Steve Wertz wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 00:05:24 GMT, JETman <jetassoc@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >Instead of beating the same ol' daid hoss, how's about our legislature
> >critters passing a law getting ice cold beer out of convenience stores.
> >That is if they are really serious about cutting down on DWI's...
>
> Where the hell are they gonna sell beer then State-run beer
> distibutors?
>
> I think you mean gas stations, or you're just insane.
>
> -sw
Liquor store like any other civilized entity. And end to the extreme
convenience will cut down subtantially on the abuse. Texas has the
highest per capita DWI deaths in the nation.
Of course there is that little issue of a revenoo shortfall...
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:04:32 GMT, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <terra@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> JETman wrote:
>>> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> JETman wrote:
>>>>> Instead of beating the same ol' daid hoss, how's about our
>>>>> legislature critters passing a law getting ice cold beer out of
>>>>> convenience stores.
>>>>> That is if they are really serious about cutting down on DWI's...
>>>>
>>>> Yesiree, right on top of the conversation, as usual, genius. Don't
>>>> bother reading the thread. Just top post something completely off
>>>> the topic in response to the subject line, not anything that has
>>>> been said so far. Sheesh.
>>>>
>>>> Go back to sleep. You're not missing anything. Well, nothing you
>>>> might understand, anyway.
>>
>>> Oh, and obviously you are too fuzzed out to check the subject line,
>>> eh?
>>>
>>> That little toy taxing your remaining spongy gray matter??
>>
>> <WHIZZZZZZ>
>>
>> That's the sound of yet another point flying undetected over your
>> addled pate. Nice job. You should be every so proud. Next week we'll
>> work on tableware, as in how to keep it our of your eye.
>
> He made a pretty good point
<snip>
That had nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation. No wonder you
thought it clever.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>
> Steve Wertz wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:04:32 GMT, "Dusty Rhodes"
> > <terra@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >> JETman wrote:
> >>> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> JETman wrote:
> >>>>> Instead of beating the same ol' daid hoss, how's about our
> >>>>> legislature critters passing a law getting ice cold beer out of
> >>>>> convenience stores.
> >>>>> That is if they are really serious about cutting down on DWI's...
> >>>>
> >>>> Yesiree, right on top of the conversation, as usual, genius. Don't
> >>>> bother reading the thread. Just top post something completely off
> >>>> the topic in response to the subject line, not anything that has
> >>>> been said so far. Sheesh.
> >>>>
> >>>> Go back to sleep. You're not missing anything. Well, nothing you
> >>>> might understand, anyway.
> >>
> >>> Oh, and obviously you are too fuzzed out to check the subject line,
> >>> eh?
> >>>
> >>> That little toy taxing your remaining spongy gray matter??
> >>
> >> <WHIZZZZZZ>
> >>
> >> That's the sound of yet another point flying undetected over your
> >> addled pate. Nice job. You should be every so proud. Next week we'll
> >> work on tableware, as in how to keep it our of your eye.
> >
> > He made a pretty good point
>
> <snip>
>
> That had nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation. No wonder you
> thought it clever.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dusty
So driving the dialog in the direction of the subject heading has
nothing to do with the subject at hand, eh?
One really has to wonder just *how* many excuses, (which I suppose *you*
would call reasons), exist in your ever changing inventory???
<snort>
--
Regards,
JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)
Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......
In article <WHLJa.17827$hV.901643@no-spam>,
SlinkyToy <slinky@no-spam> wrote:
>Well and good, but how about maybe they do some traffic law enforcement
>between drunk stops?
With the .08% BAC law, routine traffic stops are where the cops
are going to find a good chunk of DWI offenders. Speeding, broken
lights, whatever. If the cop smells alcohol on your breath, you'll
be taking the field sobriety test(if you want).
From stats I'm familiar with, ~83% of traffic fatalities are caused
by sober drivers. 1.3% from drivers with a BAC btw .08 and .10%.
12.4% by drivers with a BAC of .15% or greater. MADD(and the NHTSA) play fast
and loose with stats so approach most of their propaganda as lies.
Check out www.ridl.us to see what they found when they analyzed
the NHTSA database.
You are not required to do the field sobriety test or breath test.
If you don't take the tests, you lose your license for 6 months.
Recently, a woman was acquited of DUI as the machines they use
to analyze your breath over-report the BAC of women.
Before you start typing up death threats, I do not condone driving
while drunk. MADD has pushed the feds to withhold highway funds from
states that don't lower the BAC to .08%. Basically, they're targeting
social drinkers. Lots of money there but no stats exist to show that
arresting low-BAC drivers is going to save many lives(but it will
ruin quit a few).
