Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 12:48:40 AM2/15/02
to
Read this article about how bush want to raise a private army of ex
us-serviceman to fight the drug trade in south america!!!

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0%2C3858%2C4226092%2C00.html

The hypocrisy is that the biggest drug problem america has is alcohol;
in particular drunk drivers. These criminals kill thousands of
innocent americans each year and injure tens of thousands and cost
billions of $s in property damage and medical bills. But bush doesn't
want to go after those kind of drug criminals no matter how much death
and misery they cause. After all, he and cheney have THREE
CONVICTIONS for drunk driving between them.

valentine michael smith

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 9:26:15 AM2/15/02
to
Paradox: Misinformed people support the war on drugs
and who are their biggest supporters?
Illegal drug dealers who else...

When will they ever learn?

Judy Diarya wrote in message
<13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com>...

Marksman

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 12:00:55 PM2/15/02
to

"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...

Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.


Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 1:16:19 PM2/15/02
to
"valentine michael smith" <bkoe...@home.com> wrote in message news:<bU8b8.60198$Ig2.16...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>...

> Paradox: Misinformed people support the war on drugs
> and who are their biggest supporters?
> Illegal drug dealers who else...
>
> When will they ever learn?
>
I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
namely drunkdrivers?

Fifty1Ford

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 3:13:47 PM2/15/02
to
> Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.

Really?

Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.
You freaking lush.
Drunk.
Hop Head.
Drooling alcoholic.
Three martini lunch-er.

Wife beater.
Child molester.
Glutton.
.
.
.

You idiots will never get it will you?
Nope, because you are too DRUNK to see straight let alone think straight!

LOL!
:)

Fifty1Ford.

"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote in message
news:b9bb8.24767$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...

Marksman

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 3:18:06 PM2/15/02
to

"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in message
news:u6qquln...@corp.supernews.com...

> > Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.
>
> Really?
>
> Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.

I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.

> You freaking lush.
> Drunk.
> Hop Head.
> Drooling alcoholic.
> Three martini lunch-er.

You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.


>
> Wife beater.
> Child molester.
> Glutton.
> .

You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.

> .
> .
>
> You idiots will never get it will you?

You must be talking about LIEberals. No, they will never get it. They only
want free handouts and to be free from any responsibility for their actions.


Fifty1Ford

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 4:26:59 PM2/15/02
to

> > > Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Looks like you have been drinking too much booze.
>
> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
>

Good for you.
Temperance is a virtue.
But why do you assume that anyone who does not believe that the WOD is
something that the US should be involved in is a drug abuser?


> > You freaking lush.
> > Drunk.
> > Hop Head.
> > Drooling alcoholic.
> > Three martini lunch-er.
>
> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.

Sorry, I am not a liberal.
Libertarian, perhaps, liberal, most defiantly not.

>
>
> >
> > Wife beater.
> > Child molester.
> > Glutton.
> > .
>
> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.
>

I am not a liberal.


> > .
> > .
> >
> > You idiots will never get it will you?
>
> You must be talking about LIEberals. No, they will never get it. They only
> want free handouts and to be free from any responsibility for their
actions.
>

You are right they will never get it...
I hate the dirty, corrupt, socialist, "liberal" Dems almost as much as I
hate the selfish, corrupt, fascist, "conservative" Repubs.

And any way..
I was talking about the fascist's who only want government mandated
morality, handouts to corporations, and do not want to allow anyone to have
any personal responsibility in any of their actions.

>to be free from any responsibility for their actions..
I hate that..
Let the drug abusers kill themselves by OD'ing if that's what they want.
We let people drink themselves and smoke themselves to death don't we?
THAT'S personal responsibility.

Get it?

Fifty1Ford.


>
>
>


Peter H Proctor

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 1:51:12 PM2/15/02
to
On 15 Feb 2002 10:16:19 -0800, utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
wrote:


>I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>namely drunkdrivers?

The drug war is not about health or public safety. It is a
Culture War, pure and simple. thus, it is more akin to rooting out
witchcraft and hersy than anything else. Drunk drivers are a
well-understood part of our culture. So they get treated more
leniently.

Dr P

Ethan Straffin

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 5:46:12 PM2/15/02
to
In article <22eb8.24832$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com>,
"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote:

> You are projecting your LIEberal traits onto others again.

