will go off and you have to blow into the tube. If you fail three times, the iginition cuts off. The car started right up initially, and then 20 minutes into his drive it went off again and that's when he almost failed it.)

I'm not totally against them being mandatory, but you sure as shit better make it legal to sleep in your car or require all bars to have a room full of cots in the back or something. Or perhaps a drunk bus that drives around town and transports people home for free. Otherwise you're going to have 80% of bar patrons stranded at their cars overnight.

If your friend had two DUI's he should have his drivers liscense taken away for the rest of his life.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 18, 2004, 4:14 pm

That is supremely fucking stupid if they expect everyone in NM to fork out 1000 dollars for that. Even if it bumps up the price of a new car, it is still wrong.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 18, 2004, 4:20 pm

Now, I don't think that seatbelt laws are really the sort of thing that the government should be regulating, but:

Why the fuck would you ever consider not wearing a seat belt? What does it cost you to buckle the fucking thing?

I was recently in a relatively severe car accident. I escaped completely unscathed. The nature of the accident was such that, had I not been wearing my belt, I would have flown into the windshield. This would have either thrown me through the windshield onto a major, snowy highway with no visibility, severely injured and hoping that no one hit me, or i would have bounced off of it, heavily injured, and been slumped over the steering wheel when the next guy nailed my car from behind. Instead, I got a seatbelt bruise on my chest. Also, the accident was entirely not my fault- had I not been wearing a seatbelt, I probably would have been killed/severely injured by something that I had absolutely no control over.

I have never heard a single valid argument for consistently not wearing a seatbelt.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 18, 2004, 4:33 pm

Sueven wrote:I have never heard a single valid argument for consistently not wearing a seatbelt.

The only thing I could think of would be pregnancy.

But regardless, it is indeed your choice to wear one or not, but take a good look at your insurance policy.. most are null and void if you get into an accident and are not wearing a seat belt. If you're not wearing your seat belt, you may as well cancel your insurance and save the money for your potential hospital fund.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 18, 2004, 5:04 pm

your right, theres no good reason, i just most of the time dont feel like wearing it(the one in my car is uncomfortable as hell)

i should waer one, and probably will start wearing it again

i think its my desicion tho

and as for the insurance thing, thats another thing i hate
being a 28year old male, i pay too much insurance(sexism/agism is ok when it comes to insurance?, and its legally mandated?!)

it should be my business wether or not i get insurance, if i crash and its my fault, im fucked
i wouldnt mind if it was actually based on driving record, not arbitrary things like age/sex/location where you live(in one zip code i pay more than another)

ive had more suspended licsenes for lack of insurance related tickets, i think if i get one more id be a habitual traffic offender(where they take my liscence away for a while), for um........not having insurance?

Deward · Post by **Deward** » February 18, 2004, 5:04 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:I'd love to see your wife do a reaction test after 2 drinks an hour, you'd find she isn't on top of her game and doesn't deserve the right to be behind a huge chunk of steel

My wife could handle two drinks in one hour but probably not much more. I on the other hand could handle 2 drinks per hour for a few hours without any loss of motor control. If there was food then I could drink more. My point is that instead of passing new laws, the government should start prosecuting people for bereaking the current laws. How many DUI's does a person need before they actually get into some kind of trouble? I have seen more than one case of some asshole with 7 DUI's still driving around and without having spent a day in jail.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 18, 2004, 6:34 pm

Kriista wrote: it should be my business wether or not i get insurance, if i crash and its my fault, im fucked
i wouldnt mind if it was actually based on driving record, not arbitrary things like age/sex/location where you live(in one zip code i pay more than another)

ive had more suspended licsenes for lack of insurance related tickets, i think if i get one more id be a habitual traffic offender(where they take my liscence away for a while), for um........not having insurance?

you shouldnt be driving then as you are a public nuissance.

Your reasoning is flawed because you are approaching the situation from a narcissistic viewpoint. Sure if you crash into a big rock and kill yourself, none of the rest of us are hurt.

but the odds are that if you are in a wreck you will actually hit another car, as they are what one actually finds on the street. And if it is your fault, that driver may have medical bills, car repairs, and potentially increases in insurance premiums all because you are a dumbass.

you sound like a 16 year old with the bitching about how it is the whole fucking planet trying to cramp your style.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 18, 2004, 6:41 pm

Voronwë wrote:you sound like a 16 year old with the bitching about how it is the whole fucking planet trying to cramp your style.

In reality, it's just Voro who is trying to cramp your style.

Fredonia Coldheart · February 18, 2004, 6:49 pm

Sueven wrote:I have never heard a single valid argument for consistently not wearing a seatbelt.

