Prohibition Returns!

[Philip1993]

Not exactly were I was going with that Evan. But point taken. IMHO its the lawyers in this country that are ruining things, more so than the government.

Any the predominant occupation for judges, legislators, etc is?

It's not just the lawyers, it's all the judges, cops, lawyers, councilmen, etc. who manipulate our legal system to increase their power/money/etc.

 

[Philip1993]

just one night of your life in jail.

Back to the subject of f'ed up logic....

Depriving someone of their liberty for 5 minutes is not something the government should do lightly...

 

[mrkristofo]

Any the predominant occupation for judges, legislators, etc is?

It's not just the lawyers, it's all the judges, cops, lawyers, councilmen, etc. who manipulate our legal system to increase their power/money/etc.

Which could bring the burden right back around to falling on the people, the ignorant and impetuous who continue to vote for the corrupt because he's local to them, and he's a "good guy".

 

[Philip1993]

Which could bring the burden right back around to falling on the people, the ignorant and impetuous who continue to vote for the corrupt because he's local to them, and he's a "good guy".

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, elected government officials (like those mentioned) make a career of manipulating the system AND of manipulating public opinion.

It's not unlike the reasoning behind prohibiting teacher/student relationships and/or sexual harassment. Persons in a position of authority over a subordinate group of individuals are in the unique position of being able to abuse their victims and atthe same time manipulate them into believing that their situation (the abuse) is normal and expected behavior.

 

[Ize]

But, see, that's just the problem with so many f*cked up things in our country. It doesn't affect their daily lives, so they shrug it off as "just one of those things I guess". Man, sh*t, I know you're biased and all, but what if that dude who hit you was eating a sandwich instead of blowing a 0.09? Would you be all "let's throw people in prison for eating sandwiches"? Somehow I doubt it...

No offense, because I know some things really hit close to home, but...that kind of passive, "it's just one of those things" attitude is why our government gets away with as much liberty-squashing bullsh*t as it does. No, dammit, it's not "just one of those things". It's "yet another attack on our goddamned personal freedom, all in the name of some sort of amorphous public safety". We're treated like children...grown adults, treated like children, even if we do the right thing and sleep it off in our car. And I don't know about the rest of you, but every day, I feel like I'm treated this way more and more by our government. And every time someone shrugs and says "ehhh, what're ya gonna do?", an Alberto Gonzales Angel gets his wings.

We're the frogs in the slowly boiling pot of water, guys. Sure, if the government came straight out and removed all your freedoms at once, we'd all flip out and they'd get put in their place. But by slowly chipping away, they're able to get one guy to shrug his shoulders at crap and say "it's just one of those things". No revolution, no pushback...and suddenly, no smoking in bars in Washington DC. The march to tyranny is always slow and incremental, so remember that next time you shrug some sort of tyranny off as "just one of those things".

anyway, I'm gonna get off MY soapbox now :fro:

Nailed it.

To be honest I prefer to drink at home because I don't have to deal with people in general. I deal with people all day long, and when I get home, that's it. I want my family and that's all.

But more and more, somehow D.C. and the States are chipping away, and the simple sad fact is, we're letting it happen.

We've let that vocal minority play the guilt card on us so much, and most of all they have played it to the lawmakers in such a way that we're now left to deal with this BS.

I don't have a problem with an ascending scale regarding drinking and driving. I don't have a problem having a delegated smoking area. But that's not what we're getting. It's coming down to an all-or-nothing, here's the way it is, take it and like it mentality, dictated by a small (very small) few, and it's only going to get worse. And the Pols are buying into it! Sorry, my confidence in politicians achieving ANYTHING good for society as a whole ranks about ZERO. (I'm biased, I'm in Illinois and we have just about the MOST F-d up political system in the country right now. Abe is shatting in his hat...)

Long story short, I'm content to drink at home. (they've already screwed drinking outside your home unless you have a Chauffeur) It doesn't make me happy, but I do it. However, don't think it's going to get any better, because someone out there has a voice to the Gov't that thinks they know what's better for you than you do.

In the end, the only way to change it is to call your Pols and stay on 'em. Let them know what you think. Their phone numbers are in the book. It's just a phone call or email....

Ize

 

[Evan!]

Nailed it.

To be honest I prefer to drink at home because I don't have to deal with people in general. I deal with people all day long, and when I get home, that's it. I want my family and that's all.

But more and more, somehow D.C. and the States are chipping away, and the simple sad fact is, we're letting it happen.

We've let that vocal minority play the guilt card on us so much, and most of all they have played it to the lawmakers in such a way that we're now left to deal with this BS.

