South Dakota to impose total alcohol prohibition on anyone convicted of drunk driving.
Brent P
"South Dakota Mandates Daily Breathalyzer Testing
South Dakota to impose total alcohol prohibition on anyone convicted of
drunk driving.
Attorney General Larry LongThe South Dakota state legislature last week
approved a statewide program that imposes a complete alcohol prohibition
on those convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). The program,
entitled "24/7 Sobriety," would mandate alcohol testing at a local
sheriff's office once in the morning and again in the evening. State
Attorney General Larry Long promoted the idea which was unanimously
adopted in the Senate on Friday and the House on February 15."
<...>
--------------------------
Mike T.
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y6OdnZsiZ7p8m3rY...@comcast.com...
Holy fuck, anybody see the problem with this idea? Before you get smart, I
don't drink, at all. Ever. But there are only a couple counties in that
whole state large enough to have a "local sheriff's office". Is there going
to be a line 5 miles long at those two offices every morning? Get through
the line many hours later, and then get back IN the line to do the afternoon
testing? Damn, someone really dropped the ball on this one. Talk about a
logistical nightmare. Wouldn't this fall under cruel and unusual punishment
by forcing DUIs to lose their job as they are constantly absent because they
are standing in line at the sheriff's office???????????????? -Dave
Brent P
>> Attorney General Larry LongThe South Dakota state legislature last week
>> approved a statewide program that imposes a complete alcohol prohibition
>> on those convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). The program,
>> entitled "24/7 Sobriety," would mandate alcohol testing at a local
>> sheriff's office once in the morning and again in the evening. State
>> Attorney General Larry Long promoted the idea which was unanimously
>> adopted in the Senate on Friday and the House on February 15."
> Holy fuck, anybody see the problem with this idea?
I see many. But figured it best to prevent without comment.
> Before you get smart, I don't drink, at all. Ever.
Isn't it sad that instead of examinining the problems, people would just
accuse a person of being a drunk for objecting?
> But there are only a couple counties in that
> whole state large enough to have a "local sheriff's office". Is there going
> to be a line 5 miles long at those two offices every morning? Get through
> the line many hours later, and then get back IN the line to do the afternoon
> testing? Damn, someone really dropped the ball on this one. Talk about a
> logistical nightmare. Wouldn't this fall under cruel and unusual punishment
> by forcing DUIs to lose their job as they are constantly absent because they
> are standing in line at the sheriff's office???????????????? -Dave
That's the least of the problems... my initial comment was going to be a
remark such as: 'wait until they get around to trans-fats'
MLOM
wrote:
If this pace keeps up, in a handful of years the US population will be
divided into two categories: government officials and inmates.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:Y6OdnZsiZ7p8m3rY...@comcast.com:
This is OK but better yet would be to suspend their license and if caught
driving throw them in prison. I'm no coddler.
Brent P
>> That's the least of the problems... my initial comment was going to be a
>> remark such as: 'wait until they get around to trans-fats'
> If this pace keeps up, in a handful of years the US population will be
> divided into two categories: government officials and inmates.
There are also the guards for the prison. But yes, that's where we are
headed unless things change rapidly.
Old Wolf
> That's the least of the problems... my initial comment was going to be a
> remark such as: 'wait until they get around to trans-fats'
That's completely different; driving drunk means you are a threat
to other peoples' lives; eating trans fats (according to the current
pop nutrition) makes you a threat only to yourself.
Brent P
Read the article. They can't drink PERIOD. Even if locked up in their
home for a weekend.
Dave
"Old Wolf" <old...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1172795062.5...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Not according to the Department of Transportation!!! If you ever have to
pass a DOT physical, you will understand it's not so far-fetched to think
that trans-fats are NEXT, after alcohol, testing twice daily. -Dave
necromancer
rec.autos.driving:
I was listening to the radio last night (Jim Bohannon, IIRC) and they
were discussing some type of test that can detect if you are too tired
(something about certain enzymes in the mouth). Care to guess which way
that will be headed if such a test is possible (among the occupations
mentioned as subject to the test would be truck drivers)? SEIG HEIL!
--
"My tars have been bald for two years.
Every month i glue some sandpaper to them and
everythings cool."