While rare - there are accidents where not wearing a seatbelt has saved the person. When I was around 10 a truck slid off an icy road into the ditch in front of my house. The driver was not wearing a seatbelt and was thrown into the passenger side. When the truck tipped due to the slope of the ditch, the driver side roof was flattened to the seat. He would have been crushed if he had been wearing a seatbelt.

This accident happened just a few years before they started passing the seatbelt laws. It was a while before my parents, brothers, and sisters started wearing them. I think most do now only to avoid getting any type of fine.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 18, 2004, 7:05 pm

While true, that's still not a valid argument for not wearing seatbelts on a consistent basis.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 18, 2004, 8:59 pm

you misunderstood

if i hit someone, and its my fault, and i have no insurance

i will get sued, and all the bills will be paid, it was my stupidity not having INSURANCE

like if i get sick, and have to have major surgery, with no INSURANCE, im fucked,

again, optional
smart(usually), but optional

and like i said, it woundt be so bad if it werent sexist/agist/locational data that they used to determine insurance prices

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » February 18, 2004, 9:40 pm

masteen wrote:
Voronwë wrote:you sound like a 16 year old with the bitching about how it is the whole fucking planet trying to cramp your style.
In reality, it's just Voro who is trying to cramp your style.

No, I'd have to agree its her- Anyone remember the lucid shard incident during SoL? She was a dog-in-the-mangering lucid shard camps trying to farm lucid shards she had no earthly use for anytime remotely soon while FoH was trying to key up for VT around her. All that mattered to her was her precious shards because she wanted them, and she didnt care that she had no use for them, or that she was being obstructionist to people who did need them, or what effect her self-involved bad manners had on the reputation of her own guild. She didnt give a DAMN about anything except herself. This sounds like just more of the same.

If you have an accident and hurt someone they'll sue and get their money so no problem? Who exactly is going to provide the money they win? The insurance company you dont have? Your daddy? Do YOU have possibly a hundred thou or more in the bank to pay for your little foible? I dont think you do. You thoughtless, self-involved brat.

Varia

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 18, 2004, 9:58 pm

No, I'd have to agree its her- Anyone remember the lucid shard incident during SoL? She was a dog-in-the-mangering lucid shard camps trying to farm lucid shards she had no earthly use for anytime remotely soon while FoH was trying to key up for VT around her. All that mattered to her was her precious shards because she wanted them, and she didnt care that she had no use for them, or that she was being obstructionist to people who did need them, or what effect her self-involved bad manners had on the reputation of her own guild. She didnt give a DAMN about anything except herself. This sounds like just more of the same.

If you have an accident and hurt someone they'll sue and get their money so no problem? Who exactly is going to provide the money they win? The insurance company you dont have? Your daddy? Do YOU have possibly a hundred thou or more in the bank to pay for your little foible? I dont think you do. You thoughtless, self-involved brat

i consider myself to be a safe driver, in which i feel i do not need automobile insurance
if im wrong, and hit someone, then ill play the price
with my billions of dollars i sit on, or more likely, garnished wages or what not
again, that should be my descicion to make

like i also mentioned, i would not mind if i didnt hvae to pay so much for being a guy in my age bracket

im speechless about the whole other thing you posted
im glad you still feel animated about something that happened about 2 years ago in a game i no longer play

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 18, 2004, 10:11 pm

thats retarded ... i can brush my teeth and fail one of those ... chew gum and fail one ... you know your listerine pocket packs ... say bye bye to those suckers !

anyways .. they need to start slappin the shit outta people that are sitting on their 1st DUI ... no more panzy ... lets slap ya on the wrist and say don't do it again please .. then give you a lolly pop

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » February 18, 2004, 10:15 pm

You can only get money from people that have money. The courts can't force someone to pay $20,000 to cover hospital bills when they don't have the $20,000 in the first place. That's what insurance is for.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 18, 2004, 10:30 pm

Additionally, there's no reason that someone should have to sue you to get the money that you rightfully owe them. That costs money, time, and a hell of a lot of aggravation, and is not NEARLY equivelant to simply submitting an insurance claim.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » February 18, 2004, 10:47 pm

when i was in my accident a while back the seat belt was ripped from the whole column.

i still hit my head on the steering wheel.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » February 18, 2004, 11:12 pm

Kriista wrote:i consider myself to be a safe driver, in which i feel i do not need automobile insurance
if im wrong, and hit someone, then ill play the price
with my billions of dollars i sit on, or more likely, garnished wages or what not
again, that should be my descicion to make

like i also mentioned, i would not mind if i didnt hvae to pay so much for being a guy in my age bracket

im speechless about the whole other thing you posted
im glad you still feel animated about something that happened about 2 years ago in a game i no longer play

I'm sure most people 'consider' themselves a 'safe' driver. Remember though - you don't go out driving hoping to get in to a collision, no-one in their right mind would, but it does happen.

