Steroid use and drunk driving

How to find a user by their nick?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Driving > Steroid use and drunk driving 25 March 2005 06:15:52

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yahoo.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Steroid use and drunk driving
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 18 March 2005 20:15:55
	Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.
		Add comment


The Office Jet 18 March 2005 20:40:42 [ permanent link ]
	First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they shouldn't contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and ask them whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's ridiculous.
		Add comment


Ill 18 March 2005 21:19:32 [ permanent link ]
	The Office Jet wrote:> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with> baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they shouldn't> contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and ask them> whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's ridiculous.> Congress has actually done this...it's an easy way to make you look like you are doing something It was also Republicans..who were suffering from bad foreign policy and ...gee sound familiar? (Just replace Communism with terrorism) http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/blacklist.htm "....In 1946, for the first time since the Hoover administration, the Republican Party had won control of Congress. Political events in Europe and the rest of the world bewildered most Americans. Early polls indicated official U.S. foreign policy at odds with that of the average citizen. As a result, President Truman came to be regarded by many as being soft towards Communism, especially вЂњdomesticвЂќ Communism. Because of the newly empowered Republican majority and to combat these increasing uncertainties, Truman put into effect the first of many of the so-called вЂњanti-Communist loyalty actsвЂќ. However, rather than shoring up a perceived weakness within his administration, these executive mandates lent credence to TrumanвЂ™s detractors, and fueled his own self-doubts."
		Add comment


Bert Hyman 18 March 2005 21:22:39 [ permanent link ]
	illadel@hotmail.com (ill) wrote in news:d1f2j4$b0j7$1@netnews.upenn.edu: The Office Jet wrote:>> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with>> baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they>> shouldn't contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and>> ask them whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's>> ridiculous. >> Congress has actually done this...it's an easy way to make you look> like you are doing something> It was also Republicans..who were suffering from bad foreign policy> and ...gee sound familiar? (Just replace Communism with terrorism) You mean the Democrat committee members are boycotting the hearings? You'd think that would have made the news. -- Bert Hyman \| St. Paul, MN \| bert@iphouse.com
		Add comment


Us 71 18 March 2005 21:54:25 [ permanent link ]
	"ill" <illadel@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d1f2j4$b0j7$1@netnews.upenn.edu...> The Office Jet wrote:>> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with>> baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they shouldn't>> contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and ask them>> whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's ridiculous.>> Congress has actually done this...it's an easy way to make you look like > you are doing something> Like Florida's Terri Schiavo case?
		Add comment


Bert Hyman 18 March 2005 22:45:58 [ permanent link ]
	illadel@hotmail.com (ill) wrote in news:d1f40l$avl0$1@netnews.upenn.edu: Bert Hyman wrote:>> illadel@hotmail.com (ill) wrote in>> news:d1f2j4$b0j7$1@netnews.upenn.edu: >> The Office Jet wrote:>>> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with>>>>baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they>>>>shouldn't contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood>>>>and ask them whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think>>>>it's ridiculous. >>>> Congress has actually done this...it's an easy way to make you>>>look like you are doing something>>> It was also Republicans..who were suffering from bad foreign>>>policy and ...gee sound familiar? (Just replace Communism with>>>terrorism) >> You mean the Democrat committee members are boycotting the>> hearings? >> You'd think that would have made the news.>> Wasn't trying to be partisan...they're both crooked (the> parties)...this one is just headed by a Rebuplican..but as you can> see the Democrats are leading in bribes (see below) Yes. It's important to keep that in mind. The most hilarious claim I've heard so far is that this is all being done to protect the sanctity of the old baseball records: GIL GUTKNECHT (R), MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ... And when I started thinking about this issue, and this issue has sort of bubbled up over the last several years, my first reaction is how unfair this is to people like Harmon Killebrew. You wonder how many home runs he might have hit if he'd have been able to use chemicals. Or particularly, Hank Aaron. And in some respects, it cheats the game and it cheats history and it cheats things like that. And I think about baseball especially, because growing up watching Roger Maris hit 61 home runs and remembering that for years and perhaps even today, there's an asterisk after his name. And knowing that, for example, in little leagues now and even in softball leagues, we use aluminum bats. But we don't do that in baseball, not in the major leagues and not even in the minor leagues. And the reason is we take those records so seriously. I mean, they're almost a part of history. We all know where we were when Roger Maris hit that 61st home run and we remember some of those things. I guess we can expect legislation outlawing the use of aluminum bats in professional baseball. -- Bert Hyman \| St. Paul, MN \| bert@iphouse.com
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 18 March 2005 23:47:17 [ permanent link ]
	Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') wrote:> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> > Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.> > "Nearly everyone"? So that would include you? You are a drunk driver? How does "nearly everyone" automatically include me, you illogical moron? No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk.
		Add comment


