Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Govt officials call for lowering drunk driving threshold to BAC of .05
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 15, 2013, 12:47:09 PM5/15/13
to
The auto industry will fight this since they love car crashes. Car
crashes mean car sales. Obozo will fight it since his beloved daddy
was a serial drunk driver who once killed a man.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/officials-look-for-a-fresh-approach-to-eliminate-drunken-driving-as-progress-stagnates/2013/05/14/c34471a8-bc6a-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html
US officials recommend lowering drunken driving threshold to .05 blood
alcohol to save lives - The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — States should cut their threshold for drunken driving by
nearly half— from .08 blood alcohol level to .05_matching a standard
that has substantially reduced highway deaths in other countries, a
federal safety board recommended Tuesday. That’s about one drink for a
woman weighing less than 120 pounds, two for a 160-pound man.
More than 100 countries have adopted the .05 alcohol content standard
or lower, according to a report by the staff of the National
Transportation Safety Board. In Europe, the share of traffic deaths
attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within
10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said.
NTSB officials said it wasn’t their intention to prevent drivers from
having a glass of wine with dinner, but they acknowledged that under a
threshold as low as .05 the safest thing for people who have only one
or two drinks is not to drive at all.
A drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce
of 80-proof alcohol in most studies
__________________
Reckless drivers are a bigger threat to you than all other criminals
put together!
NAACP = Negro Affirmative Action, Caucasian Persecution
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 15, 2013, 12:49:27 PM5/15/13
to
This would undoubtedly prevent thousands of highway killings every
year. Same with lowering the speed limit to 55 and banning cell phones
in cars. But the idiot public says "Hell with it. It's more important
to combat terrorism" even though bee stings kill more americans than
terrorism.
year. Same with lowering the speed limit to 55 and banning cell phones
in cars. But the idiot public says "Hell with it. It's more important
to combat terrorism" even though bee stings kill more americans than
terrorism.
K Wills
May 16, 2013, 4:15:17 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:49:27 -0700 (PDT), "Criminal Drivers Murder
35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This would undoubtedly prevent thousands of highway killings every
>year.
Aren't the majority of highway deaths due to speeding and road
35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This would undoubtedly prevent thousands of highway killings every
>year.
conditions, not drunk driving?
I don't have the stats on hand, and I don't feel like looking
them up (you need to prove your claim, I don't need to disprove it),
but drunk drivers are often on city streets.
And yes, I am aware some are on highways. But I still question
your claim.
>Same with lowering the speed limit to 55 and banning cell phones
>in cars. But the idiot public says "Hell with it. It's more important
>to combat terrorism" even though bee stings kill more americans than
>terrorism.
level, while speed limits are a state matter.
--
"Pulled pork tacos.
"Greasy, messy, pulled pork tacos."
-- Chuck Bryant
Greegor
May 16, 2013, 11:45:14 AM5/16/13
to
Police are already unable to stop drivers
who are absolutely pickled and stagger
out of large bars and drive away.
Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
an impressive score sheet for arresting
"drunk drivers".
Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
cops would be more busy wasting time on the
"small fish".
Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
lightweights, why not focus more on the few
hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
actually do the worst damage?
Who is the obsessive OP and why do
they seem to be so completely unaware
of the real world? Aspies much?
who are absolutely pickled and stagger
out of large bars and drive away.
Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
This .05 BAC proposal would enable Police
to waste time on the "small fish" yet show
an impressive score sheet for arresting
"drunk drivers".
Instead of busting the SERIOUSLY drunk drivers
cops would be more busy wasting time on the
"small fish".
Wouldn't our streets be safer if the BAC limit
was put at .10 but seriously and severely enforced?
Instead of criminalizing tens of thousands of
lightweights, why not focus more on the few
hardcore drunks and repeat offenders who
actually do the worst damage?
Who is the obsessive OP and why do
they seem to be so completely unaware
of the real world? Aspies much?
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 16, 2013, 12:38:05 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 9:45 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
Entrapment? HAHAHA. Did you really say that.?