Now people can sue you, granted, however do you think that you'll have say 50-100K saved up to pay for their immediate medical bills? If you don't, and are going by the 'garnish my wages' routine, then I'm guessing you don't want those people to get the medical attention they need? I'm sure they aren't going to magically produce said monies, and if they are it's probably going to cost them something substantial, like re-mortgaging their home.

Here bud, with this weeks garnishing you can pay for some of the pain killers you might need. This week will pay for your one physio class which you should have had 4 months ago, hooray for you!

Your idiocy knows no bounds. You let a find drive to your place DRUNK. Admitting in the statement that he can't handle his alcohol well, and that he stated he was drunk, you still were all for him driving, instead of you driving him back to your place and letting him crash there. You talk about being speechless, well I'm speechless that you advocate drinking and driving. Kudos to you for being a complete and total fucking idiot!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 18, 2004, 11:26 pm

Kriista wrote:you misunderstood

if i hit someone, and its my fault, and i have no insurance

i will get sued, and all the bills will be paid, it was my stupidity not having INSURANCE

like if i get sick, and have to have major surgery, with no INSURANCE, im fucked,

again, optional
smart(usually), but optional

and like i said, it woundt be so bad if it werent sexist/agist/locational data that they used to determine insurance prices

How are you going to pay off a multi million dollar loss of income and P&S lawsuit if you can't even afford car insurance?

Insurance rates are skewed for different types of people because certain types of people are FAR FAR more likely go cause an accident than others.

Tear yourself down off this particular cross because you sound fucking ludicrous.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » February 18, 2004, 11:43 pm

Kriista wrote:
No, I'd have to agree its her- Anyone remember the lucid shard incident during SoL? She was a dog-in-the-mangering lucid shard camps trying to farm lucid shards she had no earthly use for anytime remotely soon while FoH was trying to key up for VT around her. All that mattered to her was her precious shards because she wanted them, and she didnt care that she had no use for them, or that she was being obstructionist to people who did need them, or what effect her self-involved bad manners had on the reputation of her own guild. She didnt give a DAMN about anything except herself. This sounds like just more of the same.
like i also mentioned, i would not mind if i didnt hvae to pay so much for being a guy in my age bracket

im speechless about the whole other thing you posted
im glad you still feel animated about something that happened about 2 years ago in a game i no longer play

And I'm glad you still feel animated enough to post on a board for a game you no longer play too. As if thats relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that it speaks volumes about your essential character which I see hasnt changed. People tend to remember misdeeds, as it should be. Your character, past and present, is relevant in any arena in which you chose to participate, either real or digital.

*Hugs*
Varia

Deneve · Post by **Deneve** » February 19, 2004, 1:07 am

I'm in favor of Germany's approach: One DUI and your license is pulled for life. You never legally drive again.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 19, 2004, 3:22 am

Why the fuck would you ever consider not wearing a seat belt?

Because it should be the driver's choice. Once that choice is taken away, like it has in most states, it's just one more simple freedon or personal choice that has gone out the window.

It starts small...

Besides, do you honestly think states give a fuck about you or me getting killed in an auto accident? It's all about tickets and more income to the state. When they proposed seatbelt laws, they added a new projected income on the state's bottom line. In established states, that's money they count on.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 19, 2004, 4:59 am

Deneve wrote:I'm in favor of Germany's approach: One DUI and your license is pulled for life. You never legally drive again.

I'm in favor of that if the person is visibly and totally intoxicated. You should get one chance if you happen to just blow over the legal limit because there can be circumstances where you blow over and you aren't drunk at all. The odds of that happening twice are so slim as to be anomalous though.

Lifetime bans on drunk driving would be wonderful though. DUI's get off way too easy.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 19, 2004, 5:28 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:Because it should be the driver's choice. Once that choice is taken away, like it has in most states, it's just one more simple freedon or personal choice that has gone out the window.

Fatal and large injury traffic accidents cost states millions of dollars though. Police have to investigate it heavily which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the costs in court time is unbelievable. There's also a substantial loss in man hours for thousands of people and the transport industry as traffic is backed up while fatal car accidents are cleaned up. Insurance companies also lobby hard for seat belt laws. So it's not really a personal choice that affects no one but yourself.

When they proposed seatbelt laws, they added a new projected income on the state's bottom line. In established states, that's money they count on.