I don't have a problem with an ascending scale regarding drinking and driving. I don't have a problem having a delegated smoking area. But that's not what we're getting. It's coming down to an all-or-nothing, here's the way it is, take it and like it mentality, dictated by a small (very small) few, and it's only going to get worse. And the Pols are buying into it! Sorry, my confidence in politicians achieving ANYTHING good for society as a whole ranks about ZERO. (I'm biased, I'm in Illinois and we have just about the MOST F-d up political system in the country right now. Abe is shatting in his hat...)

Long story short, I'm content to drink at home. (they've already screwed drinking outside your home unless you have a Chauffeur) It doesn't make me happy, but I do it. However, don't think it's going to get any better, because someone out there has a voice to the Gov't that thinks they know what's better for you than you do.

In the end, the only way to change it is to call your Pols and stay on 'em. Let them know what you think. Their phone numbers are in the book. It's just a phone call or email....

Ize

Well, think about it: when's the last time you saw a politician propose a bill that increased our freedoms? Power corrupts, and it's oh-so-easy for self-serving politicians to restrict the freedoms of everyone if it buys him the votes of a few. And in this case, it's even easier because alcohol is still a bogeyman in this country, an easy scapegoat...and no politician wants to be seen as "soft on drunk drivers". It's an easy decision for most of them...put more otherwise innocent people in prison and/or ruin their lives by taking their license and making them pay 10 grand in fees and fines...all just by redefining what "under the influence" means. Who cares whether it actually gets results? Our drunk driving accident rates have stagnated since 1997, so they attack the easy targets: the casual drinkers who aren't any more impaired than someone changing the radio station dial. It buys them the votes of a few ignorant people, and it doesn't really cost them very much because not very many votes are going to not vote for someone because they bolstered "drunk" driving laws.

We have many bogeymen/scapegoats in this country that politicians milk for political gain...trrrrrrism, booze, drugs, sex, etc. The return on their investment for attacking those bogeymen is very high for them, but after awhile, we all get screwed. The government's war on prescription painkillers has led to a chilling effect where doctors won't even prescribe them anymore for fear of ending up in prison for life (like some have) if the DEA decides that they don't like how you're prescribing. And so it becomes increasingly difficult for people in excruciating pain to get medicine to help them...all because oxycontin is a perfect bogeyman.

The fact is that there are very real problems with drugs, alcohol, terrorism, etc., but more often than not, the gubmint uses slow-but-steady avenues to strip us of all our personal liberty in the name of these problems. And by the time it's all said and done, we hardly remember what it was like to have those liberties...and their work is done.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

I forgot the ratio, but some unimaginable percentage of our congress have been busted for MULTIPLE dui's

 

[ohiobrewtus]

Wow - I'm not sure how I missed this thread until now, but I'll go ahead and chime in (albeit a bit late).

If there's a dependancy that a substantial percentage of Americans can have, the government will find a way to take advantage of it financially.

Alcohol - Increases taxes on it. Assign arbitrary outrageously steep fines to those who operate a motor vehicle while they are imparied under rediculously low standards.

There absolutley are people who should not be driving under any circumstances. There absolutely are people who should go to jail because they are repeat offenders.

My parents should not have to worry about getting a DUI after having 1 glass of wine each on the way home from their anniversary dinner. That's what .08 comes down to.

DUI laws were originally put in place to protect innocent people from the dangers of other being drunk and driving. Now DUI laws are a cash cow to make up for overspending and budgeting deficiencies.

Tobacco - I still have the occasional cigar, but I quit smoking cigarettes a few months ago, so this issue is still kind of personal to me. Some may see it as a different topic altogether, but I see it as an extension of the same device as alcohol:

Take financial advantage of a select (minority) group of people who are doing something that the general public sees in a negative light.

Is the state lottery not quite providing the money that you wanted? No problem, add another $.60 a pack to cigarettes to make up for it - smokers are all dirty people anyway.. plus they're addicted and will pay just about anything. It's like free money.

It's not like this everywhere, but here in Ohio - alcohol and tobacco have been taxed to death. A 6 pack of just about anything costs $.70 - $1.50 more than it did just 2 years ago. A pack of cigarettes costs roughly $3 more than it did 3-4 years ago.

Those numbers are not due to inflation or in increase in cost of goods or even rising manufacturing costs.. Those numbers are our government unfairly imposing taxes upon a select minority of the population in order to directly benefit the population as a whole.

While both of these topics are hotbuttons for some, to me they are no different than adult entertainment, chronic shoppers, or any other multitude of addictions that people can have.

Why stop at overtaxing alcohol and tobacco - why not collect a $20 'naughty tax' everytime that someone walks into a strip club? Why not have a 'luxury shopping tax' - that way women who spend thousands of dollars per year on shoes get taxed more than guys like me who only buy shoes when I absolutely have to? Why not tax people who drive hybrid cars - they're saving money that they rest of us have to spend - why not get that back?