Larry Bud 19 March 2005 00:27:58 [ permanent link ]
	How does "nearly everyone" automatically include me, you illogical> moron? No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk. God knows that the poor slob that ends up with you been drunk more times than one can count.
		Add comment


Ogt '92 19 March 2005 06:26:12 [ permanent link ]
	TV's Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') wrote:>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:>>> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>>> let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>>> guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>>> "Nearly everyone"? So that would include you? You are a drunk driver?> How does "nearly everyone" automatically include me, you illogical> moron? No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk. Maybe you oughta try it. -- Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 19 March 2005 07:59:07 [ permanent link ]
	Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') wrote:> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk.> > What made you like this? Infinite intelligence.
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 19 March 2005 08:01:09 [ permanent link ]
	OGT '92 wrote:> TV's Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> > How does "nearly everyone" automatically include me, you illogical> > moron? No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk.> Maybe you oughta try it. Why don't you try going sober? Maybe then you wouldn't beat your sons and rape your daughters. Or is it the other way around?
		Add comment


Guest 19 March 2005 08:12:34 [ permanent link ]
	The Office Jet wrote:> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with> baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they shouldn't> contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and ask them> whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's ridiculous. Its actually a better comparison than it seems. For example, I think Robin Williams stopped being funny after he quit doing blow. Clearly a performance-enhancing drug for him.
		Add comment


Shrikeback 19 March 2005 08:14:13 [ permanent link ]
	"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1111204747.647769.37870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...> Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') wrote:>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:>> No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk.>> > What made you like this?> Infinite intelligence. Well, God is a pretty funny guy then.
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 19 March 2005 08:18:36 [ permanent link ]
	You misspelled "intelligence." In your case it's spelled "Ignorance"
		Add comment


Ogt '92 19 March 2005 08:52:16 [ permanent link ]
	TV's Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> OGT '92 wrote:>> TV's Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:>>> How does "nearly everyone" automatically include me, you illogical>>> moron? No - i've never driven drunk or even been drunk.>> Maybe you oughta try it.> Why don't you try going sober? Maybe then you wouldn't beat your sons> and rape your daughters. Or is it the other way around? I have no kids. And I rarely drink. It makes me even more depressed than I usually am, and makes my stomach hurt. Sometimes, pooing isn't all that cool. -- Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan
		Add comment


Shrikeback 19 March 2005 09:13:04 [ permanent link ]
	<szasz@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1111205553.973037.264960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> The Office Jet wrote:>> First of all, I think Congress has no business interfering with>> baseball and its steroid policy. It's entertainment. they shouldn't>> contorl it. Do they haul in everyone from Hollywood and ask them>> whether they've done cocaine or not? I just think it's ridiculous.> Its actually a better comparison than it seems. For example, I think> Robin Williams stopped being funny after he quit doing blow. Clearly a> performance-enhancing drug for him. This reminds me of a Lily Tomlin joke I heard once on the radio, where she listed things she worried about. "I worry that drugs will make us more creative than we really are."
		Add comment


John David Galt 19 March 2005 11:51:16 [ permanent link ]
	szasz@my-deja.com wrote:> Its actually a better comparison than it seems. For example, I think> Robin Williams stopped being funny after he quit doing blow. Clearly a> performance-enhancing drug for him. Sure. And the more I drink, the better I sing!
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 21 March 2005 08:29:09 [ permanent link ]
	Karla wrote:> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> They're only hurting themselves. Hell, we let people smoke cigarettes> > and that's a million times more unhealthy. And we let people use> > alcohol even though the boozers kill OTHER people on the highways.> > Steroids is a microscopic drug problem.> It's not lawful to drink and drive in the US states (above the legal> limit.) The point is that booze is legal even thought we know it leads to the deadly crime of drunk driving.
		Add comment


