On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:46 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:30:43 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

Why?

I'm too short of time this morning to speak to this adequately. For
the time being, I'll repost what I posted in another thread. I think
it spells out my position somewhat;

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

If I have time this evening, I'll return to this.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Tim wrote:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!
This is what happened to Britain. That is the piling on of laws and
restrictions to the point that their charter or Constitution is worthless.
We have been witness to the change from about 1950 to now.
It seemed less apparent here but we are spiraling the same way.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve



I'm not sure what you mean by "lessening their criminal acts." If you mean
that laws don't reduce criminal activity, then that's true for some laws,
e.g., death penalty laws don't reduce homicides. But, I suspect it's not
true for others, and laws do prevent bad outcomes, e.g., seat belt laws.

I don't have access to the full article, but here's the abstract.

"This article reexamines the effectiveness of blood alcohol content (BAC)
laws in reducing traffic fatalities. Differences-in-differences estimators
of U.S. state-level data with standard errors corrected for autocorrelation
show no evidence that lowering the BAC limits to 0.08 g/dL reduced fatality
rates, either in total or in crashes likely to be alcohol related, or in
states that passed BAC 08 in laws either in advance of or in response to
federal pressure. Other legislations, including administrative license
revocation and primary seat belt laws, are found effective in reducing
fatalities in all specifications. Endogeneity tests using event analyses
confirm the differences-in-differences estimates."

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Dec 9, 6:43*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening their
criminal acts. *Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.


reply: Well, if there are more laws, it means the government needs to hire
more law enforcement officers. Is that what they're talking about with all
this jobs creation stuff?

The old laws worked so good, lets make some more! Yeah, that oughta do it.

Steve

The children should not be allowed for the child labor below 15 years.It will hamper their education and increase the mental stress.There are number of laws are there for preventing the child labor,but it is not becoming functional because the public is not aware of it.So we have to be aware of the child labor and stop it right there .

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.


The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of
violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the
overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...
NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.
That ought to help save lives!
Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.


The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of
violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the
overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%.


Not enough credit is given to the peacemaker, as a tool to keep crime down.


-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Peacemaker


Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

Tim wrote:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Can't enforce the laws they have, what good is another? More lawyers?

I like it the way some countries do it. First offence and 2 years in
jail. No prarole, no good behavior, no nothing. Two years in cement walls.