My examples are meant to be a bit rediculous. The bottom line for me is that it's wrong for our goverenment to attempt to abuse control or over-tax certain things just because they can. It's even more wrong, imho, to take financial advantage of a select minority (for a choice that they have every right to make for themselves).

I'll say it again - DUI's have become cash cows for all 50 states. The story in the OP - DC cops will say that it's 'zero tolerance', but that's unlikely. It's a budget increase. A portion of the fees for eery DUI that they record, in one way or another, ends up back in their budget for the following year. Need some new police cruisers - want a new chopper? No problem, let's institute a 'zero-tolerance' policy and not tell anyone about it. That way we can start arresting people for DUI when they blow a .03 and we can hide behind out 'zero tolerance' policy.

It's similar to speeding tickets. I rarely see any police shooting radar on the local highways. Come the last 3-5 days of the month when they have to hit their 'quotas'... you can't drive 3 minutes without seeing a sherrif or Highway patrol car.

</END RANT>

 

[Evan!]

What it boils down to, as I see it, is that the various special interest jagoffs get pushback when they try to overtly affect legislative behavior change. I mean, even the staunchest social conservative can admit that the real job of the government should not be to "life coach". So instead, they either cloak it in "public safety" or "it's for the children", and the government is more than happy to use the tax code and various fine/fee regimes to do their bidding...because it's gets them more money. It's a win-win for the gubmint and the special interests...but it's a loss all around for our personal liberties.

It's an insidious system that we've got...where money and power encourages those with the money and power to lord over the weaker minorities. Brewtus is all too right...that the motivation behind arresting .03'ers is as much about $$ as it is about getting votes...probably moreso.

 

[jezter6]

Giddy up mates! Finally hearing rational thought on a message board - I never thought it could happen.

Smoking bans are by far the worst idea I've ever heard. I mean, I don't mind if it's McDonald's or even a classy restaraunt, but a f-ing BAR? Everyone chain smokes in the bar, and if you don't somke, you still come out to the bar to have a good time. Sadly, they're using the 'employee' as the scapegoat in this thing. There are plenty of waitress/bartender jobs out there, and if you don't want to deal with the smoke, find a nice place like McD's to work. You shouldn't go discriminate against smokers because a dumb ass employee who doesn't want second hand smoke wants to work in a smoking establishment.

I'm all fine for non-smoking areas, even fully non-smoking places. But let that decision up to the owner of the place. If he wants to cater to smokers, then he should be able to. If a self righteous MFer wants to have a non-smoking bar, then all the whiny waitresses can go work there with the whiny customers who think smoking is the devil.

Don't like the smell of my smoke? Screw off. I don't like the smell of your 'too much perfume' or your 'haven't taken a bath in 3 days', but I don't have the right to shut you bastards out of places I want to go.

What ever happened to one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom of choice? I choose to smoke, but it seems that freedom is outweighted by a couple of butthole dingleberries who can't bother to choose NOT to go near a bunch of smokers. Nope, they have to come in and invade our establishments and then cry about it.

All this crap about alcohol is even worse. Getting arrested for PI inside a bar. Guess what, it's not illegal for a cop to arrest you for PI in the bar because it's a PUBLIC BAR. That's what P in PI stands for. They are basically begging you to come out and get arrested, and that's frickin crazy.

I'm all for private establishments like the Moose and the American Legion. Places where police can't just come in and start arresting people because it's private property. Police are not allowed in your club without a WARRANT! Now, let's get together and form more of these places and keep the namby pamby non-smoker non-alcohol people out of our way!

Viva la revolution!!!

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Giddy up mates! Finally hearing rational thought on a message board - I never thought it could happen.

Smoking bans are by far the worst idea I've ever heard. I mean, I don't mind if it's McDonald's or even a classy restaraunt, but a f-ing BAR? Everyone chain smokes in the bar, and if you don't somke, you still come out to the bar to have a good time. Sadly, they're using the 'employee' as the scapegoat in this thing. There are plenty of waitress/bartender jobs out there, and if you don't want to deal with the smoke, find a nice place like McD's to work. You shouldn't go discriminate against smokers because a dumb ass employee who doesn't want second hand smoke wants to work in a smoking establishment.

I'm all fine for non-smoking areas, even fully non-smoking places. But let that decision up to the owner of the place. If he wants to cater to smokers, then he should be able to. If a self righteous MFer wants to have a non-smoking bar, then all the whiny waitresses can go work there with the whiny customers who think smoking is the devil.

Don't like the smell of my smoke? Screw off. I don't like the smell of your 'too much perfume' or your 'haven't taken a bath in 3 days', but I don't have the right to shut you bastards out of places I want to go.