L Sternn 21 March 2005 18:45:05 [ permanent link ]
	On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving. If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?
		Add comment


BlackWater 21 March 2005 18:56:39 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:45:05 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote: On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone? I guess even "super-deadly" doesn't mean 'absolutely deadly' ... Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly - that it's just not practical to implement any REAL crackdown.
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 22 March 2005 02:57:09 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:56:39 GMT, bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:45:05 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:> On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend">><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>>>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>>>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?> I guess even "super-deadly" doesn't mean 'absolutely> deadly' ... > Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high> risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more> than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that> SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly -> that it's just not practical to implement any REAL> crackdown. Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do), you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 22 March 2005 03:22:14 [ permanent link ]
	In article <423F4803.7BF964F8@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> writes:>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: A million times? Steroids are known to make some people violent. Actually, that isn't proven. Although "roid rage" is an anecdotal problem, there have been few studies that show any real effect. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "The ambition of every poor Mexican is to sell enough pot so that he can get rich enough to get drunk on alcohol." -Anonymous Mexican, quoted by Lester Grinspoon in _Marijuana_Reconsidered_
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 22 March 2005 04:13:20 [ permanent link ]
	In article <27ku31l6hegic1ii85pjrsb2d6jouqcho5@4ax.com> Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> writes:>Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people>drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'. Similar to shooting a rifle within city limits. Most of the time you won't hurt or kill anyone. But we still frown on the practice. And I'm not talking about on a rifle range... -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way will promptly develop."
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 04:37:05 [ permanent link ]
	On 21 Mar 2005 16:13:20 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote: In article <27ku31l6hegic1ii85pjrsb2d6jouqcho5@4ax.com> Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> writes:>>Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>>kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people>>drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>>you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'.> Similar to shooting a rifle within city limits. Most of the time you won't>hurt or kill anyone. But we still frown on the practice. And I'm not talking>about on a rifle range...> Or shooting off fireworks in certain states. Or smoking while pumping gas - definitely not recommended, but most of the time you'll get away with it. (I only tried it once - I forgot I was smoking)
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 22 March 2005 05:05:37 [ permanent link ]
	In article <423F68C1.5B2B780C@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> writes:>Pete nospam Zakel wrote:>> In article <423F4803.7BF964F8@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> writes:>> >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: A million times? Steroids are known to make some people violent. Actually, that isn't proven. Although "roid rage" is an anecdotal problem,>> there have been few studies that show any real effect. Why have their been few studies? I didn't say there had been few studies. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) Them Toad Suckers How 'bout them toad suckers, ain't they clods? Sittin' there suckin' them green toady frogs! Suckin' them hop toads, suckin' them chunkers, Suckin' them a leapy type, suckin' them flunkers. Look at them toad suckers, ain't they snappy? Suckin' them bog frogs sure make's 'em happy! Them hugger mugger toad suckers, way down south, Stickin' them sucky toads in they mouth! How to be a toad sucker, no way to duck it, Get yourself a toad, rear back, and suck it! -Mason Williams
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 05:06:19 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:36:30 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Cartlon Shew wrote:>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:56:39 GMT, bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote:>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:45:05 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:>> > On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend">> >><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:>> >> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>> >>>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>> >>>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>> >> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?>> > I guess even "super-deadly" doesn't mean 'absolutely>> > deadly' ...>> > Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high>> > risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more>> > than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that>> > SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly ->> > that it's just not practical to implement any REAL>> > crackdown.>> Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>> kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people>> drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>> you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'.>> Taken as a whole, drinking driving kills about half of the people who>die on our roads each year. Sure you could get away with doing it many>times but most of the time when you drive, if you aren't totally passed>out, you aren't going to have to make a quick reaction. It's that few>times that gets people. We need to take drunk and drinking driving, and>drugged driving, very seriously. True - it should be taken seriously and not treated ridiculously like we do today. Repeal open container laws and raise the BAC back to 0.1 and pass an Amendment prohibiting Congress from extorting laws out of states by threatening to withhold funds.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 22 March 2005 05:06:38 [ permanent link ]