--Laura Buch murdered her boyfriend
/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 10/25/05
Message ID: s2ttl1tgnpq5pr6p4...@4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/7p7xq
Old Wolf
> Old Wolf wrote:
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >> That's the least of the problems... my initial comment was going to be a
> >> remark such as: 'wait until they get around to trans-fats'
>
> > That's completely different; driving drunk means you are a threat
> > to other peoples' lives; eating trans fats (according to the current
> > pop nutrition) makes you a threat only to yourself.
>
> Read the article. They can't drink PERIOD. Even if locked up in their
> home for a weekend.
I got that bit. I thought your point was that in future they would
introduce a law like this but for trans fats instead of alcohol.
Fred G. Mackey
diversion program to keep people out of jail. It's apparently not a
requirement for life.
Brent P
I guess they can come up with a way to associate it with driving.... but
once they start mandating people's diets it really won't be needed.
Brent P
It's a well established pattern to start getting people used to certain
concepts by applying them to those found guilty of something first.
Eeyore
Old Wolf wrote:
> driving drunk means you are a threat to other peoples' lives
Define drunk.
Drunkenness certainly isn't caused by one glass of wine or a pint of beer but
rather quite some number of same.
How about a law against ppl driving when tired or under the influence of
prescription or even over-the-counter drugs ? You couldn't for example take a
hay-fever remedy and legally drive. It would make as much sense (if not more in
fact) as a total alcohol ban.
Think carefully about what you wish for.
I'd also ban smoking while driving. It's quite clear to me that a driver can't
properly control a vehicle whilst smoking a cigarette. It's as bad if not worse
than using a cellphone. And nicotine is a *NARCOTIC* !
The driver also shouldn't be allowed to touch the radio or talk to passengers
because of the probability of distraction. In fact the passengers shouldn't be
allowed to talk either for fear of distracting the driver ! Where would you like
to stop ?
Graham
Fred G. Mackey
>
> Old Wolf wrote:
>
>
>>driving drunk means you are a threat to other peoples' lives
>
>
> Define drunk.
The law has already done so - more strictly in your country than even
our ridiculous standards unless I am mistaken.
>
> Drunkenness certainly isn't caused by one glass of wine or a pint of beer but
> rather quite some number of same.
>
> How about a law against ppl driving when tired or under the influence of
> prescription or even over-the-counter drugs ?
We already have laws against those things too.
> You couldn't for example take a
> hay-fever remedy and legally drive. It would make as much sense (if not more in
> fact) as a total alcohol ban.
>
You, of course, are taking it to an extreme.
> Think carefully about what you wish for.
>
> I'd also ban smoking while driving. It's quite clear to me that a driver can't
> properly control a vehicle whilst smoking a cigarette.
You've proven yourself to be such an idiot, I cannot be sure if you are
being sarcastic anymore.
For me, lighting a cigarette takes as much concentration as changing the
radio station or taking a sip of coffee.
> It's as bad if not worse
> than using a cellphone. And nicotine is a *NARCOTIC* !
>
Actually, it's not. You should learn what a "narcotic" actually is.
Eeyore
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Old Wolf wrote:
> >
> >>driving drunk means you are a threat to other peoples' lives
> >
> > Define drunk.
>
> The law has already done so - more strictly in your country than even
> our ridiculous standards unless I am mistaken.
Actually our standards are AIUI quite similar.
> > Drunkenness certainly isn't caused by one glass of wine or a pint of beer but
> > rather quite some number of same.
> >
> > How about a law against ppl driving when tired or under the influence of
> > prescription or even over-the-counter drugs ?
>
> We already have laws against those things too.
>
> > You couldn't for example take a
> > hay-fever remedy and legally drive. It would make as much sense (if not more in
> > fact) as a total alcohol ban.
>
> You, of course, are taking it to an extreme.
Not at all. Anti-histamines can cause considerable drowsiness.
> > Think carefully about what you wish for.
> >
> > I'd also ban smoking while driving. It's quite clear to me that a driver can't
> > properly control a vehicle whilst smoking a cigarette.
>
> You've proven yourself to be such an idiot, I cannot be sure if you are
> being sarcastic anymore.
>
> For me, lighting a cigarette takes as much concentration as changing the
> radio station or taking a sip of coffee.
It clearly requires much more co-ordination and the hand holding the cigarette is no
longer totally free to use for gear changing, steering, operations of controls etc.