What ever happened to one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom of choice? I choose to smoke, but it seems that freedom is outweighted by a couple of butthole dingleberries who can't bother to choose NOT to go near a bunch of smokers. Nope, they have to come in and invade our establishments and then cry about it.

All this crap about alcohol is even worse. Getting arrested for PI inside a bar. Guess what, it's not illegal for a cop to arrest you for PI in the bar because it's a PUBLIC BAR. That's what P in PI stands for. They are basically begging you to come out and get arrested, and that's frickin crazy.

I'm all for private establishments like the Moose and the American Legion. Places where police can't just come in and start arresting people because it's private property. Police are not allowed in your club without a WARRANT! Now, let's get together and form more of these places and keep the namby pamby non-smoker non-alcohol people out of our way!

Viva la revolution!!!

I agree, mostly. I think it should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar, but comparing stinky perfume to cigarette smoke is a big difference. I just quit smoking after 10 years (2 months ago) for health reasons, and the fact is, second hand smoke has adverse effects on your health. No two ways about it.

 

[Evan!]

Giddy up mates! Finally hearing rational thought on a message board - I never thought it could happen.

Smoking bans are by far the worst idea I've ever heard. I mean, I don't mind if it's McDonald's or even a classy restaraunt, but a f-ing BAR? Everyone chain smokes in the bar, and if you don't somke, you still come out to the bar to have a good time. Sadly, they're using the 'employee' as the scapegoat in this thing. There are plenty of waitress/bartender jobs out there, and if you don't want to deal with the smoke, find a nice place like McD's to work. You shouldn't go discriminate against smokers because a dumb ass employee who doesn't want second hand smoke wants to work in a smoking establishment.

I'm all fine for non-smoking areas, even fully non-smoking places. But let that decision up to the owner of the place. If he wants to cater to smokers, then he should be able to. If a self righteous MFer wants to have a non-smoking bar, then all the whiny waitresses can go work there with the whiny customers who think smoking is the devil.

Don't like the smell of my smoke? Screw off. I don't like the smell of your 'too much perfume' or your 'haven't taken a bath in 3 days', but I don't have the right to shut you bastards out of places I want to go.

What ever happened to one of our greatest freedoms: the freedom of choice? I choose to smoke, but it seems that freedom is outweighted by a couple of butthole dingleberries who can't bother to choose NOT to go near a bunch of smokers. Nope, they have to come in and invade our establishments and then cry about it.

All this crap about alcohol is even worse. Getting arrested for PI inside a bar. Guess what, it's not illegal for a cop to arrest you for PI in the bar because it's a PUBLIC BAR. That's what P in PI stands for. They are basically begging you to come out and get arrested, and that's frickin crazy.

I'm all for private establishments like the Moose and the American Legion. Places where police can't just come in and start arresting people because it's private property. Police are not allowed in your club without a WARRANT! Now, let's get together and form more of these places and keep the namby pamby non-smoker non-alcohol people out of our way!

Viva la revolution!!!

Of course, the whole idea of a place of business becoming "public" and therefore being placed under the same classification as a subway car, is idiotic to begin with. I've discussed this ad nauseum WRT to the DC smoking ban...there are a few things, like kitchen sanitation and emergency exit access, which sort of make sense for the bureaucracy to oversee in a place where anyone can enter. I mean, putting the onus on every customer to figure out whether they have a safe route out in case of fire is kind of ridiculous. But there's no "hidden danger" when you walk into a bar full of smoke. You know, as soon as the cloud hits your face, what the deal is, and any rational adult can easily make that decision on his/her own.

And as for the "workplace safety" argument, that too is bunk. There are plenty of dangerous occupations...ice fisherman...police officer...lumberjack. But plenty of people still choose to do those jobs, despite the danger. Why is working among second hand smoke any different?

The government should not be allowed to designate businesses as "public spaces" (and all the iron-handed regulation that comes with that designation) merely because people voluntarily frequent the place...and drinking in a bar should not be cause for "public intoxication".

 

[Evan!]

I agree, mostly. I think it should be up to the owner of the restaurant or bar, but comparing stinky perfume to cigarette smoke is a big difference. I just quit smoking after 10 years (2 months ago) for health reasons, and the fact is, second hand smoke has adverse effects on your health. No two ways about it.

Of course this is true, but I think his point was, if you don't like it, you are always free to leave and/or petition the owner of the establishment to adopt a partial or whole non-smoking policy. Nobody's denying the problems stemming from inhaling second hand smoke 6 days a week as a waitress, but at the same time, nobody's denying the problems stemming from crab fishing in the arctic ocean either. It's just that smoking is seen as "evil" and smokers are seen as second class citizens, so they get walked all over. And this coming from someone who hates cigarette smoke and has only had one cig in his whole life (and then, it was only while I was on the nose candy ).

