Intrusion

[ruckman101]

I'm a lush. And fortunately, Cheryle is my designated driver Lab nights. Or any night, even one or two, Cheryle gets the keys. Thank you Cheryle.

DUII laws are but one aspect of a larger social health issue, as drug laws in general shouldn't be addressed by labeling users criminal, but rather a health issue. Same thing, yet, for roughly ten percent of our population, alcohol use becomes a debilitating destruction of family, career and health, as any addiction can become whether gambling, heroin, meth, social networking, gaming, eating and on and on. For small percentages of our society, almost anything can become life destroying. Amy Winehouse comes to mind.

Are we such cold individualist (I got mine, fuck you) bastards that we have no concern for those in our society that are hurting? No hand offered to support and help those suffering the afflictions of addiction? In our current economic strifes, addictions are sure to rise. Isn't ignoring the pains of our neighbors an act of complicity? DUII laws can serve as an intervention. There's my complicity Steve.

Billy Bragg expressed it well regarding Amy. Just a couple minutes.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/8 ... l_implicit

What brought this on? Actually it was an interview with Ken Burns locally discussing his new six hour documentary on Prohibition. History points to the fact that there is nothing new in this world but history we haven't learned. Wedge issues, legislating morality, the parallels are chilling. Fairly lengthy, but insightful, considering the direction this thread has turned.

http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/k ... ohibition/


I'm having another beer, but not driving anywhere, I could, but I'm aware of the consequences, so choose not to,
neal

[ruckman101]

Oops, just have to add this, break it up a bit, brevity. Pat MacDonald, solo, of Timbuk 3 origin. Still wearing my shades, ooo, bright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2IpwVoaJGQ


neal

[BellePlaine]

Regarding the drunk driving laws, this for me is sound reasoning why drunk driving laws are acceptable.

Your reasoning tries to gives the drunk a right he doesn't have. The right to drive drunk. You don't even have the right to drive. It’s a privilege that you enter to in a contract with the state. That's why they can mandate you have to have liability insurance. That's why they can enforce traffic laws. These points alone flaw your logic.

I don't own the road, Russell doesn't own the road, nor does Steve. We own it together making it public property not private.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Our unalienable rights are inherent to ourselves on our private property, and these freedoms do not necessarily translate to the same extent on public property. Those rights are endowed by the state government, who is of the people, but not the individual.

Steve, after thinking more about it, I've come full circle. I believe, as I first believed, that...

Anybody can drive drunk all day long without fear of getting in trouble with the law... as long as it's on their own private property. But the driver's license that you carry is actually a contract between you and your state government that acknowledges that you've agreed to the terms if you are going to drive on our roads.

Killing is the crime and that is the only law that we need to apply to activities on private property. It would an over reach to be pulled over for deathless drunk driving on your on land. To say, though, that the concept that killing is a crime could regulate driving activities wouldn't work, I don't think. Driving on public roads too complex... there has got to be specific rules to help keep me from accidently killing someone else.

I do, however, have a problem with portions of the contracts/licenses. I think that 0.08 BAC is impossible to gauge. My speedometer tells me when I'm speeding but my body does not tell me when I'm at 0.081. And I have a problem with seatbelt/helmet laws. Wearing a seatbelt seems like a choice that shouldn't effect someone else’s' safety. But I understand that you are paying for my healthcare, thank you very little, so I get that.

This has been a nice and challenging thread. Thanks everyone.

[RussellK]

And what about these new laws telling young men they can't sag their pants!

[steve74baywin]

Well, not much more I can add. I appreciate everyones thoughts.
There is one thing I would mention, I believe that overall it would be better for mankind if
people did shift to more love instead of fear. That would probably end up with less people driving drunk, and less punishment for those who did. I think that is the only way mankind can evolve to a better point. Trust and love vs fear and punishment. I do realize we are not there yet. To some point much of the opinions expressed here confirm that.

And what about these new laws telling young men they can't sag their pants!

Are you serious? There isn't really a law for that?
I feel it shouldn't even be mandatory that people wear clothes. Yet I am not a nudist. I just think people need to get over it, or make the adjustment in themselves to live with even nude people walking and driving around.
Sometimes I wonder why I am always in the minority. I appreciate being different.

Neil, I don't drive over a .08. The last place I lived I drank at home, I would suggest my friends drink less or wait after the last beer, but few if any did.
Now that I moved I had to visit my best bud at his place, he had a stroke last month. I had 3.5 beers over four hours, and then I waited one more hour after the last beer before I took the 7 minute drive home. I do this because of the DUI laws. If there was no such thing I would not worry about 4 beers in 4 hours. I still drive better than most.

[ruckman101]

Mixed messages.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/New-OR-li ... 52113.html


neal

[RussellK]

And what about these new laws telling young men they can't sag their pants!

Are you serious? There isn't really a law for that?

Yep. As strange as it is apparently we don't have enough to worry about. Those young men and their funny pants with the boxers hanging out can get tickets in towns all across America. Today I'm sportin' my Flintstones boxers. That information must be upsetting to some folks. Next, those funny shoes with the toes!

[ruckman101]

And what about these new laws telling young men they can't sag their pants!

Are you serious? There isn't really a law for that?

Yep. As strange as it is apparently we don't have enough to worry about. Those young men and their funny pants with the boxers hanging out can get tickets in towns all across America. Today I'm sportin' my Flintstones boxers. That information must be upsetting to some folks. Next, those funny shoes with the toes!

Our military already banned those toed shoes.


neal

[Sylvester]

Our military already banned those toed shoes.


neal

Interesting, they must have just done that, my commander and our unit training adviser wear them for running. Wait till I tell them there is an AFI against it.

[ruckman101]

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... itary.html

Heard it somewhere. Recent.

Don't know what an AFI is, no military experience. No doubt there are layers of concerns/protocol.


neal

[Sylvester]

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... itary.html

Heard it somewhere. Recent.

Don't know what an AFI is, no military experience. No doubt there are layers of concerns/protocol.


neal

AFI= Air Force Instruction. We don't have regulations anymore, just instructions. I will see next week if that Army ban is armed forces wide. I bet it is, we in the Air Force can only do PT in our authorized PT gear. Talk about intrusion.

[ruckman101]

So baggy pants are right out.

Don't know about the claims of the manufacturers of toed foot wear, they sound as convincing as the Earth Shoe folks, at least for a concrete urban environment, but for a broader application, multi-toed seem much better suited.

At the same time, image of professionalism? Those things are a bit freakish.

A webbed version would be uber cool, but still disturbingly freakish in appearance for everyday wear. Might even get you kicked out of Walmart.


neal

[steve74baywin]

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... itary.html

Heard it somewhere. Recent.

Don't know what an AFI is, no military experience. No doubt there are layers of concerns/protocol.


neal

Looks like they banned them from PT, not civilian attire. Maybe they feel it is a safety thing, but the article
said "distracts from a military professional image". That seems a bit closed minded, lack of multi-level thought.
Although they do require PT uniforms, I believe the only thing they allowed individual choice in was the
footwear, I think they recognized the value in different running shoes for different people as a health benifit.
So on second thought, it probably follows suit, they want people doing PT in uniform, probably for the same
reason they have uniforms in the first place, allowed people to pick a running shoes best for them, I suppose it
falls in line to regulate that. The army I believe does PT almost every day no matter years of service or rank.