And you think Random DWI Checks are Bad....

[PeteOz77]

Big Brother speed control to be trialled
Wednesday Jan 9 05:58 AEDT
State governments are set to trial a device that can automatically slow a speeding car using satellite technology.

The Australasian Intelligent Speed Adaptation initiative could first be trialled in Victoria, The Herald Sun reported.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, several Victorian ministers, a former Victorian coroner and 45 other participants would be the first to try the speed reduction system, the report said.

All state and territory governments and the New Zealand government have been in talks to introduce the system.




Other trials are planned this year in NSW and Western Australia, the report said.

The system would cost between $700 and $2,000 per vehicle and would first be fitted to fleet cars, the Herald Sun said.

The technology uses GPS and a database that identifies speed limits on all roads and operates on three levels.

Drivers get an audible warning they are over the limit at level one.

At level two, the device cuts power to the engine to prevent the driver from speeding, but the system can be adjusted or overridden.

At level three, the system cannot be switched off or adjusted and all speeding is cut.

The device could be fitted to repeat speeding offenders, or to all vehicles.

A spokeswoman for Roads Minister Tim Pallas would not confirm any trial, but Queensland Transport Minister John Mickel said his government was involved in the talks.

"Technology is evolving all the time with these things, and my view with road safety is to see what the latest technology is and see if we can improve safety.

Queensland Transport vehicle safety consultant Michael Paine said the system could cut the number of serious accidents by 20 per cent.

The Herald Sun quoted an unnamed Victorian government website, which estimated the number of fatalities could be cut by almost 60 per cent if it was fitted to all cars.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=78950

 

[Bobby_M]

Interesting tie in to the roadblock thread but it's rather different. This sounds like a way to limit liabilities in a company heavily based on driving like shipping companies, maintanence, taxis, etc. If your employer tells you not to speed because the vehicle "knows" how fast you should be going, you have every right to not take the job. It would similar to random drug tests as part of employment.

Stopping cars with no probable cause is a little different.

 

[PeteOz77]

Perhaps you missed this part..

The Herald Sun quoted an unnamed Victorian government website, which estimated the number of fatalities could be cut by almost 60 per cent if it was fitted to ALL cars.

They aren't just talking about corporate vehicles.. that's just a way to test and implement it. I can see it being a standard requirement on all registered vehicles in the future... Why not? It's illegal to speed, so why wouldn't the Gov make it impossible for you to do it?

In that scenario, this is far worse than Random DWI checks.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Think about this for a second, if you don't like freedom don't even read any further.
"My freedom is more important than your good idea" -bumper sticker

true in many situations...

Here in the States we are getting rid of the constitution it seems. I just wish that the people that want to infringe on other peoples rights because they dont believe in things such as the Bill of Rights would go live somewhere where their ideas were acceptable such as communist china! It's ok if you think it's important to stop everyone and search them, just take your ideas somewhere else... Yes I am talking about the mandatory searches and roadblocks going on here, anybody ever hear of the fourth amendment??????

 

[Kevin Dean]

Cars now-a-days have a computer in them.

I've LONG held that the governments of the world were "in bed" with software makers and have since demanded access to the source code for all of the applications I'm using, from my operating system down to my mouse drivers.

You can bet your ass that I'm also evaluating the software running on my car's computer and replacing it, where possible with Free Software that I'm still in control of.

If that fails, I like to remind myself that the Founders of the US kept us armed for a reason...

 

[brauhaus]

newer cars have computers that record if you wear a seatbelt or not, speed, etc. so if you are involved in an accident, this little "black box for cars" can give the authorities more of an idea what went wrong.

i think it makes sense for those driving vehicles that say, "How's my driving?" but then again, it usually isn't the fleet driver's fault, it's the ******* that cuts off, tailgates, stops dead in front of a tractor trailer not realizing that fleet vehicles of that size cannot stop as quickly or maneuver as nimbly as the average car...

you can't prevent stupidity no matter how rigged something is. dumb people just exist and no computer is going to solve that.

 

[skinfiddler]

Think about this for a second, if you don't like freedom don't even read any further.
"My freedom is more important than your good idea" -bumper sticker

true in many situations...

Here in the States we are getting rid of the constitution it seems. I just wish that the people that want to infringe on other peoples rights because they dont believe in things such as the Bill of Rights would go live somewhere where their ideas were acceptable such as communist china! It's ok if you think it's important to stop everyone and search them, just take your ideas somewhere else... Yes I am talking about the mandatory searches and roadblocks going on here, anybody ever hear of the fourth amendment??????