	In article <2npu31hov34sa92ddma533trsb3c3bq6i4@4ax.com> L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> writes: Or smoking while pumping gas - definitely not recommended, but most of>the time you'll get away with it. (I only tried it once - I forgot I>was smoking) Don't forget filling gas cannisters while they are in the bed of the pickup. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "People smart enough to give good advice are usually smart enough to give none."
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 05:44:04 [ permanent link ]
	On 21 Mar 2005 17:06:38 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel) wrote: In article <2npu31hov34sa92ddma533trsb3c3bq6i4@4ax.com> L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> writes:> Or smoking while pumping gas - definitely not recommended, but most of>>the time you'll get away with it. (I only tried it once - I forgot I>>was smoking)> Don't forget filling gas cannisters while they are in the bed of the pickup.> Or pumping your own gas in New Jersey or Oregon. Does anyone know what kind of training (if any) you are required to get to pump gas in those states? New Jersey didn't even have a requirement that USTs be inspected until last year.
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 06:47:10 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:28:29 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>> >> kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people>> >> drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>> >> you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'.>> >> Taken as a whole, drinking driving kills about half of the people who>> >die on our roads each year. Sure you could get away with doing it many>> >times but most of the time when you drive, if you aren't totally passed>> >out, you aren't going to have to make a quick reaction. It's that few>> >times that gets people. We need to take drunk and drinking driving, and>> >drugged driving, very seriously.>> True - it should be taken seriously and not treated ridiculously like>> we do today.>> Repeal open container laws and raise the BAC back to 0.1 and pass an>> Amendment prohibiting Congress from extorting laws out of states by>> threatening to withhold funds.>> OK, so what does that do to discourage people from drinking and driving?> It's still illegal. It also treats it seriously as opposed to the reactionary childlike way MADD approaches the issue with.
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 22 March 2005 07:23:59 [ permanent link ]
	L Sternn wrote:> On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"> <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but> >let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone? Stop defending drunk drivers, you criminal coddler.
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 22 March 2005 07:29:10 [ permanent link ]
	Cartlon Shew wrote:> Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't> kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people> drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),> you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'. Oh shut up, you criminal coddler. Drunk drivers kill and maim americans every hour. They are 1000 times the problem terrorists are. You just don't want to do anything about drunk driving because YOU do it.
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 07:48:41 [ permanent link ]
	On 21 Mar 2005 19:32:10 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: L Sternn wrote:>> True - it should be taken seriously and not treated ridiculously like>> we do today.>> And that means Repeal open container laws and raise the BAC back to 0.1 and pass an Amendment prohibiting Congress from extorting laws out of states by threatening to withhold funds.
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 08:01:08 [ permanent link ]
	On 21 Mar 2005 19:29:10 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: Cartlon Shew wrote:>> Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>> kill or injure anyone, and if you count the number of times people>> drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>> you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone>"super-deadly'.> Oh shut up, you criminal coddler. No, I won't. Kennedy-apologist. You'd gain just a little bit of credibility if you would at least acknowledge that Kennedy is at least as culpable for Mary Jo Kopechne's death as Laura Bush was in her ex-boyfriend's death. You'd gain just a bit more credibility if you'd admit that Kennedy was more culpable since he was definitely drinking and there is nothing to even suggest Laura Welch (remember, she wasn't yet married to Bush) got in the accident that resulted in the death of her boyfriend. Furthermore, Kennedy didn't even report the accident for 8 hours after it happened. If he had gone straight to a phone there's a chance Kopechne would not have died. Even if that chance were very slim, at least he could claim he tried to save her. But he didn't even try. Drunk drivers kill and maim americans>every hour. They are 1000 times the problem terrorists are. poppycock You just>don't want to do anything about drunk driving because YOU do it. Nope - sorry.
		Add comment