The best thing to do would be to raise the driving age to 25. That's not
gonna happen. Why not have kids complete a DWI class before they
can get a license or learners permit? Young drivers make up a large
chunk of DWI fatalities. This knowledge would be a help to them.
And wear a seatbelt! Many DWI fatalities would have survived if they
had their seatbelt on.
--
vince
/* Visit the home of the Rancid Tofu Experience */
/* http://www.mp3.com/rancidtofuexperience */
Oh, very punny :)
(rarely I'm slow on the uptake -- I saw a space where there wasn't one!)
"Dusty Rhodes" <terra@no-spam> wrote in message
news:yE2Ka.26139$TJ.1157796@no-spam
> SlinkyToy wrote:
> >>
> >> But shouldn't it really be LITTLEpenismobiles?
> >>
In article <aISdnUhoKcn8dWWjXTWJig@no-spam>, vince <vince@no-spam> wrote:
>
>From stats I'm familiar with, ~83% of traffic fatalities are caused
>by sober drivers. 1.3% from drivers with a BAC btw .08 and .10%.
>12.4% by drivers with a BAC of .15% or greater. MADD(and the NHTSA) play fast
>and loose with stats so approach most of their propaganda as lies.
>Check out www.ridl.us to see what they found when they analyzed
>the NHTSA database.
I need to correct myself here. The NHTSA data used to generate these
statistics does not include any data on causation. Thus, I should
have typed "~83% of traffic fatalities "involve" sober drivers...".
This really is an important distinction because a sober driver causing
a fatality where the other driver had alcohol in their bloodstream would
be catagorized as an alcohol-related fatality by the NHTSA/MADD. Also,
drunken pedestrians killed while attempting to cross a freeway(for
example) are also counted as an alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
--
vince
/* Visit the home of the Rancid Tofu Experience */
/* http://www.mp3.com/rancidtofuexperience */
JETman wrote:
> So driving the dialog in the direction of the subject heading has
> nothing to do with the subject at hand, eh?
You're not driving, moron. You didn't start the conversation, nor did you
participate in the conversation. You're just a passenger farting crap.
Damn back seat drivers. STFU, already.
Cheers,
Dusty
vince@no-spam (vince) wrote in message news:<J4KcnUI17NqcgGSjXTWJkg@no-spam>...
> In article <aISdnUhoKcn8dWWjXTWJig@no-spam>, vince <vince@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >From stats I'm familiar with, ~83% of traffic fatalities are caused
> >by sober drivers. 1.3% from drivers with a BAC btw .08 and .10%.
> >12.4% by drivers with a BAC of .15% or greater. MADD(and the NHTSA) play fast
> >and loose with stats so approach most of their propaganda as lies.
> >Check out www.ridl.us to see what they found when they analyzed
> >the NHTSA database.
>
> I need to correct myself here. The NHTSA data used to generate these
> statistics does not include any data on causation. Thus, I should
> have typed "~83% of traffic fatalities "involve" sober drivers...".
>
> This really is an important distinction because a sober driver causing
> a fatality where the other driver had alcohol in their bloodstream would
> be catagorized as an alcohol-related fatality by the NHTSA/MADD. Also,
> drunken pedestrians killed while attempting to cross a freeway(for
> example) are also counted as an alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
MADD can kiss my white pimply ass. They are the CLASSIC example of
the 'slippery slope' politics that we libertarians constantly rail
against...how long has MADD been lobbying, whining, pissing and
moaning about tougher DWI laws when the BAC limit was .10? 25 years?
Didn't work -- we still had drunks on the highway. Now, thanks to
MADD, BAC is .08 and we STILL have drunks on the highway. Give it a
few years folks, we'll be down to .06, then .04, and finally, if you
so much as take a swig of a beer in or around your car, you're going
to get slapped with a DWI. This latest round of asinine nonesense
about open containers is yet another example of nosey busy-bodies with
too much time on their hands deciding that they are morally superior
to everyone else, and that passengers now, PASSENGERS, for crying out
loud.... in the back seats of our vehicles simply can't be trusted to
drink, even if the driver isn't. Pure-d BULL FUCKIN' SHIT. Thank you,
MADD, for showing all of us what happens when pompous, arrogant,
holier-than-thou church ladies scare the common sense out of average
citizens.
Dave A.
lonestar_libertarian@no-spam (Dave Austin) wrote in message news:<4fec2fa3.0306260531.4c7fedbd@no-spam>...