 

[Aiko]

Actually its true, Texas passed a law allowing PI's to be given in a bar. I worked in a bar when all this was going on, I believe it was latter removed from the legislation, because of all the pissed off people and lawyers.

Thanks for the backup, I did actually see it, but no way to prove it. Yes, I think they recently stopped doing it, the bar owners were freaking!
As Jetser6 says:

Viva la revolution!!! :rockin:​

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Of course this is true, but I think his point was, if you don't like it, you are always free to leave and/or petition the owner of the establishment to adopt a partial or whole non-smoking policy. Nobody's denying the problems stemming from inhaling second hand smoke 6 days a week as a waitress, but at the same time, nobody's denying the problems stemming from crab fishing in the arctic ocean either. It's just that smoking is seen as "evil" and smokers are seen as second class citizens, so they get walked all over. And this coming from someone who hates cigarette smoke and has only had one cig in his whole life (and then, it was only while I was on the nose candy ).

I agree 100%. I just hate comparisons that are not legit... i.e. perfume to cig smoke. I would still hang out in smoky bars and I'll sneak a cig if I'm getting good and drunk, and I hate having to step outside for it

 

[jezter6]

I agree 100%. I just hate comparisons that are not legit... i.e. perfume to cig smoke. I would still hang out in smoky bars and I'll sneak a cig if I'm getting good and drunk, and I hate having to step outside for it

It was the comparison I made on my rant, but the theory is the same. I can find something (anything) that I don't like about YOU that causes me distress (maybe won't kill me, but 99% of these tards are blaming 2nd hand smoke when what they really mean is "OMG it smells like nasty cigs").

I don't think a non-smoker coming in to eat dinner once a week at a bar where I smoke is going to die of 2nd hand smoke because we are in the same place. I don't think that 1 dinner session a week is enough to even cause physical harm, but that's for a doctor to decide.

The point is, it's one-way discrimination. We can't discriminate back at you, but you can sure come and discriminate against me for doing something I am LEGALLY allowed to do. You want to outlaw tobacco, FINE. I'll quit, or smoke it illegaly. But telling me I can smoke, but now I can't smoke here, I can't smoke there, then it's just going around the fact that they are trying to outlaw tobacco, but in a roundabout manner. It's backhanded. Just come out and say it, and see if you can get it passed, but don't try to come up with BS reasons why I can't smoke (like In my own car on public/gov't property).

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

It was the comparison I made on my rant, but the theory is the same. I can find something (anything) that I don't like about YOU that causes me distress (maybe won't kill me, but 99% of these tards are blaming 2nd hand smoke when what they really mean is "OMG it smells like nasty cigs").

I don't think a non-smoker coming in to eat dinner once a week at a bar where I smoke is going to die of 2nd hand smoke because we are in the same place. I don't think that 1 dinner session a week is enough to even cause physical harm, but that's for a doctor to decide.

The point is, it's one-way discrimination. We can't discriminate back at you, but you can sure come and discriminate against me for doing something I am LEGALLY allowed to do. You want to outlaw tobacco, FINE. I'll quit, or smoke it illegaly. But telling me I can smoke, but now I can't smoke here, I can't smoke there, then it's just going around the fact that they are trying to outlaw tobacco, but in a roundabout manner. It's backhanded. Just come out and say it, and see if you can get it passed, but don't try to come up with BS reasons why I can't smoke (like In my own car on public/gov't property).

I want a cigarette after all this talk. If this manager dude goes outside the cafe I'm at for another smoke, I might just have to bum one.

 

[kram]

Truly fascinating discussion. i have little to add to the generally sober and reasoned responses already posted.

MADD of course had a laudiuble cause, to stop people from carelessly drinking and driving. They have acheived this (years ago), responsible, thinking people don't drink and drive. presently dui accidents are caused (for the most part) by people who are irresponsible and thoughtless, (people who will drink and drive no matter what the laws are, sometimes because they're alcoholics and need help, other times becasue they'er A**holes) and by young, immature people who drink and drive (a tragedy, but it is due to being young and immature not alcohol).

MADD however, has to continue to deliver successes in their cause by fighting drinking because otherwise they have no function. They must create a reason for their existence and push ever closer to prohibition. it's much like a bad government program, once the original goal is acheived its no longer needed, so the goal has to move because peoples careers depend on keeping it alive.

... and politicians, well they're too afraid of looking bad to refute the false argument (so you're in favor of drunk drivers killing our children?) .

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Interesting statistic: The use of automated traffic enforcement, such as photo-radar reduces drunk driving!

They pull cops off the road and let the machines do the "policing". And just like that, the number of DUI arrests go down by about 30%!!! What a great way to keep your revenue up, reduce your labor costs, and show the public that you're actually having an impact!!!