Visit <http://home.earthlink.net/~zkkatz/> and get back to us.

I'm no defender of liberals, who can defend themselves. Republicrats
can and will play their superficial sniper games as the country goes to
shit. But grant me this much: one hardly needs to be a liberal to
despise Prohibition II.

Ethan
--
"It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is
diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of
addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging
civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We
all agree on movement towards legalization, even though we may differ
on just how far." -- the editors of the National Review
(including William F. Buckley Jr.), February 12, 1996

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 6:46:20 PM2/15/02
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:51:12 -0500, Peter H Proctor brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

I beg to differ. Culture war was originally part of it, but later on the
Drug War became a financial enterprise. It supports a
law-enforcement/beaurocratic complex that provides room for porkbarrel
projects as well as a *big* artificial tax-funded "industry" that's used to
shore up our crumbling economy.

--
Psychozohedron
Greater Daemon of Eris Discordia
DALnet #ADP
<psychoz...@countercult.org>

"Constructing A Logical Argument," from the alt.atheism FAQ:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 11:28:09 PM2/15/02
to
d...@drproctor.com (Peter H Proctor) wrote in message news:<203C1A2EBE47B0A7.6B24ACCD...@lp.airnews.net>...

That's BS. Murderers are well understood too, but they don't get off
with fines. I think the problem is that so many legislators and now
pres and vp are alkies and drunk drivers. And of course, most
journalists are too. Everybody in a position of power is a drunk
driver so nothing gets done about this very serious drug problem.

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 15, 2002, 11:30:47 PM2/15/02
to
Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.02.15.18....@countercult.org>...

>
> I beg to differ. Culture war was originally part of it, but later on the
> Drug War became a financial enterprise. It supports a
> law-enforcement/beaurocratic complex that provides room for porkbarrel
> projects as well as a *big* artificial tax-funded "industry" that's used to
> shore up our crumbling economy.

Yeah, but it's not just a case of wasting money. You also have
literally millions of peopel that have gone to prison and had their
lives runined by this stupid WOD. Yet the real drug criminals, namely
the DUIs, still generally avoid prison unless they actually kill
someone.

Eric Johnson

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 12:39:21 AM2/16/02
to

Judy Diarya wrote:

I would say lack of alternatives and city design are mostly responsible. Most of our cities just dont lend themselves to partying.
Much less drunk driving in Manhattan than in LA.

ej

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 1:18:18 AM2/16/02
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:30:47 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message

The casualties are an expenditure that the porkbarrelers are more than
willing to make.

DUI fuckers aren't nearly as dangerous as fatigued drivers, you know, and
they're impossible to detect or prevent. Driving simply isn't a safe
activity.

Kenneth Porter

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 1:52:42 AM2/16/02
to
"Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in
news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:

>> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
> Good for you.
> Temperance is a virtue.

Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
thus not objective) or something else?

People who use mind-altering substances (including alcohol) do so because
they enjoy it, just like people who go hiking or people who tend a garden.
The only thing that makes one a virtue and another a vice is someone
else's esthetics.

(My favorite mind-altering substance is coffee, and I *do* enjoy it!)

--
Kenneth Porter
http://www.sewingwitch.com/ken/

Eric Johnson

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 2:31:39 AM2/16/02
to

Kenneth Porter wrote:

> "Fifty1Ford" <Fifty...@Speed-Racer.com> wrote in
> news:u6qv7rr...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >> I don't drink booze or do ANY illicit drugs.
> > Good for you.
> > Temperance is a virtue.
>
> Why? What do you mean by virtue? Do you mean the religous concept (and
> thus not objective) or something else?
>
> People who use mind-altering substances (including alcohol) do so because
> they enjoy it, just like people who go hiking or people who tend a garden.
> The only thing that makes one a virtue and another a vice is someone
> else's esthetics.

> My favorite mind-altering substance is coffee, and I *do* enjoy it!)
>

Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal disposition
of these substances.

ej

Kevin Robinson

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 5:39:07 AM2/16/02
to
Eric Johnson <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message news:<3C6E0ADB...@wish.net>...

>
> Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal disposition
> of these substances.
>
> ej

I'm with Aristotle: Moderation in all things.
Of course, that includes moderation!

Kevin

King Pineapple

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 7:31:26 AM2/16/02
to
DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...

>
> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
> namely drunkdrivers?