Graham
MLOM
wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > >>driving drunk means you are a threat to other peoples' lives
>
> > > Define drunk.
>
> > The law has already done so - more strictly in your country than even
> > our ridiculous standards unless I am mistaken.
>
> Actually our standards are AIUI quite similar.
>
> > > Drunkenness certainly isn't caused by one glass of wine or a pint of beer but
> > > rather quite some number of same.
>
> > > How about a law against ppl driving when tired or under the influence of
> > > prescription or even over-the-counter drugs ?
>
> > We already have laws against those things too.
>
> > > You couldn't for example take a
> > > hay-fever remedy and legally drive. It would make as much sense (if not more in
> > > fact) as a total alcohol ban.
>
> > You, of course, are taking it to an extreme.
>
> Not at all. Anti-histamines can cause considerable drowsiness.
Many prescription and OTC medications come with caution statements
against driving or operating heavy equipment while using them. Of
course, we have too many in our society who are too lazy to read
labels.
> > > Think carefully about what you wish for.
>
> > > I'd also ban smoking while driving. It's quite clear to me that a driver can't
> > > properly control a vehicle whilst smoking a cigarette.
>
> > You've proven yourself to be such an idiot, I cannot be sure if you are
> > being sarcastic anymore.
>
> > For me, lighting a cigarette takes as much concentration as changing the
> > radio station or taking a sip of coffee.
>
> It clearly requires much more co-ordination and the hand holding the cigarette is no
> longer totally free to use for gear changing, steering, operations of controls etc.
>
> Graham
Graham, apparently you are not a smoker (good for you, btw). IIRC a
smoker can hold a cigarette and the steering wheel with the same hand,
as the smoker is not holding the cigarette to his mouth the whole time
the cigarette is in use (my brother smokes).
Of course, given the standard two-hand procedure for holding the
steering wheel, might as well ban manual transmissions, radios,
passengers, coffee, and any other potential distractor.
Realistically, you can't even make a turn at an intersection without
at least one hand leaving the steering wheel (preferred method is hand-
over-hand), and I doubt we'll ever be able to ban intersections.
Heck, even for drivers who do not use the cruise control, cops can be
distracting as well.
I'm sure we can go on and on until the dead horse is beaten to a
pulp. The biggest problem I see on the west side of the Atlantic is
that people are getting less willing to accept risk (driving has
always been a risky operation) and are way too willing to drop freedom
for security. Every little problem comes up, off to the government
for the answer.
Harry K
wrote:
Being an ex-smoker (thank God!) I can assure you that lighting a
cigarette takes about the same amount of time as shifting gears. As
for how much attention? Just about the same miniscule amount as
changing gears - it is an automatic action requiring no attention to
speak of.
Harry K
Fred G. Mackey
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>
>>> You couldn't for example take a
>>>hay-fever remedy and legally drive. It would make as much sense (if not more in
>>>fact) as a total alcohol ban.
>>
>>You, of course, are taking it to an extreme.
>
>
> Not at all. Anti-histamines can cause considerable drowsiness.
You're talking about "total" bans. That's extreme.
>
>
>
>>>Think carefully about what you wish for.
>>>
>>>I'd also ban smoking while driving. It's quite clear to me that a driver can't
>>>properly control a vehicle whilst smoking a cigarette.
>>
>>You've proven yourself to be such an idiot, I cannot be sure if you are
>>being sarcastic anymore.
>>
>>For me, lighting a cigarette takes as much concentration as changing the
>>radio station or taking a sip of coffee.
>
>
> It clearly requires much more co-ordination
Not at all. It doesn't involve taking my eyes off the road. It only
requires one hand plus it does not require reaching as far as I would
have to if I were to change the radio station or take a sip of coffee.
> and the hand holding the cigarette is no
> longer totally free to use for gear changing, steering, operations of controls etc.
Obviously one doesn't light a cigarette when they are going to have to
change gears, just as you wouldn't sip coffeee or change the radio
station when you need to change gears.
The cigarettes I smoke don't create any ashes. The only time a hand is
required is when I light it or put it out (in the ashtray, not out the
window).
If you want to ban smoking while driving, you should also ban car
stereos, A/C, heat, adjusting mirrors, scratching your head, picking
your nose and even sneezing while driving.
>
>
> Graham
>