A good read on the subject of riding drunk...

http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/riding_drunk/index.html

 

[jezter6]

I'd seriously love to know how automated enforcement actually does anything to reduce drunk driving.

I'm sorry, but automated law enforcement turns this country into a police state where you are constantly being monitored. I didn't live in Soviet Russia, and I'd like to continue NOT living as a communist thank you.

Automated enforcement options lead to more people attempting obsfucation techniques to try and get around the enforcement and do illegal acts without being caught.

Why do you think people buy radar detectors and anti-radar license plate covers? So that they can break the law and not get caught.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

I'd seriously love to know how automated enforcement actually does anything to reduce drunk driving.

It's a fact. Where photo-enforcement of speed limits is used instead of actual police officers, the number of DUI arrests is reduced. Just ask any politician. That's proof that the streets are becoming safer!

 

[WortMonger]

Don't know about you, but I would take the ticket for speeding/red light/whatever through the mail just to not have to talk to an officer. I am always respectful (sir yes sir, sir no sir) but they are all intimidating for the fact is is always their word against yours. I don't speed, and obey all the traffic laws, but even talking to an off duty cop makes me nervous.

 

[Alamo_Beer]

Thats why we need more/better public transit... When I was in Germany I got ripproarin drunk a number of times and just took the subways/busses back to the hotel/hostel whatever...

I realize that the US is MUCH larger than Germany though and it would be very difficult for it to work in places like Texas but...still something. Why do the busses stop running so early? I mean, I'd ride them.

Better yet, cops should become a free taxi service

 

[uglygoat]

Viva la revolution!!!

this is really what it is eventually going to boil down to, if you want to change anything in this country.

i think even old thomas jefferson said the liberty tree needs to be watered or sprinkled with blood from time to time. it's been a long drought by my count.

takes home brew equipment and heads for the hills...

 

[jezter6]

It's a fact. Where photo-enforcement of speed limits is used instead of actual police officers, the number of DUI arrests is reduced. Just ask any politician. That's proof that the streets are becoming safer!

Nail hit. Right on the head. Of course it reduces the number of DUI arrests. Why? Because you get a speeding ticket and can continue to drive drunk because you didn't get a DUI.

Hrmm...maybe I *am* beginning to like the police state idea. :cross:

 

[WortMonger]

Nail hit. Right on the head. Of course it reduces the number of DUI arrests. Why? Because you get a speeding ticket and can continue to drive drunk because you didn't get a DUI.

Hrmm...maybe I *am* beginning to like the police state idea. :cross:

EXACTLY!!!! lol No Cop, No Stop

I'm not saying I want a police state, cell phones are just as good with concerned citizens. I have called in several concerns before, they were probably just tired but...... who knows. They were all over the road.

 

[Dude]

Thats why we need more/better public transit... When I was in Germany I got ripproarin drunk a number of times and just took the subways/busses back to the hotel/hostel whatever...

I realize that the US is MUCH larger than Germany though and it would be very difficult for it to work in places like Texas but...still something. Why do the busses stop running so early? I mean, I'd ride them.

Better yet, cops should become a free taxi service

So what good would that do? The way some of these guys are talking, you could get a ticket for walking to the bus stop. Or waiting at the bus stop.

I still don't believe some of these stories--I am sure their were extenuating circumstances that got these guys in trouble. You have to be acting drunk to get noticed by a cop. You have to be doing something out of the ordinary to get noticed. No cop is going to go through with a PI charge for someone near a .06 unless that person is being a dick or something. Just my .02.

 

[Alamo_Beer]

Just my .02.

Be carefull...that .02 could turn into a .08!

Yeah, I guess my point is a bit moot then...still if your sloppy drunk waiting for a bus it's better (in a cop's eyes...at least I'd hope) than being buzzed and behind the wheel

 

[shafferpilot]

I still don't believe some of these stories--I am sure their were extenuating circumstances that got these guys in trouble. You have to be acting drunk to get noticed by a cop. You have to be doing something out of the ordinary to get noticed. No cop is going to go through with a PI charge for someone near a .06 unless that person is being a dick or something. Just my .02.

Believe whatever you want to. Why would these guys lie? If those people were really being a pain the a$$, they would have been charged with something other than PI (ie disturbing the piece, public menacing, etc.). The reality is that most small towns and municipalities live on the income from tickets written by cops. Almost none of them actually give quotas to their officers, but don't be fooled into thinking that means they don't exist. When I go into the city (where cops actually ARE only trying to keep things safe), I don't even get blinked at by cops, even if I am speeding a bit. But out in the suburbs I get pulled over regularly by cops that are just "checking". That means they are prowling for any ticketable offenses. Just go to one of their court dates and look around. A couple hundred people are there to pay on average $150 a person for crap like burned out tail lights, and not fully stopping at stop signs. I've said it before and I'll said it again: If you want to know why someone (or some entity) does anything the way they do, just follow the dollar signs!