You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.

Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
heroin users?


Next?


--
"I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things"-

Dan Rather


Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 11:04:06 AM2/16/02
to
In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com> utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) writes:
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: 15 Feb 2002 20:28:09 -0800

>d...@drproctor.com (Peter H Proctor) wrote in message
>news:<203C1A2EBE47B0A7.6B24ACCD...@lp.airnews.net>...

>> The drug war is not about health or public safety. It is a


>> Culture War, pure and simple. thus, it is more akin to rooting out
>> witchcraft and hersy than anything else. Drunk drivers are a
>> well-understood part of our culture. So they get treated more
>> leniently.
>>
>> Dr P

> That's BS. Murderers are well understood too, but they don't get off


>with fines. I think the problem is that so many legislators and now
>pres and vp are alkies and drunk drivers. And of course, most
>journalists are too. Everybody in a position of power is a drunk
>driver so nothing gets done about this very serious drug problem.

Agree. This is a correlary to drunk driving being part of our
culture. Lots of people in positions of power ( including on juries ) do
or have done it.

So it gets easily dismissed as a familiar thing, unlike whatever
mysterious and devilish activity those druggies do. MADD has
tried demonizing DUI, but have ultimately failed because people are just too
familiar with it to swallow the same kind of lies and unreasoning propaganda
that have been so successful in the War on Drugs. This doesn't mean that
reasoned debate and discourse have not worked, BTW.

Dr P

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 9:08:38 AM2/16/02
to
In article <yisb8.13650$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?
>
>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.


Let us all sit down "imediately" and
take spelling lessons from Craigie here.

Mitchell Holman

"That ALONE makes him imediately suspect."
King Pineapple, who is always the first to
"imediately" jump on spelling errors posted
by others. 5/19/01


Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 11:10:31 AM2/16/02
to
In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com> utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) writes:
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: 15 Feb 2002 20:30:47 -0800

>Yeah, but it's not just a case of wasting money. You also have
>literally millions of peopel that have gone to prison and had their
>lives runined by this stupid WOD. Yet the real drug criminals, namely
>the DUIs, still generally avoid prison unless they actually kill
>someone.

Not so simple. In Texas, you get one free ride ( a fine and
community service ). Second conviction is practically guaranteed some jail
time, third time is a felony.

But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
interested if you endanger somebody else.

Dr P

Dr P

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 11:25:18 AM2/16/02
to
In article <yisb8.13650$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> writes:
>From: "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net>

>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:31:26 GMT

>DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...

>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?

>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.

>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>heroin users?

Crack and opiates don't affect motor skills near as much as alcohol
does. Cocaine and similar drugs affect motor skills little if any. In
fact, at some doses they may even improve them, though this is hard to prove
because of the short half-life.

Similarly, In the typical methadone clinic, the client takes a
dose of an opiate far in excess of what you could get on the street and
then just drives off to work. Try that with alcohol.

Dr P

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 9:46:01 AM2/16/02
to
In article <yisb8.13650$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>> I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
>> when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
>> namely drunkdrivers?
>
>You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
>
>Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
>heroin users?


Is Craig REALLY trying to compare the number
of drunk driving fatalities to crack use fatalities?


Mitchell Holman

"And a look at the FAIR masthead proves thet
they're a liberal bunch."
King Pineapple(Craig Seufert), spelling critic
of others, at least of those "thet" deserve it,
2/15/02


Eric Johnson

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 12:19:53 PM2/16/02
to

King Pineapple wrote:

> DNC Marginal Trivia"Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:13fbd448.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
> > I know that, but my point is -How can bush go after any drug criminals
> > when he doesn't do anything about the worst of all drug ciminals,
> > namely drunkdrivers?
>
> You spelled "criminals" wrong, Judy. Figures.
>
> Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> heroin users?
>
> Next?
>

Pleaseexplain how crack or heroine users are worse than drunk drivers.

Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
While crack/heroine use at home does not.


ej

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 12:58:52 PM2/16/02
to
Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.02.16.01....@countercult.org>...

.
>
>
> DUI fuckers aren't nearly as dangerous as fatigued drivers, you know, and
> they're impossible to detect or prevent. Driving simply isn't a safe
> activity.