You got it. We've already given over to the doers of good: Search and siezure, eminent domain, usurpation of state law by federal, politics-in-search-of science issues (like acid rain, Radon passive smoke, global warming er, now "climate change"etc.) are all examples. For too many it has become OK to tax or outlaw what the 'other group" does in the interest of (perceived) public good.

The overlords will decide what kind of car you can or cannot drive and how fast you can drive it; what the fat, sodium or sugar content of your food will be and when you may buy it; what will be allowed in your restaurant/bar; to what extent you may defend yourself etc.

Maybe in order to make sure how much you are drinking ONLY alcohol purchased from licenses sellers to registered customers should be allowed. None of this making it yourself crap. Because we have determined that collectively we will be better for it.

Hope no one minds when their own particular interest is the target, because if you've gone along with any of it in the past, you haven't a leg to stand on. The principles have already been violated.

BTW, Pete, how are you enjoying your Mr Rudd?

JW

 

[Bobby_M]

I agree you can't pick and choose which aspects of life the government can infringe on and or take total control over. You set the precedence and live with the consequences.

Just thinking outloud, but why all the talk of spendy GPS interaction. Sure it's a neat trick for the car to know what the local speed limit is but if government is going to step in and make the car "behave", the easiest and first step would be to limit the car's speed to the maximum speed allowed in the state the car is registered in. For NJ it would be 65.

The government would likely never do this because there goes the speeding ticket revenues and inflated insurance premiums.

The big difference between this and the DUI roadblocks; applying speed limiting technology would likely be done accross the board or perhaps to repeat speeding offenders, not people picked at random for no good reason.

 

[beergears]

You can bet your ass that I'm also evaluating the software running on my car's computer and replacing it, where possible with Free Software that I'm still in control of.

Yep. We will see, or are seeing the emergence of at least two classes of people, the ones who have retained control/found alternatives to the "common setup", and the others.


I am saving wine bottles neck foil to make a hat, just in case...

 

[mot]

IMHO that is the dumbest thing and infringent on my rights that I have ever heard.

and them saying if this was in all cars that it would reduce fatalities by 60% that is complete BS

 

[merc]

Why not?? The Austrailian government has nearly disarmmed all of their "subjects," or made it extremely expensive to own firearms. First everyone had to register all of their firearms, or face penalties. Then they outlaw a particular class of firearms, and make anyone who has a firearm in that class to turn it in, so it can be destroyed. Then they outlaw another class, and make those folks turn in those firearms. And when you turn it in, you receive no compensation. One bloke I've chatted with on a gun forum payed dearly to own a .50 caliber Desert Eagle (somewhere in the neighborhood of $6000 Aus). Then .50 caliber weapons were banned. He paid a chunk again for the conversion to .44 magnum (barrel and magazine swap on the DE) and to re-register the gun in it's new caliber. Later on he was forced to give up the gun as it was in a class that was outlawed all together.

They'll start as a test, and get the biggest bugs worked out. Then they'll mandate it on government fleet vehicles. Then on public transportation. Pretty soon everyone will need to have it retrofitted on their personal vehicle before it can be reregistered.

And I honestly believe the U.K., Canada, and U.S. would probably follow suit within a decade or so of Austrailia.

Sorry about the rant, but freedoms mean a lot to me. Now I'll go back to stockpiling guns/ammo/food/and parts for my 1961 Baja Bug (which can barely hit 65 mph to begin with...).

 

[mot]

Why not?? The Austrailian government has nearly disarmmed all of their "subjects," or made it extremely expensive to own firearms. First everyone had to register all of their firearms, or face penalties. Then they outlaw a particular class of firearms, and make anyone who has a firearm in that class to turn it in, so it can be destroyed. Then they outlaw another class, and make those folks turn in those firearms. And when you turn it in, you receive no compensation. One bloke I've chatted with on a gun forum payed dearly to own a .50 caliber Desert Eagle (somewhere in the neighborhood of $6000 Aus). Then .50 caliber weapons were banned. He paid a chunk again for the conversion to .44 magnum (barrel and magazine swap on the DE) and to re-register the gun in it's new caliber. Later on he was forced to give up the gun as it was in a class that was outlawed all together.

They'll start as a test, and get the biggest bugs worked out. Then they'll mandate it on government fleet vehicles. Then on public transportation. Pretty soon everyone will need to have it retrofitted on their personal vehicle before it can be reregistered.