I doubt many states make a whole lot of money out of ticketing seat belters. You can avoid their little perceived scam job entirely by just wearing the fucking thing anyway.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 19, 2004, 5:42 am

ok, since rethinking legally mandated auto insurance is a good idea, since people (in general) dont have the character/funds to just settle shit like that

Insurance rates are skewed for different types of people because certain types of people are FAR FAR more likely go cause an accident than others.

how about it wasnt gender or age based, and included racial profiling, would that be alright too?

im not saying i cant afford the insurance as i pay it, i just dont want to pay as much as i do, for shit that people my age/gender hvae done

And I'm glad you still feel animated enough to post on a board for a game you no longer play too. As if thats relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that it speaks volumes about your essential character which I see hasnt changed. People tend to remember misdeeds, as it should be. Your character, past and present, is relevant in any arena in which you chose to participate, either real or digital.

look, i dont come here to talk about the game, i talk about general bullshit, if your panties are still in a bunch over the incident, tough shit, i said everyting about what happened when it happened, and theres more to it than you obviously understand

I'm in favor of Germany's approach: One DUI and your license is pulled for life. You never legally drive again.

this would be nice, but like kyou said, twice would be better for many reasons

oh, and about my 'drunk' friend, he wasnt drunk when we left the party, he was ok enough to drive, but the cop was being an ass in gereal, and we woudlntve been surprised if he was 'camping' people leaving to fish some dui's out of hte bunch(he probably wouldve failed a breath test)

Salis · Post by **Salis** » February 19, 2004, 6:00 am

kyoukan wrote:
Deneve wrote:I'm in favor of Germany's approach: One DUI and your license is pulled for life. You never legally drive again.
I'm in favor of that if the person is visibly and totally intoxicated. You should get one chance if you happen to just blow over the legal limit because there can be circumstances where you blow over and you aren't drunk at all. The odds of that happening twice are so slim as to be anomalous though.

Lifetime bans on drunk driving would be wonderful though. DUI's get off way too easy.

It already happens, just not directly, and I'm tired of the whole omg if you drink 2 fucking beers you need to go to hell if you get into a car. I've seen 1,000 old age drivers, stupid head turning tourists, and just downright fuckstick drivers causing OMGANDIMNOTRETARDEDBECAUSEWEFUCKINGWRITEITLIKETHISHEREOK more shit than some people who drink and drive. Sure call it illegal after a limit, but cut the retarded demonising, and get some damned perspective.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 19, 2004, 10:55 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Why the fuck would you ever consider not wearing a seat belt?
Because it should be the driver's choice. Once that choice is taken away, like it has in most states, it's just one more simple freedon or personal choice that has gone out the window.

It starts small...

Besides, do you honestly think states give a fuck about you or me getting killed in an auto accident? It's all about tickets and more income to the state. When they proposed seatbelt laws, they added a new projected income on the state's bottom line. In established states, that's money they count on.

I love the fact that I have to wear my seatbelt in Minnesota but some kid can blow by me on a crotch rocket doing 120 mph with no helmet.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 19, 2004, 12:28 pm

Because it should be the driver's choice. Once that choice is taken away, like it has in most states, it's just one more simple freedon or personal choice that has gone out the window.

I will direct your attention to the first sentence of my post, where I said:

Now, I don't think that seatbelt laws are really the sort of thing that the government should be regulating, but:

Not once did I ever support seatbelt laws, in fact, I opposed them. The point I was making was that, given freedom of choice, choosing not to wear a seatbelt is fucking idiotic.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 19, 2004, 12:29 pm

I love the fact that I have to wear my seatbelt in Minnesota but some kid can blow by me on a crotch rocket doing 120 mph with no helmet.

That's entirely erroneous. That kid has no more right to violate the speed limit than you do to not wear a seatbelt. His actions are as (in fact, probably more) illegal than yours.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 19, 2004, 12:49 pm

i think we should have 261,000,000 sovereign nations in what used to be this country, and that way each person can make laws that only effect themselves, and then they can negotiate treaties with other coutnries if they choose to leave their country (read: yard) as to what sorts of behaviors and actions are appropriate for them in foreign lands, etc.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 19, 2004, 1:00 pm

Voronwë wrote:i think we should have 261,000,000 sovereign nations in what used to be this country, and that way each person can make laws that only effect themselves, and then they can negotiate treaties with other coutnries if they choose to leave their country (read: yard) as to what sorts of behaviors and actions are appropriate for them in foreign lands, etc.

I heard that gambling and prostitution are legal in Voronweville!!! ROAD TRIP!!!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 19, 2004, 1:13 pm

Deneve wrote:I'm in favor of Germany's approach: One DUI and your license is pulled for life. You never legally drive again.