.
>
> Police DO NOT focus on people leaving large bars.
> Apparently focusing on people leaving a bar
> would be seen as entrapment or unfair somehow.
> I don't buy it but that's what a cop told me.
You fish where the fish are.
Greegor
May 16, 2013, 3:53:12 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 11:38 am, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
I didn't say it, a cop did.
Reading comprehension problems?
> You fish where the fish are.
Maybe one of the other cops owned
the bar, was getting paid by the bar
or a cops brother owns the bar?
Selective enforcement for such reasons
is not unusual.
BAC standards are state laws, but
purchased by federal authorities in
exchange for Federal Highway funding.
It's a "states right" that is purchased from
each state with Federal Highway money.
That is exactly how the .08 BAC was enacted
in US state after US state across the country
BY THE FEDS.
This is not the only situation where
the FEDS bought state laws like this.
This modus operandi raises questions
about the value and the very nature
of "states rights".
Reading comprehension problems?
> You fish where the fish are.
the bar, was getting paid by the bar
or a cops brother owns the bar?
Selective enforcement for such reasons
is not unusual.
BAC standards are state laws, but
purchased by federal authorities in
exchange for Federal Highway funding.
It's a "states right" that is purchased from
each state with Federal Highway money.
That is exactly how the .08 BAC was enacted
in US state after US state across the country
BY THE FEDS.
This is not the only situation where
the FEDS bought state laws like this.
This modus operandi raises questions
about the value and the very nature
of "states rights".
Bill Graham
May 16, 2013, 7:18:33 PM5/16/13
to
once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was too
drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he walked.
The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
California, the most liberal place in the world.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 17, 2013, 12:35:06 AM5/17/13
to
Federal DUI laws are clearly unconstitutional but then, that's true
of 95% of federal laws.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 17, 2013, 12:36:19 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 5:18 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of mine
> once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was too
> drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he walked.
> The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
> California, the most liberal place in the world.
Sounds good to me. We must stop ALL drunk drivers, even innocent ones.
>
> Depends on where you live. The police stopped and ticketed a friend of mine
> once for staggering out of a bar and,.....Walking home! He knew he was too
> drunk to drive, and only lived about four blocks from the bar, so he walked.
> The cops got him for being drunk in public. This was, (of course) in
> California, the most liberal place in the world.
Message has been deleted
Brent
May 17, 2013, 9:16:32 AM5/17/13
to
By criminalizing walking home and sleeping it off in the car they are
trying to encourage people to drive home. By walking one takes much
longer to get home and thus more chance of being spotted by a cop. By
sleeping it off in a car one will be there for hours when driving home
would take minutes. Same deal, more likely to get busted for sleeping it
off.
Government needs ways to crack down on responsible people who aren't a
problem for anyone. This is the source of its power. the old saying when
there aren't enough criminals it makes them. It's got to stay in
business. It has to grow year over year. That means keeping people
fearful. That means having the perception as a protector.
Of course now with this 0.05BAC recommendation nobody is apologizing to
those who predicted this slope. The people who were called paranoid and
worse. Never mind them... this is good now. Why can't people see how
they are scammed?
Greegor
May 17, 2013, 11:09:27 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 8:16 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not many people seem to realize
that bureaucracies actually do have
pressures like that to grow, to enlarge.
> That means keeping people
> fearful. That means having the
> perception as a protector.
When ICE came up with "cutbacks"
they turned loose some dangerous
repeat criminals and Felons.
This is in keeping with the well known
"Closing the washington Monument" ploy.
When forced to cut back, agencies tend
to first cut the parts of their organization
that hurt the public the most.
Rather than cut the fat, they cut the meat.
When ICE (Part of Homeland Security)
turned loose dangerous illegals into
the US, were they trying to make the
public fearful and cause the public to
feel they NEED ICE and Homeland Security
even more?
ie: Bureaucracies make the most painful
cuts in order to rationalize giving them back
all of their funding and more.