And I honestly believe the U.K., Canada, and U.S. would probably follow suit within a decade or so of Austrailia.

Sorry about the rant, but freedoms mean a lot to me. Now I'll go back to stockpiling guns/ammo/food/and parts for my 1961 Baja Bug (which can barely hit 65 mph to begin with...).

US constitution clearly states
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[mot]

Cars now-a-days have a computer in them.

I've LONG held that the governments of the world were "in bed" with software makers and have since demanded access to the source code for all of the applications I'm using, from my operating system down to my mouse drivers.

You can bet your ass that I'm also evaluating the software running on my car's computer and replacing it, where possible with Free Software that I'm still in control of.

If that fails, I like to remind myself that the Founders of the US kept us armed for a reason...

there is much more stuff out there that they can track you with than just onstar or somethign like that in your car. I dont see what people hate onstar or something like that for, then there sitting there with a cell phone in there hands not even thinking twice about it

 

[Jester369]

Wonder how long it would take before somebody sued the gov't because they were in an emergency situation and couldn't make their vehicle go fast enough to avoid an accident (I've had to accelerate to prevent accidents before) or couldn't get someone to medical assistance in time (lots of places here in rural VT where it's not feasible to wait for an ambulance).

 

[Melana]

scary stuff.

 

[cheezydemon]

I agree with all that has been said here EXCEPT: that second hand smoke, climate change, etc. are issues that politicians have made up or promoted for their own ends.
Second hand smoke? are you insane?

I can just see it "Woman killed by man riding bicycle". She was in a fast car, but it was in a school zone and the car had a gps speed corrector, so the man was able to pedal right up and strangle her despite the fact that the pedal was to the metal and she was desperately trying to escape. (but it is OK because she was blowing 2nd hand smoke at his kids. Justice prevails!)
I love that story.

 

[mot]

there is absolutley no proof that second hand smoke does anything

 

[Kevin Dean]

I dont see what people hate onstar or something like that for, then there sitting there with a cell phone in there hands not even thinking twice about it

I don't think anyone is singling out OnStar service specifically though that IS just one more party who can be intimidated to provide information to the government or corporate interests and violate your privacy. I dont' have OnStar and I refuse to use an EZ Pass Transponder in my car because (it has already happened) that that information is used without warrants by the government for things like divorce hearings and custody cases.

The cell phone analogy was an interesting one, since you quoted me... Ever heard of OpenMoko or the FIC Neo1973? Check it out, it's a sweet little device that, currently, is in development mode - OpenMoko's Neo Base Product Page

This phone is powered by Free Software that you have the right to edit, modify and redistribute. Turn off the GPS capability when you choose to (you can use the debug board or a frequency scanner to prove it's not emitting) or the GPRS daemon to break the connecting with your cell provider. You control the audio subsystems and can see CLEARLY that the microphone is only on when it should be.

I'll have mine on Monday, it's currently in the hands of UPS. Until then, I DON'T have a cell phone. However, one REALLY needs to accept personal responcibility - cell phones use public frequency ranges to broadcast a signal. You don't need a license to listen in on this and so the government doesn't either. You can't reasonably expect a public speech to be off-limits to the government and you can't reasonably expect something broadcasted on public frequency to be anything but public.

If it's sensitive, encrypt it.

 

[mot]

I don't think anyone is singling out OnStar service specifically though that IS just one more party who can be intimidated to provide information to the government or corporate interests and violate your privacy. I dont' have OnStar and I refuse to use an EZ Pass Transponder in my car because (it has already happened) that that information is used without warrants by the government for things like divorce hearings and custody cases.

The cell phone analogy was an interesting one, since you quoted me... Ever heard of OpenMoko or the FIC Neo1973? Check it out, it's a sweet little device that, currently, is in development mode - OpenMoko's Neo Base Product Page

This phone is powered by Free Software that you have the right to edit, modify and redistribute. Turn off the GPS capability when you choose to (you can use the debug board or a frequency scanner to prove it's not emitting) or the GPRS daemon to break the connecting with your cell provider. You control the audio subsystems and can see CLEARLY that the microphone is only on when it should be.

I'll have mine on Monday, it's currently in the hands of UPS. Until then, I DON'T have a cell phone. However, one REALLY needs to accept personal responcibility - cell phones use public frequency ranges to broadcast a signal. You don't need a license to listen in on this and so the government doesn't either. You can't reasonably expect a public speech to be off-limits to the government and you can't reasonably expect something broadcasted on public frequency to be anything but public.