 

[Buford]

Well, think about it: when's the last time you saw a politician propose a bill that increased our freedoms?

Actually, there was a bill introduced last session in the VA General Assembly by Morgan Griffith that would have no longer made non-smoking sections in smoking-allowed restaurants mandatory, but it would have reversed the signage requirements from "no smoking" to "smoking permitted". That was a bit of a compromise with the anti-smoking lobby but it would have left the choice with the business in question and done away with a govt. mandated rule on no-smoking sections. Interesting thing about it is Griffith himself is allergic to tobacco smoke but he wants to leave the choice up to the owners of the restaurants and not the state.

The bill got to Gov. Kaine, who then completely gutted it and turned it into a blanket smoking ban. His crusade led to the GA rejecting his changes and Griffith saying that no other anti-smoking measure will have a chance as long as he is governor due to that stunt. We were left with the status quo, no ban but mandatory no-smoking sections if smoking is allowed.

 

[WortMonger]

So what good would that do? The way some of these guys are talking, you could get a ticket for walking to the bus stop. Or waiting at the bus stop.

I still don't believe some of these stories--I am sure their were extenuating circumstances that got these guys in trouble. You have to be acting drunk to get noticed by a cop. You have to be doing something out of the ordinary to get noticed. No cop is going to go through with a PI charge for someone near a .06 unless that person is being a dick or something. Just my .02.

Ok, first I hate to go to clubs/loud smelly bars. In my little town, they will and do wait outside the door and even with a designated driver will take you to jail. If by meaning being a dick, you mean asking why they would like for you to wait until they can go down the line and talk to you, then yeah, I guess you deserve it. I have seen this since I was in college here 10 years ago. My roommate now got one leaving the bowling alley and doesn't own a car. His underage, non-drinking girlfriend was walking with him out the door and they ask politely, "Sir have you had anything to drink tonight?" Well, leaving the bar it is hard to lie, especially when you don't think you are going to be getting in any trouble (designated driver) he said yes sir. The cop didn't even ask him how many, just said he was going to jail. My jaw dropped. I hadn't been drinking so I was safe (well it is officer's discretion so as safe as one would think they were). No sobriety tests, nothing! Try to argue all the points how you are being responsible, and they just have that same sh1teating grin as they push your head into the car. Come here and I can prove it, any night of the week. They get their fill and leave. Sorta a buffalo theory, only you have no idea when to leave to be safe. It really, really sucks. Then they post in the local paper how many arrest for PI they had and it looks horrible. They ask for more money to "combat" this "growing" problem. "Statistically", we have a horrible problem with drunks in this town. Well of course, no way to test if they are "drunk". They are already under arrest and tests aren't necessary. Then they tell you, well it's only a $150 ticket and a night in jail. Insult to injury. Maybe this is why I am so biased in my opinion about the police. It is just plain wrong on so many levels. I'll tell you this too, we have a training facility and get cops from all over in my little town. They all hang out at the new Applebee's. Most of the older servers quit because they had to serve these pricks. If I were a good cop in this town, I wouldn't eat at Applebee's.

 

[Evan!]

Actually, there was a bill introduced last session in the VA General Assembly by Morgan Griffith that would have no longer made non-smoking sections in smoking-allowed restaurants mandatory, but it would have reversed the signage requirements from "no smoking" to "smoking permitted". That was a bit of a compromise with the anti-smoking lobby but it would have left the choice with the business in question and done away with a govt. mandated rule on no-smoking sections. Interesting thing about it is Griffith himself is allergic to tobacco smoke but he wants to leave the choice up to the owners of the restaurants and not the state.

The bill got to Gov. Kaine, who then completely gutted it and turned it into a blanket smoking ban. His crusade led to the GA rejecting his changes and Griffith saying that no other anti-smoking measure will have a chance as long as he is governor due to that stunt. We were left with the status quo, no ban but mandatory no-smoking sections if smoking is allowed.

Huh...I had no idea that that went down...I wonder if Griffith was doing that knowing full well that Kaine would rip it to shreds later on. Luckily we live in a state in tobacco country, so I don't see a ban on the horizon, as much as the busybodies would love it...after all, they want the government to do everything for them. Find a place that voluntarily prohibits smoking? That's too much work!

...but I was being a little bit hyperbolic when I said that. Sure, once in awhile, that "one in a million" politician (see: Ron Paul) will introduce libertypromoting measures, but rarely do they make it through the legislature to become law.

 

[Evan!]