> Of course now with this 0.05BAC
> recommendation nobody is apologizing
> to those who predicted this slope.
Yeah, "slippery slope" and "mission creep"
certainly do seem to apply to this issue.
> The people who were called paranoid and
> worse. Never mind them... this is good now.
> Why can't people see how they are scammed?
Have grown adults been inculcated to act
like children and look toward government
as a parent to us all?
Government itself seems to be one giant
mass of "slippery slope" and "mission creep".
Citizens should not settle for "selective enforcement"
and "prosecutorial descretion" but even those
get rationalized for one reason or another and
then have unintended consequences.
I'll say it again though, if you REALLY
want to clean up drunk drivers, then
quit thinking that lowering the BAC standard
is the way. It only causes Police to
waste time arresting lightweights rather
than making them concentrate on the
seriously drunk and repeat drunk drivers.
Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
and politically connected drunk drivers.
that bureaucracies actually do have
pressures like that to grow, to enlarge.
> That means keeping people
> fearful. That means having the
> perception as a protector.
they turned loose some dangerous
repeat criminals and Felons.
This is in keeping with the well known
"Closing the washington Monument" ploy.
When forced to cut back, agencies tend
to first cut the parts of their organization
that hurt the public the most.
Rather than cut the fat, they cut the meat.
When ICE (Part of Homeland Security)
turned loose dangerous illegals into
the US, were they trying to make the
public fearful and cause the public to
feel they NEED ICE and Homeland Security
even more?
ie: Bureaucracies make the most painful
cuts in order to rationalize giving them back
all of their funding and more.
> Of course now with this 0.05BAC
> recommendation nobody is apologizing
> to those who predicted this slope.
certainly do seem to apply to this issue.
> The people who were called paranoid and
> worse. Never mind them... this is good now.
> Why can't people see how they are scammed?
like children and look toward government
as a parent to us all?
Government itself seems to be one giant
mass of "slippery slope" and "mission creep".
Citizens should not settle for "selective enforcement"
and "prosecutorial descretion" but even those
get rationalized for one reason or another and
then have unintended consequences.
I'll say it again though, if you REALLY
want to clean up drunk drivers, then
quit thinking that lowering the BAC standard
is the way. It only causes Police to
waste time arresting lightweights rather
than making them concentrate on the
seriously drunk and repeat drunk drivers.
Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
and politically connected drunk drivers.
Greegor
May 17, 2013, 11:29:35 AM5/17/13
to
Is NTSB really sober and rational or are they
a government sponsored LOBBYING group
pulling to enlarge law enforcement?
Did Mothers Against Drunk Driving hold
back for the reason I described?
That it would cause Cops to waste
time on lesser cases rather than going
after the worst offenders?
NHTSA is very interested in getting paid to
do "studies" on this in any state goes for this..
Which lobbying or research groups are
eyeing this with a "jaundiced eye"?
This issue needs a "jaundiced eye" rather
than more "system sucks" who benefit
from their lobbying for such stuff.
In fact, why doesn't the writer of this article mention the
restaurant association or other opposition opinions?
Why did the article writer make this issue seem
so very one sided?
From the article:
Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA
declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national
safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s
recommendation.
a government sponsored LOBBYING group
pulling to enlarge law enforcement?
Did Mothers Against Drunk Driving hold
back for the reason I described?
That it would cause Cops to waste
time on lesser cases rather than going
after the worst offenders?
NHTSA is very interested in getting paid to
do "studies" on this in any state goes for this..
Which lobbying or research groups are
eyeing this with a "jaundiced eye"?
This issue needs a "jaundiced eye" rather
than more "system sucks" who benefit
from their lobbying for such stuff.
In fact, why doesn't the writer of this article mention the
restaurant association or other opposition opinions?
Why did the article writer make this issue seem
so very one sided?
From the article:
Even safety groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and AAA
declined Tuesday to endorse NTSB’s call for a .05 threshold. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets national
safety policy, stopped also short of endorsing the board’s
recommendation.