If it's sensitive, encrypt it.

yeah thats cool I wasn intentionally singling you out, that device looks alright, but I will steer away from it until I see it or hear more about it. I dont worry about the gps capabilities on my phone...just I see alot of people complaining about big brother stuff and then dont have any idea what else is going on on how they can be tracked.

 

[Kevin Dean]

yeah thats cool I wasn intentionally singling you out

Didn't really think you were - I just found a great opportunity to plug my newest toy.

I see alot of people complaining about big brother stuff and then dont have any idea what else is going on on how they can be tracked.

Unfortunately, I've found three mindsets. One is like mine - I'm inquisitive by nature and I like learning how things work. For me, the more I learn the more opportunity I see for things (my forte is technology) to be abused. I stand against it and try to keep my control.

Other people tend not to care. For whatever reason, they refuse or simply can't see the implications of things.

Another mentality are those who actually believe that crippling civil liberties is "okay" if there's a "benefit". I've found that the first and third tend to be able to influence the second, but the third usually has more resources to do what they want...

Viva Libre!

 

[david_42]

How about a speeding ticket while snowboarding?

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/article3134330.ece

 

[shafferpilot]

Not going to be popular, but here it goes:

What freedoms or rights are being violated by a speed control system? Random searches are a violation of the 4th amendment. Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Speed control would stop someone who actually was commiting a crime, from commiting a crime. Honestly, the big surprise for me is that any local government would allow that type of system, because it would bankrupt them! Here in the midwest, we have tons of state routes that connect all the little towns together. Every town reduces the speed limit from 55mph to 25mph and there is ALWAYS a local cop sitting right there writing tickets. That's how those towns survive. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time; It's the only way to avoid getting run over. But if everyone were forced to follow the speed limit, I wouldn't mind. Especially if the system were designed properly. It sounds like the speed limiting response of the system would be a stepped thing. So if, to avoid an accident, you have to speed up, you can. You just can't stay above the limit for an extended period of time. I like the sound of it, now if we can just get the beuracracts to implement it right........

 

[mot]

Not going to be popular, but here it goes:

What freedoms or rights are being violated by a speed control system? Random searches are a violation of the 4th amendment. Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Speed control would stop someone who actually was commiting a crime, from commiting a crime. Honestly, the big surprise for me is that any local government would allow that type of system, because it would bankrupt them! Here in the midwest, we have tons of state routes that connect all the little towns together. Every town reduces the speed limit from 55mph to 25mph and there is ALWAYS a local cop sitting right there writing tickets. That's how those towns survive. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time; It's the only way to avoid getting run over. But if everyone were forced to follow the speed limit, I wouldn't mind. Especially if the system were designed properly. It sounds like the speed limiting response of the system would be a stepped thing. So if, to avoid an accident, you have to speed up, you can. You just can't stay above the limit for an extended period of time. I like the sound of it, now if we can just get the beuracracts to implement it right........

it would simply be impossible to do

 

[Kevin Dean]

What freedoms or rights are being violated by a speed control system?

Amendment IV to the United States Constitution - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A basic right of property ownership is the right to use that property for things in which is was not directly intended - for instance you can dismantle your toaster and make a foam cutter if you so choose, or use your spoons to launch Jello balls across the living room.

The Constitution says that the government can not deprive me of my rights to property (such as racing on private property or using your car as an escape vehicle when the government declares publishing criticism of the government to be illegal) WITHOUT due process - if the system prevents me from committing a crime it can't be due process since no crime was committed. It opens up that Minority Report like pandora's box of pre-crime. To cripple your car because you MIGHT speed uses the SAME logic as allowing your free use of your hands because you MIGHT hit someone with them.

This is, of course, TOTALLY ignoring the fact that speed limits have been found, in many cases, to increase rather than DECREASE the likelyhood of accidents and the only CONSISTANLY noteworthy thing speed limits do are raise revenue via tickets. The State of Virginia is VERY clear that the reason the roadways are so heavily regulated is because it's a great source of income.

 

[DeathBrewer]

goddamnit, i knew there was a reason i skipped over this thread before. i didn't feel like being angry

 

[PeteOz77]

BTW, Pete, how are you enjoying your Mr Rudd?