I still don't believe some of these stories--I am sure their were extenuating circumstances that got these guys in trouble. You have to be acting drunk to get noticed by a cop. You have to be doing something out of the ordinary to get noticed. No cop is going to go through with a PI charge for someone near a .06 unless that person is being a dick or something. Just my .02.

These stories of predatory PI arrests outside (or inside) bars aren't just old wives tales. They're well-documented, and the cops won't deny what they've done. I know it sounds pretty crazy, but it happens more than we'd like to think it does. All a cop has to do is suspect drinking, and bam, you spend the night in jail and pay the jurisdiction a bunch of money.

 

[Dude]

I think the hold-up I'm having is that these seem to be isolated events. Possibly the rules are enforced mroe strictly in these areas because of prior problems. College towns, rednecks, etc. I don't know.

I'm sticking to my guns, their is always a second side to the story. You just don't get popped while you walk out of a bar with a ride to jail and a fine for having one beer. Something does not add up. Again, the only thing I can concur logically is that it may be from prior incidents in that city, repeat offenders, whatever.

One sip of alcohol and I can go to jail and get a fine? Sorry, I just don't see that standing up in court. I'd demand a blood test, and I'd take that evidence in front of a judge in a second.

I know for certain if I lived in Ada, OK, I'd be all over my congressman like white on rice. That is ridiculous, it goes as far as cruel and unusual punishment and a form of entrapment.

Just like sleeping in your car with your keys under the tire. That could be fought in court for illegal seizure or something. You had no ability to move the car, the cops couldn't prove otherwise. Unless there is strong evidence of a problem, a case like that would get dropped in court.

 

[Dude]

Further proof to my theory that their are always 2 sides to the story, the public intoxication law in TX states that the definition of "Public intoxication" is .08 or more. This took 10 seconds on a google search to find the law.

Something isn't adding up here guys.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

I dunno about one beer, but my friend was in Alabama, piss drunk, and walking home... stumbling, when he got busted. It was the stumbling that made the cops questions him. When they saw he was drunk, they took him to jail. He did not attack anyone, curse at them, or anything against the law other than being drunk... in public.

 

[uglygoat]

and i've picked many of my friends up off the ground, in plain view of cops in cleveland oh, stuffed them in the car and drove off, with out them giving me a second glance. sometimes they'll ask, 'is he ok' to which i reply, 'yep, he's fine' and end of conversation. might be the local, might also be how many drunks stumble around cleveland oh, might be how you respond to the cops too...

 

[WortMonger]

The only prior incidents would be that they don't like drinking in this town and have a church on every corner (I am Christian just showing how much overly-so the town seems to be). The more they pop people the less business the bars get and they shut down. Then two more open up and they start on them. I don't know what the laws are literally in Oklahoma, but if the judges and lawyers all say the same thing, one would assume they are f*&ked up. I know they (cops) are never afraid to openly say they don't have to give you any type of test. If they know you have been drinking (no definition other than drinking) then they can take you to jail if you are in the public. You can fight them in court, but the judge I talked to even said, "It's their word against yours, and you have no idea what they put in their report." They will tell you it is "easier" and less trouble to just pay the fine and go on. They even go so far as to say it isn't right, I can't believe this from a district judge (who doesn't handle these anyway). Even my dad says, well cousin Eric was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I asked where is the right place, and he said apparently nowhere but the private establishments. I am a country clubber (golf) and it is the only place I like to go drink, and ***** about stuff like this, lol. I just wanted to clarify the fact that these people didn't deserve it, but I have seen a few that did. They use those few as the excuse to bust a patty-wagon load every night and make this college town look unappealing to anyone coming to college or wanting to live here. I don't think the a-holes are smart enough to understand that these kids grow up and have to do business with these cops later in life. The cops (all bad ones anyway) know they are being dicks, they don't care. When the cop gets his third divorce (for being a dick at home too I guess) and they have to go find a lawyer, that is the only time I pray for them to get what they gave. Small town, they have to hire someone that they probably messed over, or messed someone over close to that person. Then the lawyer can "just be doing his job" when he messes up and the other attorney takes the cops ass to the cleaners. Funny how the world turns. There is one judge in my town notorious for giving cops and multiple divorce men the proverbial shaft when it comes to awards. I guess there is a little sense of justice out there. Then there is God (who I let handle all my vengeance ). You are right Dude, it is really messed up here on so many levels. I don't know why I ever moved back.

 

[Cheesefood]

I love how smoker's cite their "right to smoke" and don't consider my "right to be in a non-smoking facility". If you had a child in a wheel chair and took him to a restaurant that didn't have a wheel chair ramp, wouldn't you be upset? How about if your child has asthma? Now you're not upset because his right to breathe clean air isn't as important as someone's right to pollute?

How do you feel about this:

 

[WortMonger]

I hate pollution!!!!!!!!!!!!