Bill Graham
May 17, 2013, 4:59:25 PM5/17/13
to
"Brent" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kn5ajg$elp$1...@dont-email.me...
examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and the
money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford to
legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and diminish too
much in size and budget
Bill Graham
May 17, 2013, 5:09:14 PM5/17/13
to
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b338310-c91d-4c49...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
department conducts itself in its own way, encouraged by the local judges
and mayors/governors. Few of these people have even read the constitution,
much less are able to interpret it the way its framers intended. I was not
surprised when my friend was arrested for, "drunk walking". The local cops
were just on their usual fishing expedition for money.As government grows,
the constitution is swept further and further under the rug. It's just
another pesky obstacle to their efforts to collect money.
M.I.Wakefield
May 17, 2013, 5:27:18 PM5/17/13
to
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news:HLidnSleub-yBwvM...@giganews.com...
Simple alternative ... blow over .05 and under .08, get a 12 hour
suspension, and, if required, a free call for a taxi, and a tow costing no
more than $50 ... no criminal charge, no report to insurance.
news:HLidnSleub-yBwvM...@giganews.com...
Simple alternative ... blow over .05 and under .08, get a 12 hour
suspension, and, if required, a free call for a taxi, and a tow costing no
more than $50 ... no criminal charge, no report to insurance.
Brent
May 18, 2013, 12:46:27 AM5/18/13
to
These days it's law enforcement and severe punishments.
Also no money in that for the system and the people in it. Except the
tow operator, maybe, but he wins regardless.
Bill Graham
May 18, 2013, 1:26:30 AM5/18/13
to
been giving our tax dollars away to the deadbeats for so many years that
they are billions of dollars in debt, and are willing to steal it from
anyone and everyone who still has any left, no matter why they have it or
how hard they worked for it. Not only that, but their sick and unfair
attitude is creeping into the other states, so that soon your money won't be
safe anywhere.
necromancer
May 18, 2013, 5:14:03 PM5/18/13
to
Judy "Shit For Brains" Dairya spewed the following:
<snip crap>
Judy: just do us all a favour and blow your fucking head off. And do it quickly before Obama takes away the guns.
<snip crap>
Judy: just do us all a favour and blow your fucking head off. And do it quickly before Obama takes away the guns.
T0m $herman
May 20, 2013, 12:02:37 AM5/20/13
to
On 5/17/2013 10:09 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
> and politically connected drunk drivers.
Or conversely, allow police to arrest politically connected drunk
> Make Cops stop giving breaks to relatives
> and politically connected drunk drivers.
drivers without facing retribution for doing so.
Most cops will look the other way, when they know that not only will an
arrest not be prosecuted, but that they will likely lose their job (or
worse) for making the arrest.
--
T0m $herm@n
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 20, 2013, 12:18:49 PM5/20/13
to
On May 17, 2:59 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are excellent
> examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and the
> money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford to
> legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and diminish too
> much in size and budget
Except for the drug alcohol. That truly is a problem since it leads
>
> The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are excellent
> examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and the
> money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford to
> legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and diminish too
> much in size and budget
to drunk driving and people killing other people. All money
spent on the drug wars should be focused on DUI.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 20, 2013, 12:20:08 PM5/20/13
to
Message has been deleted
Harold Burton
May 20, 2013, 4:48:38 PM5/20/13
to
In article <20130520152949.445$L...@newsreader.com>,
dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> spent on heroin, crack, and crystal meth, maybe those wouldn't be a problem
> now.
Wrong.
"If he were to earn a second term, Barack Obama should at least initiate
the process of ending the War on Drugs. One reason is that the War on
Drugs has been a massive failure by any serious estimation. Sixty-seven
percent of our nations� police chiefs consider it so. Drugs do not get
cheaper or harder to buy. People do not stop dying. However, there is
another reason that Barack Obama should feel especially compelled to act
on this issue�his identity as America�s first black president.