I don't think I would agree with a one time incident...or even twice....being grounds for a lifetime ban. I actually had a DUI in Ohio 8 years ago. I broke no laws while driving (other than being over the limit) and received no ticket other than the DUI. I had my seat belt on, was under the speed limit, not weaving, etc. My only wrong move was to happen to be on a road where they had a checkpoint disguised as a wreck.

Knowing that I had driven in conditions WAY worse than the night I was pulled over it kind of scared me a bit. I blew a .197 that night and was completely coherent and did not feel as drunk as I should have. I used to drink enough to make Salis look like a schoolgirl...and was so used to being extremely hammered that this night I felt fine. Your typical light drinker would have been passed out in a puddle of vomit at that blood alchohol content.

With your reasoning, I would never be able to drive again even though I have not done it since...and only rarely drink anything now.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 19, 2004, 1:22 pm

masteen wrote:
Voronwë wrote:i think we should have 261,000,000 sovereign nations in what used to be this country, and that way each person can make laws that only effect themselves, and then they can negotiate treaties with other coutnries if they choose to leave their country (read: yard) as to what sorts of behaviors and actions are appropriate for them in foreign lands, etc.
I heard that gambling and prostitution are legal in Voronweville!!! ROAD TRIP!!!

for shizzle

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 19, 2004, 1:36 pm

I used to flagrantly oppose seatbelt laws but now I support them. The thing that changed it for me is that I now think wearing your seatbelt could not only save your life, but others' as well. An example would be if you somehow get thrown out of the driver's seat while the car is still in motion.

Although I think the breathalizer law is a bit extreme, I am for much stricter driving laws and heavier DUI penalties. The simple fact is, you can scream and shout about your freedom but you really will never understand the impact of not having these laws until your mother gets killed by some idiot running a red light that should never have been behind the wheel in the first place, as mine did.

I don't give a fuck if you think you're alright to drive since you only had 4 fucking beers. For every person that can accurately assess their own driving condition, there are 1000 fucktards that cannot.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 19, 2004, 2:29 pm

i support the ban .. but not life ... more like 5-10 years and 100 hours of community serivce ...

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » February 19, 2004, 3:22 pm

1 Chance. Then 1-2 years license ban. Then 5 years. Then life.

3 chances, then you're just too stupid to be behind the wheel.

EDIT: Hit/Kill anyone while intoxicated: insta-ban on driving for life.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 19, 2004, 3:25 pm

how about it wasnt gender or age based, and included racial profiling, would that be alright too?

im not saying i cant afford the insurance as i pay it, i just dont want to pay as much as i do, for shit that people my age/gender hvae done

It's called statistics. Certain age/gender ranges are involved in more accidents, and receive more violations, than others. Therefore their rates are adjusted to take that into account. It's not sexist/agist, it's simple economics.

As far as DUI goes, I agree repeat offenders should receive stiffer penalties than what's apparently in place now in some states. Not sure I agree with the first strike you're out forever thing though. Everyone makes mistakes and I doubt anyone intenetionally sets out to cause death and destruction.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » February 19, 2004, 3:50 pm

It's called statistics. Certain age/gender ranges are involved in more accidents, and receive more violations, than others. Therefore their rates are adjusted to take that into account. It's not sexist/agist, it's simple economics.

more prejudices are based off statistics
like over %50 of jail population are black males between the age of whatever it is and whatever it is
so if your a cop should you just pull a black person over cuz they might be doing something?

statistically asian girls who dont watch tv ace the sat, should they automatically get full scholarships without any individual testing?

statistically aids was originally most rampant among homosexual males, and iv drug users
so if your gay you should pay more for life insurance?

just saying, most/all biases/prejudices have some sort of 'statistical' backround to them, its not alright to use that info anywhere else, except insurance(which is ok since its private business most of the time), but auto insurance is mandatory, hence theres a gov hand in there, so there shoudlnt be any age/sex/race considerations, only consideration should be location and prior traffic record

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 19, 2004, 4:48 pm

gay males do pay more for life insurance, if you happen to tell your insurance company that you are gay.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 19, 2004, 5:29 pm

Kriista wrote:just saying, most/all biases/prejudices have some sort of 'statistical' backround to them, its not alright to use that info anywhere else, except insurance(which is ok since its private business most of the time), but auto insurance is mandatory, hence theres a gov hand in there, so there shoudlnt be any age/sex/race considerations, only consideration should be location and prior traffic record

So you're saying that since statistics sometimes give negative information, that the government or any entity affiliated with the govermnent shouldn't use them? What a fucking crackpot you are.