Yeah, and all the people that drive while playing with radio or
reading a map or too busy talking to a friend. All these things cause
a huge number of crashes but there's no way to prove that was the
cause. OTOH, the BAC is something that can be measured after the
accident.

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 1:01:16 PM2/16/02
to
"King Pineapple" <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<yisb8.13650$P21.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...

> Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> heroin users?
>
>
> Next?

Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
people every year. You are a loonball if ever there was one. No
wonder everyone laughs at you.

Sloppy

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 1:00:12 PM2/16/02
to
"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote in message
news:b9bb8.24767$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
>
>
> Looks like you have been smoking too much pot.

Mission Impossible.

--
Sloppy,
Be good or be good at it!


Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 1:03:59 PM2/16/02
to
ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor) wrote in message news:<05F9CC543701FEF9.0C2B8336...@lp.airnews.net>...

>
>
> But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
> if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
> and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
> interested if you endanger somebody else.
>
So?? That's the way it should be.

Cecil

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 2:19:07 PM2/16/02
to
utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote in
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com:

But that doesn't prove causation.

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 2:18:30 PM2/16/02
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 05:39:07 -0500, Kevin Robinson brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

> Eric Johnson <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message


> news:<3C6E0ADB...@wish.net>...

>> Further, it has NOTHING to do with the discussion about the legal
>> disposition of these substances.

> I'm with Aristotle: Moderation in all things. Of course, that includes
> moderation!

You sure it was Aristotle? I've seen this quote attributed to what seems
like every significant historical figure people can think of.

I'm just curious, not attacking.

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 2:22:06 PM2/16/02
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:58:52 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2002.02.16.01....@countercult.org>... .

So what does that mean, exactly? You can prosecute drunk drivers, but
does it actually help? It seems to me that we should be looking for a
better transit solution than that. If driving is incredibly dangerous,
and it is, then perhaps we could look into something like mag-lev trains
to replace major interstate arteries. Don't jump on that, it was just a
suggestion from the top of my head.

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 2:41:29 PM2/16/02
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:10:31 -0500, Peter H. Proctor brought forth unto
the mercurial digital tempest:

> In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com>

In West Virginia, where I live, alcohol is probably our biggest drug
problem, followed closely by tobacco. Jail time and license suspension is
mandatory here for DUI, though you can sometimes beat it at the hearing:
first offense is 24 hours to 6 months, $100-$500 fine, and 6 months of
license suspension followed by a Safety & Treatment program. Second offense
is 6 months to a year, $1,000 to $3000 fine, and ten-year license revocation
followed by Safety & Treatment program. Third offense is 1-3 years
penitentiary, $3000-$5000, and a lifetime revocation of license... and
here's the funny part. In spite of all that, when I read the daily report in
the paper, most of the incidents, if not all, are DUIs - often second or
third offense. The only problems that are worse in this state are
underage consumption or a combination of the two: underage DUI.

I think this helps illustrate my point about driving intoxicated, which
is that the risk of driving at all is a bigger problem than we can
address with tougher laws or educational programs. What is needed here is
a re-evaluation and re-engineering of the national transportation system.

It's just like prohibition, in that regard. Prohibition is a surface
solution to a deeper and more complex problem.

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 6:02:36 PM2/16/02
to
In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com> utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) writes:
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: 16 Feb 2002 10:03:59 -0800

>ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor) wrote in message
>news:<05F9CC543701FEF9.0C2B8336...@lp.airnews.net>...
>>
>>

>> But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own home or
>> if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a hoot-owl
>> and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only gets
>> interested if you endanger somebody else.
>>

>So?? That's the way it should be.

My point is that this is also the way it should be for "other" drugs.

Dr P

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 8:05:20 PM2/16/02
to


Don't expect Pineapple to answer this
one. If history is any guide he will run away
with his tail between his legs like he always
does.

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 11:34:06 PM2/16/02
to
Cecil <cecil...@att.net> wrote in message news:<Xns91B79137D8B3B...@204.127.36.1>...

I know what you mean. If you are DUI and cause an accident you are in
trouble even though your drunkeness may have had nothing to do with
the accident. In a way it's not fair, but what else can they do?

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 16, 2002, 11:40:13 PM2/16/02
to
Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.02.16.14....@countercult.org>...