If black America still considers racism a pressing issue, it is
primarily because of the strained relationship between young black men
and police forces. In my twelve years of writing on race and racism, I
have seen that the police are the keystone of modern black alienation,
to an extent rarely clear to outsiders. The massive number of black men
in prison, ringingly decried in widely read books such as Michelle
Alexander�s hit The New Jim Crow, stands as a resonant rebuke to all
calls to �get past racism� or stress optimism. Persistence and hard work
does work for many black men�but, against the background of these other
systemic injustices, their achievements are often thought of as the
products of luck (not least by themselves).
The primary reason for this ongoing conflict between blacks and the
police is the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is what has made it normal
for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away
in prison for long spells. The War on Drugs discourages young black men
from seeking legal employment, with selling drugs an ever tempting
alternative for someone with a poor education. The War on Drugs brings
firearms into black lives: Policing turf for selling drugs entails using
guns, which then go on to become tools for general maintenance of
pecking order.
If it were no longer possible to earn money selling drugs on the street,
we would see the same trend among young black men as we saw among young
black women after the welfare reform of 1996: They would reckon
forthrightly with their lives and�ideally with help from the government
to do so�get jobs. They would not encounter paradise. A bad economy
would be harder on them than most. However, anyone who says that the
current situation is better has an eccentric notion of compassion or
progressivism. Real progressivism would entail cultivating a generation
of young black men that doesn�t think of white cops as an enemy. (Right
now, they all too often do: Read here and note also the comments.) From
there, America as a whole will turn a corner.
Obama�s drug czar Gil Kerlikowske has claimed that the Obama
administration already has ended the War on Drugs�but what he means is
that they have simply decided not to call it that. Under Obama�s watch,
punishment for drug possession and use has been funded more highly,
while funds for treatment under the Department of Education have been
slashed a third. Drug arrests during Obama�s first year in office were
higher than they were in George Bush�s first year. This is a thorough
abandonment of the liberal promise of Obama�s presidency.
Downsides of drug legalization will be inevitable. Mark Kleiman and
others predict somewhat increased rates of addiction. But that should
not be dispositive from a policy perspective: No one suggests that
today�s rates of alcoholism in the United States�or the nastier ones in
Russia�are arguments in favor of 1920s-style Prohibition. Moreover, if
we are forced to deal with some collateral damage in a successful effort
to alter the mindset of a generation of young black men and thus
transform the country�s perpetual race debate, it would be well worth
it�not least, for the sake of the President�s legacy.
dzwe...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On May 17, 2:59=A0pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are
> > > excellen=
> >
> > >
> > > The drug laws in general, (and marijuana laws in particular) are
> > t
> > > examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and
> > > the money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford
> > > to legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and
> > > diminish t=
> > > examples of this. They account for one third of our police force and
> > > the money we spend on law enforcement services. Government can't afford
> > > to legalize drugs. They would have to lay off too many people and
> > oo
> > > much in size and budget
> >
> > Except for the drug alcohol. That truly is a problem since it leads
> > to drunk driving and people killing other people. All money
> > spent on the drug wars should be focused on DUI.
>
> Or hard drugs. If all of the trillions of dollars spent on marijuana was
> > > much in size and budget
> >
> > Except for the drug alcohol. That truly is a problem since it leads
> > to drunk driving and people killing other people. All money
> > spent on the drug wars should be focused on DUI.
>
> spent on heroin, crack, and crystal meth, maybe those wouldn't be a problem
> now.
Wrong.
"If he were to earn a second term, Barack Obama should at least initiate
the process of ending the War on Drugs. One reason is that the War on
Drugs has been a massive failure by any serious estimation. Sixty-seven
percent of our nations� police chiefs consider it so. Drugs do not get
cheaper or harder to buy. People do not stop dying. However, there is
another reason that Barack Obama should feel especially compelled to act
on this issue�his identity as America�s first black president.