JW

He's not MY Mr Rudd, mate, I didn't vote for him

He's running around like an idiot changing everything he can, just for the sake of change... but then that's how he got elected. Aussies are a fickle lot, and they decided "Let's give the other guys a chance now and see how they run the country" I prefer the "Better the Devil you know" theory better, but what can you do?

It's going to be an interesting 3 years...

 

[shafferpilot]

Amendment IV to the United States Constitution - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A basic right of property ownership is the right to use that property for things in which is was not directly intended - for instance you can dismantle your toaster and make a foam cutter if you so choose, or use your spoons to launch Jello balls across the living room.

The Constitution says that the government can not deprive me of my rights to property (such as racing on private property or using your car as an escape vehicle when the government declares publishing criticism of the government to be illegal) WITHOUT due process - if the system prevents me from committing a crime it can't be due process since no crime was committed. It opens up that Minority Report like pandora's box of pre-crime. To cripple your car because you MIGHT speed uses the SAME logic as allowing your free use of your hands because you MIGHT hit someone with them.

This is, of course, TOTALLY ignoring the fact that speed limits have been found, in many cases, to increase rather than DECREASE the likelyhood of accidents and the only CONSISTANLY noteworthy thing speed limits do are raise revenue via tickets. The State of Virginia is VERY clear that the reason the roadways are so heavily regulated is because it's a great source of income.

I see your points. I suppose it depends on the exact implementation as to whether or not rights are being violated. Perhaps it's as simple as giving the individual the ability to over-ride the system in the case of an emergency? As I read the text of the original post, I get the impression that the system doesn't do anything until AFTER the person speeds. In that case, the fourth amendment doesn't apply since a "crime" has already been commited. Of course the talk of the bill of rights doesn't directly apply, since this is happening in New Zealand, but I have no doubt we'll see it here soon enough.

 

[Jester369]

there is absolutley no proof that second hand smoke does anything

I gotta disagree on this one. If I spend a half hour in a bar with people smoking, I have trouble breathing. Now, you may say that that is just my problem, and you may be right. But, after that half hour I also come out of that bar smelling like cig-a$$. Would you be ok if people could just walk up to you and spray with a perfume of their choice?

Just sayin

 

[PeteOz77]

there is absolutley no proof that second hand smoke does anything

It smells very very bad.

Second hand smoke doesn't piss me off half as bad as the smokers that seem to feel the best place for their butts is EVERYWHERE. Never been able to understand that attitude. I don't often see someone finish a coke or a candy bar and just FLICK their trash away. Yes it does happen occasionally, but not like the BILLIONS of Butts I see laying around..

BTW, did you see it's now illegal to smoke ANYWHERE indoors in FRANCE? WTF? FRANCE?

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Bobby_M]

Ok, if the act of pre-crime regulation is the problem I suppose you wouldn't be against a signal going to the authorities if you sustain a speed over the speed limit for an unreasonable period of time. I think there's a general fear of being more controlled. Driving is a freeing experience.

You can argue that speed limits don't keep the roads safe because:
1. People ignore the posted limits and crash anyway.
2. People obey the limits but still crash at a rate similar to fast driving.

There is a lot of speculation about having an entire system that not only regulates vehicle speed but also direction and relative spacing. This has the advantage of speeding up transportation but taking ultimate control away from the individuals. Again, another thing law enforcement would never want to see happen.

 

[PeteOz77]

Not going to be popular, but here it goes:

What freedoms or rights are being violated by a speed control system? Random searches are a violation of the 4th amendment. Gun control is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Speed control would stop someone who actually was commiting a crime, from commiting a crime. Honestly, the big surprise for me is that any local government would allow that type of system, because it would bankrupt them! Here in the midwest, we have tons of state routes that connect all the little towns together. Every town reduces the speed limit from 55mph to 25mph and there is ALWAYS a local cop sitting right there writing tickets. That's how those towns survive. Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time; It's the only way to avoid getting run over. But if everyone were forced to follow the speed limit, I wouldn't mind. Especially if the system were designed properly. It sounds like the speed limiting response of the system would be a stepped thing. So if, to avoid an accident, you have to speed up, you can. You just can't stay above the limit for an extended period of time. I like the sound of it, now if we can just get the beuracracts to implement it right........

The discussion really isn't about speeding, it's about "The powers that Be" Or "Big Brother" if you like, forcing everyone to toe the line and do EXACTLY as they are told. Some people see the benefit in that, but I for one believe that it's the rebels, the ones that speak out, act out and think outside the boxes that are responsible for the biggest changes for the good in our world

I tend to think the people like Einstein would not be allowed to be themselves.. TRY to tell me he wouldn't have been diagnosed ADD as a child, and nedicated back to "Normal" so he would have toed the line and fallen into step.. GOOSE STEP if you will.