> > Yeah, and all the people that drive while playing with radio or reading
> > a map or too busy talking to a friend. All these things cause a huge
> > number of crashes but there's no way to prove that was the cause. OTOH,
> > the BAC is something that can be measured after the accident.
>
> So what does that mean, exactly? You can prosecute drunk drivers, but
> does it actually help? It seems to me that we should be looking for a
> better transit solution than that. If driving is incredibly dangerous,
> and it is, then perhaps we could look into something like mag-lev trains
> to replace major interstate arteries. Don't jump on that, it was just a
> suggestion from the top of my head.

There's lots of things we could do that are far simpler. We can make
it mandatory that drunk drivers (even first offenders) lose their
license for a year or so. Same thing with speeders exceeding the limit
by 20 mph or more. Also detroit should be required to make cars with
a top speed of say, 70 mph. And all these sick car commercials on TV
that glamorize speeding and reckless driving have to go. One more
thing - raise the driving age. 16 is ridiculously low. I say 18 or
maybe even 21.

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 12:15:42 AM2/17/02
to
Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2002.02.16.14....@countercult.org>...
>
> > But notice that you can get as drunk as you like in your own
> > home or
> > if somebody else is driving. Hell, you can even get drunk as a
> > hoot-owl and drive around your own ranch all you like. The state only
> > gets interested if you endanger somebody else.
>
> In West Virginia, where I live, alcohol is probably our biggest drug
> problem, followed closely by tobacco. Jail time and license suspension is
> mandatory here for DUI, though you can sometimes beat it at the hearing:
> first offense is 24 hours to 6 months, $100-$500 fine, and 6 months of
> license suspension followed by a Safety & Treatment program. Second offense
> is 6 months to a year, $1,000 to $3000 fine, and ten-year license revocation
> followed by Safety & Treatment program. Third offense is 1-3 years
> penitentiary, $3000-$5000, and a lifetime revocation of license... and
> here's the funny part. In spite of all that, when I read the daily report in
> the paper, most of the incidents, if not all, are DUIs - often second or
> third offense. The only problems that are worse in this state are
> underage consumption or a combination of the two: underage DUI.
>
Yeah, so many of these DUIs just keep driving drunk, even if they have
no license. That's why some of us think the only answer is to lock
them up in prison. That would be expensive but it might pay for
itself when you consider all the medical bills and property damage
drunk drivers cause.

Judy Diarya

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 12:29:08 AM2/17/02
to
ta2...@world.att.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote in message news:<klDb8.25964$Nv5.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

> >
> >Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
> >people every year. You are a loonball if ever there was one. No
> >wonder everyone laughs at you.
>
>
> Don't expect Pineapple to answer this
> one. If history is any guide he will run away
> with his tail between his legs like he always
> does.


I've noticed that. He gets real mad whenever a girl shows him up.

Woodard Springstube

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 3:18:12 AM2/17/02
to
On 16 Feb 2002 21:15:42 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:

> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message

news:<pan.2002.02.16.14.41.25.789203.30607> @countercult.org>...

Believe it or not, this is one time that a conservative (somewhere
to the right of Gengis Khan) agrees with you. My tolerance for
DUI's is nil. A few years on the rockpile would do them a lot of
good--or maybe not. I went to school with a guy who did a year
and a half in the joint for felony DUI in Oklahoma and he is still
a lush under the wheel when he's out of jail.

I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs since there is
too much money for use in corrupting the police, courts, and
political system, and because the threats to our civil liberties from
the War on Drugs are a worse problem than the drugs themselves.
But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
(parole after about 30 years in the joint).

Woodard

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 3:32:44 AM2/17/02
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:40:13 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message

That's still surface solutions. I've given it some thought, and still the
best idea I can come up with is a mighty national mass transit system.
One fell swoop, y'know?

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 3:34:30 AM2/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:15:42 -0500, Judy Diarya brought forth unto the
mercurial digital tempest:

> Psychozohedron <psychoz...@countercult.org> wrote in message

Changing the law is ineffective. We've already seen that. Laws are only
effective when they can be enforced, which is why prohibition has been
such a monumental failure.

Psychozohedron

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 3:37:14 AM2/17/02
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:18:12 -0500, Woodard Springstube brought forth unto
the mercurial digital tempest:

> On 16 Feb 2002 21:15:42 -0800 utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) wrote:

That is remarkably similar to my own view, and I'm anything but
conservative. However, I must add that if we adopt measures similar to
these, then guns should be covered as well. How about total loss of
firearms priveledges for involvement with firearms violence?