If black America still considers racism a pressing issue, it is
primarily because of the strained relationship between young black men
and police forces. In my twelve years of writing on race and racism, I
have seen that the police are the keystone of modern black alienation,
to an extent rarely clear to outsiders. The massive number of black men
in prison, ringingly decried in widely read books such as Michelle
Alexander�s hit The New Jim Crow, stands as a resonant rebuke to all
calls to �get past racism� or stress optimism. Persistence and hard work
does work for many black men�but, against the background of these other
systemic injustices, their achievements are often thought of as the
products of luck (not least by themselves).
The primary reason for this ongoing conflict between blacks and the
police is the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is what has made it normal
for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away
in prison for long spells. The War on Drugs discourages young black men
from seeking legal employment, with selling drugs an ever tempting
alternative for someone with a poor education. The War on Drugs brings
firearms into black lives: Policing turf for selling drugs entails using
guns, which then go on to become tools for general maintenance of
pecking order.
If it were no longer possible to earn money selling drugs on the street,
we would see the same trend among young black men as we saw among young
black women after the welfare reform of 1996: They would reckon
forthrightly with their lives and�ideally with help from the government
to do so�get jobs. They would not encounter paradise. A bad economy
would be harder on them than most. However, anyone who says that the
current situation is better has an eccentric notion of compassion or
progressivism. Real progressivism would entail cultivating a generation
of young black men that doesn�t think of white cops as an enemy. (Right
now, they all too often do: Read here and note also the comments.) From
there, America as a whole will turn a corner.
Obama�s drug czar Gil Kerlikowske has claimed that the Obama
administration already has ended the War on Drugs�but what he means is
that they have simply decided not to call it that. Under Obama�s watch,
punishment for drug possession and use has been funded more highly,
while funds for treatment under the Department of Education have been
slashed a third. Drug arrests during Obama�s first year in office were
higher than they were in George Bush�s first year. This is a thorough
abandonment of the liberal promise of Obama�s presidency.
Downsides of drug legalization will be inevitable. Mark Kleiman and
others predict somewhat increased rates of addiction. But that should
not be dispositive from a policy perspective: No one suggests that
today�s rates of alcoholism in the United States�or the nastier ones in
Russia�are arguments in favor of 1920s-style Prohibition. Moreover, if
we are forced to deal with some collateral damage in a successful effort
to alter the mindset of a generation of young black men and thus
transform the country�s perpetual race debate, it would be well worth
it�not least, for the sake of the President�s legacy.
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 23, 2013, 12:06:58 AM5/23/13
to
On May 20, 2:48 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <20130520152949.445...@newsreader.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
> > "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
> In article <20130520152949.445...@newsreader.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> dzweib...@REMOVEyahoo.com (Denny) wrote:
> > "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeton2...@yahoo.com>
Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year
May 23, 2013, 12:09:48 AM5/23/13
to
> If black America still considers racism a pressing issue, it is
> primarily because of the strained relationship between young black men
> and police forces. In my twelve years of writing on race and racism, I
> have seen that the police are the keystone of modern black alienation,
> to an extent rarely clear to outsiders. The massive number of black men
> in prison, ringingly decried in widely read books such as Michelle
> Alexander¹s hit The New Jim Crow, stands as a resonant rebuke to all
> calls to ³get past racism² or stress optimism. Persistence and hard work
> does work for many black men‹but, against the background of these other
> systemic injustices, their achievements are often thought of as the
> products of luck (not least by themselves).
>
Jim Crow? HAHAHA. Ever hear of affirmative action?. We live in the
> primarily because of the strained relationship between young black men
> and police forces. In my twelve years of writing on race and racism, I
> have seen that the police are the keystone of modern black alienation,
> to an extent rarely clear to outsiders. The massive number of black men
> in prison, ringingly decried in widely read books such as Michelle
> Alexander¹s hit The New Jim Crow, stands as a resonant rebuke to all
> calls to ³get past racism² or stress optimism. Persistence and hard work
> does work for many black men‹but, against the background of these other
> systemic injustices, their achievements are often thought of as the
> products of luck (not least by themselves).
>
era of Jim Swan . All i see is govt -mandated favoritism
towards black people and persecution of whites. Black failure is
their own fault.
0 new messages