 

[Joker]

What happens if a person is accelarating to miss something or avoid an accident and this system slows them down?

 

[skinfiddler]

He's not MY Mr Rudd, mate, I didn't vote for him

He's running around like an idiot changing everything he can, just for the sake of change... but then that's how he got elected. Aussies are a fickle lot, and they decided "Let's give the other guys a chance now and see how they run the country" I prefer the "Better the Devil you know" theory better, but what can you do?

It's going to be an interesting 3 years...

I had a lot of respect for John Howard. He seemed to be clear on our threats to the West and certainly didn't knuckle under to the enviro-weenies as far as I could tell. I wish he were here running for POTUS.

We have that whole "change for the sake of change" poison going on here ya know. If the Uberhexe gets elected, we might just get our own Rudd.

 

[Kevin Dean]

Perhaps it's as simple as giving the individual the ability to over-ride the system in the case of an emergency?

Lyle Myhr said it best, I think:

When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.

It wouldn't be okay to me if it was over-rideable in an emergency. To me, we need to defend our rights even when there's not "practical" reason to do so because if we don't, our rights won't be there when there IS a need for them. This means ALL of them (we can't establish precedent that ANY right is "useless" enough to get rid of).

Of course the talk of the bill of rights doesn't directly apply, since this is happening in New Zealand

Somewhat. The Constitution protects most (but not all) of the rights that I personally believe are granted to ALL human beings on the basis of them being human beings. That said, even though their courts don't recognize our Constitution I PERSONALLY think it's a human rights abuse not to protect those rights. Of course, we need to get them back over HERE before we really start speaking up for everyone else.

BTW, did you see it's now illegal to smoke ANYWHERE indoors in FRANCE?

As of February 1st, it will be illegal to smoke indoors unless it's your own home and that's in my home state of Maryland.

 

[PeteOz77]

As of February 1st, it will be illegal to smoke indoors unless it's your own home and that's in my home state of Maryland.

Yeah, but France?

 

[cheezydemon]

I didn't want to jack this thread, so I made no more comment on the second hand smoke. Since others have chimed in, I will say:

I have known very intelligentpeople who smoked. And for some reason the fact that they smoked made them unaware that their smoke harmed others or was in any way inconsiderate. So I will not call someone stupid for denying that second hand smoke is harmful, but I will say that you are deluded by the smoke somehow.

Smoking is banned in all businesses here and is illegal in any home where a child lives. Hell yes. That is wonderful. Anyone who feels that their rights are being infringed on needs a wake up call.

(no, I'm not in France)

 

[skinfiddler]

I didn't want to jack this thread, so I made no more comment on the second hand smoke. Since others have chimed in, I will say:

I have known very intelligentpeople who smoked. And for some reason the fact that they smoked made them unaware that their smoke harmed others or was in any way inconsiderate. So I will not call someone stupid for denying that second hand smoke is harmful, but I will say that you are deluded by the smoke somehow.

Smoking is banned in all businesses here and is illegal in any home where a child lives. Hell yes. That is wonderful. Anyone who feels that their rights are being infringed on needs a wake up call.

25yr nonsmoker here ergo not "deluded by smoke." The fact that smoking is banned is not proof that the science behind the bans is sound. It's all about money and control. Moreover what do the doers of good go after next now that they are accustomed to the big payoffs and taxation? You think they'll declare victory and go home? Who is really "deluded" here?
(That is a rhetorical question).

JW

 

[Zul'jin]

Now I need a gun that can hit an orbiting satellite.

 

[Jester369]

It's all about money and control.
JW

Control, maybe. Money? Who makes money when smokes are banned? Not the govt - they lose tax revenue. Not the cig industry - they lose sales. And I still ask, are you ok with someone coming up to you in a restaurant or bar and spraying you with some foul cologne? Even if you are not a believer in second hand smoke, i don't think anyone will deny the stench that lingers in your clothing and hair after a night out with smokers.

 

[uglygoat]

it's liike the fith element. i hope there's a hot chit like in the movie!

the problem is, like with gun control, the kooks who are gonna commit crimes, be it on the roadway, or with guns, are not gonna follow the law to start with. so the sheeple shouldn't let their rights be stripped back, to fight what ever.