Sloppy

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 5:41:20 AM2/17/02
to
"Marksman" <LIEberals_ar...@lieberal.bull> wrote in message
news:22eb8.24832$zJ3.1...@typhoon.maine.rr.com...
>
> They [liberals] only want free handouts and to be free from any
> responsibility for their actions.

You tell'em!! Those privileges are reserved exclusively for bureaucrats
and incumbents.

King Pineapple

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 7:15:39 AM2/17/02
to
DNC Shaman "Peter H. Proctor" <ppro...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
news:15C2815D47457E73.FC37E7D0...@lp.airnews.net...

>
>
> >Please explain to us how drunk drivers are worse than crack addicts? Or
> >heroin users?
>
> Crack and opiates don't affect motor skills near as much as
alcohol
> does. Cocaine and similar drugs affect motor skills little if any. In
> fact, at some doses they may even improve them, though this is hard to
prove
> because of the short half-life.
>
> Similarly, In the typical methadone clinic, the client takes a
> dose of an opiate far in excess of what you could get on the street and
> then just drives off to work. Try that with alcohol.

That's now what I was getting at. How many drunk drivers rob and kill people
to get money to support their habits?

Next?

King Pineapple

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 7:17:57 AM2/17/02
to
Proud Algore Voter"Eric Johnson" <ejoh...@wish.net> wrote in message
news:3C6E94B9...@wish.net...


>
> Seems to me that drunk drivers directly endager others by definition.
> While crack/heroine use at home does not.

What about all the robberies and murders committed by those attempting to
steal money to support their habits? Or gangland executions as a result of
drug deals gone bad? Tell us about the sheer atmosphere of violence in
places that PRODUCE heroin and cocaine. Like Colombia and Afghanistan.

Next?

King Pineapple

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 7:18:49 AM2/17/02
to
Republican Plant "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...


>
> Are you a complete loon??? Drunk drivers kill thousands of innocent
> people every year.

So do hard drugs.

>You are a loonball if ever there was one. No wonder everyone laughs at
you.

No, only the Dems laugh at me. Desperately.

Next?


--

King Pineapple

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 7:19:35 AM2/17/02
to
Republican Plant "Judy Diarya" <utepa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> I've noticed that. He gets real mad whenever a girl shows him up.

When did that happen?


Next?

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 10:36:16 AM2/17/02
to
In article <13fbd448.02021...@posting.google.com> utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya) writes:
>From: utepa...@yahoo.com (Judy Diarya)
>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: 16 Feb 2002 21:15:42 -0800

>Yeah, so many of these DUIs just keep driving drunk, even if they have
>no license. That's why some of us think the only answer is to lock
>them up in prison. That would be expensive but it might pay for
>itself when you consider all the medical bills and property damage
>drunk drivers cause.

A modest suggestion--- Why not just hang 'em up, if you really want
to stop repeats? Seriously, this gets into questions of equity-- DUI per
se endangers people by increasing the probability of an accident, but so do
other things. That SOB who just cut me off ought to _hang_.

Where do you draw the line--- no driving after a fight with your wife,
lack of sleep, etc.. As others have noted, at least at lower blood alcohol
levels, the main difference is that you can detect alcohol.

Dr P

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Feb 17, 2002, 10:43:05 AM2/17/02
to
In article <CFN373040...@news.jump.net> Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net> writes:
>From: Woodard Springstube <springstKI...@jump.net>

>Subject: Re: DUI George and his hypocrisy in the War on Drugs
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:18:12 -0600

>I also would suggest the following: Legalize drugs.....


>But, change the law so that nobody can claim diminished responsibility
>for any crimes that they may commit while under the influence of either
>drugs or booze. Instead, make being under the influence of drugs or
>booze an aggravating factor that gets extra jail time. And, if anybody
>causes a fatality while driving under the influence of either drugs or
>booze, make that an automatic murder one charge, with a life sentence
>(parole after about 30 years in the joint).

This is pretty much the case here in Texas already Except fo the
Legalize drugs part, naturally<G>. It's called intoxicated manslaughter,
qualifies as murder 2, and it ain't no joke. BTW, Murder 1 requires
intent and is a rather special type of charge that you don't want to dilute by
bringing in other is