> MADD can kiss my white pimply ass. They are the CLASSIC example of
> the 'slippery slope' politics that we libertarians constantly rail
> against...how long has MADD been lobbying, whining, pissing and
> moaning about tougher DWI laws when the BAC limit was .10? 25 years?
> Didn't work -- we still had drunks on the highway. Now, thanks to
> MADD, BAC is .08 and we STILL have drunks on the highway. Give it a
> few years folks, we'll be down to .06, then .04, and finally, if you
> so much as take a swig of a beer in or around your car, you're going
> to get slapped with a DWI. This latest round of asinine nonesense
> about open containers is yet another example of nosey busy-bodies with
> too much time on their hands deciding that they are morally superior
> to everyone else, and that passengers now, PASSENGERS, for crying out
> loud.... in the back seats of our vehicles simply can't be trusted to
> drink, even if the driver isn't. Pure-d BULL FUCKIN' SHIT. Thank you,
> MADD, for showing all of us what happens when pompous, arrogant,
> holier-than-thou church ladies scare the common sense out of average
> citizens.
Amen, brah. MADD's ultimate agenda is a total repeal of the 21st
Amendment (which repealed Prohibition). I guess they want people to
die senseless deaths from organized crime. What's next after that? The
CSPI pressuring Congress into banning fatty foods, and PETA pressuring
Congress into banning all animal-based foods and therefore forcing
veganism on every single citizen? I also think that eventually there
will be a zero tolerance (IOW, a trace amount) DUI standard.
"Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith
Johnson...Junior" <anticorpoutlaw@no-spam> wrote in message
news:75ffe67b.0306261636.5722455@no-spam
> lonestar_libertarian@no-spam (Dave Austin) wrote in message
news:<4fec2fa3.0306260531.4c7fedbd@no-spam>...
> > MADD can kiss my white pimply ass. They are the CLASSIC example of
> > the 'slippery slope' politics that we libertarians constantly rail
> > against...how long has MADD been lobbying, whining, pissing and
> > moaning about tougher DWI laws when the BAC limit was .10? 25 years?
> > Didn't work -- we still had drunks on the highway. Now, thanks to
> > MADD, BAC is .08 and we STILL have drunks on the highway. Give it a
> > few years folks, we'll be down to .06, then .04, and finally, if you
> > so much as take a swig of a beer in or around your car, you're going
> > to get slapped with a DWI. This latest round of asinine nonesense
> > about open containers is yet another example of nosey busy-bodies with
> > too much time on their hands deciding that they are morally superior
> > to everyone else, and that passengers now, PASSENGERS, for crying out
> > loud.... in the back seats of our vehicles simply can't be trusted to
> > drink, even if the driver isn't. Pure-d BULL FUCKIN' SHIT. Thank you,
> > MADD, for showing all of us what happens when pompous, arrogant,
> > holier-than-thou church ladies scare the common sense out of average
> > citizens.
>
> Amen, brah. MADD's ultimate agenda is a total repeal of the 21st
> Amendment (which repealed Prohibition). I guess they want people to
> die senseless deaths from organized crime. What's next after that? The
> CSPI pressuring Congress into banning fatty foods, and PETA pressuring
> Congress into banning all animal-based foods and therefore forcing
> veganism on every single citizen? I also think that eventually there
> will be a zero tolerance (IOW, a trace amount) DUI standard.
About 10 years ago Road & Track tested MADD's alcohol intake "standards"
which MADD ascertains that if your intake is equal to or less than their
guidelines, then you'll be within the law. At the time, their guidelines
sounded reasonable, something like a drink an hour. Well, R&T's test found
that if you follow MADD's guidelines, you'll end up in the slammer if pulled
over. Does MADD skew their suggestions so that everyone who drinks
potentially gets arrested? I'm suspicious.
JETman <jetassoc@no-spam> babbled and bored us in
news:3EF796CF.E4CD946C@no-spam
> Instead of beating the same ol' daid hoss, how's about our legislature
> critters passing a law getting ice cold beer out of convenience stores.
> That is if they are really serious about cutting down on DWI's...
>
> JT
>
>
That's actually a great idea.
And lets do more!
Why we could make the sale of all alchohol products illegal, and to make sure
no one uses alchohol, we can have manditory work, traveling, school, and
government office alchohol tests and if that won't stop the bastards from
drinking, we can make it the death penalty for selling alchohol.
....
Now insert the word "drugs" in there instead of alchohol and you can see how
well that has worked or would work.
Yah, just what we need, more nanny laws, more government power and less
personal freedom.
Why don't you people insert the idea of "personal responsibility" into the
mess?
--
-Mapi
The Mapanari of Usenet.