L Sternn 22 March 2005 08:02:09 [ permanent link ]
	On 21 Mar 2005 19:23:59 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote: L Sternn wrote:>> On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend">> <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:>> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>> >let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp)>are>> >guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?> Stop defending drunk drivers, you criminal coddler. I'm not defending anyone. I just want to know why there aren't any dead bodies.
		Add comment


BlackWater 22 March 2005 17:07:07 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:20:53 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: BlackWater wrote:>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:45:05 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:>> On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend">> ><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:>> > Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>> >>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>> >>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>> > If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?>> I guess even "super-deadly" doesn't mean 'absolutely>> deadly' ...>> Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high>> risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more>> than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that>> SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly ->> that it's just not practical to implement any REAL>> crackdown.>> The shift to .08 BAC will make it much easier to get people who are at>.10 convicted. That sounds like at least an effort to take it seriously.>Of course until we as a society come to some sort of consensus about>drunk driving, we aren't going to really put much of a dent in the>problem. This is similar to cannabis, cocaine, steroids, etc. While I think there's a concensus that driving drunk is a BAD THING ... the fact that alcoholic drinks are so extremely popular and availible and integrated into all manner of social occasions means that there are a huge number of people who are driving with at least SOME alcohol in their systems. Thing is, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to KNOW what their BAC is unless they're carrying an electronic detector and use it properly. Ergo you get a lot of people who are just barely legally drunk out driving - thinking they are OK. That the same BAC can floor a teatotaller and barely effect (affect?) a hard-drinkin' construction worker also confounds the issue. There's no "impairment detector" as of yet - so Joe Steelworker feels (is) screwed when he's arrested for DUI when he's really not "influenced" very much. Women and many asians, producing half the amount of alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme, can be blasted out of thier minds and yet be LEGALLY sober. A 0.08 in a woman is probably closer to a 0.16 in a male. Clearly an 'impairment detector' is needed. As I recall, there ARE certain brainwave functions that change speed in response to alcohol intoxication - in a pretty linear fashion too. The advent of 'SQUIDS' (superconductive quantum interference devices) may make it possible to build a thingie sensitive enough to just hold to your forehead and watch a light flash a few times. This would be better than using raw BAC as a criteria - and might be compact enough to put in your pocket or set up as a "trashed-o-meter" in a bar. As for some of those other drugs ... at the moment I don't think there SHOULD be a consensus. There's far too much puritanism and state schemes for power and money tied-up in those drugs for any sane decisions to be reached. Many ain't THAT bad all in all - but the 'drug war' isn't really ABOUT 'drugs' anyway but about money, politics, puritanism and power.
		Add comment


BlackWater 22 March 2005 17:10:15 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:57:09 -0700, Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:56:39 GMT, bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote:> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:45:05 -0700, L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote:>> On 18 Mar 2005 08:15:55 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend">>><xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:>>> Media is in a frenzy over the "crime" of steroid use in baseball but>>>>let's not forget that nearly everyone (including the prez and vp) are>>>>guilty of the super-deadly drug crime of drunk driving.>>> If it's "super-deadly", why didn't they kill anyone?>> I guess even "super-deadly" doesn't mean 'absolutely>> deadly' ... >> Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high>> risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more>> than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that>> SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly ->> that it's just not practical to implement any REAL>> crackdown. > Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>kill or injure anyone Pure luck. If you also close your eyes for 60 seconds while driving on the freeway there's a pretty good chance you WON'T hit anyone else or drive off the road. This doesn't imply that it's anywhere NEAR 'safe' to do that. and if you count the number of times people>drive drunk without incident (as opposed to just the people who do),>you'd see that it's hardly dangerous at all, let alone "super-deadly'. 'Super-deadly' is kind-of a relative term dontchaknow. Compared to a large number of OTHER risks, driving drunk IS pretty damned bad.
		Add comment


Magnulus 22 March 2005 21:32:36 [ permanent link ]
	"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message news:ul1v315juoku0c305nvbmdtd9hin4rm0v9@4ax.com...> It's still illegal.> It also treats it seriously as opposed to the reactionary childlike> way MADD approaches the issue with. Childlike? Look, 0.08 BAC is 4 drinks for most men- in an hour. You'ld have to be a borderline alcoholic or problem drinker to consume that much alcohol. If anything, 0.08 BAC is very generous becaues they've proven that in many individuals lower levels cause significant impairment. Some European countries have zero tolerance for alcohol in the blood for driving, so 0.08 is very generous. In Sweden you can be jailed for up to two years for having a BAC of 0.1, and 1 drink (0.02) is considered "intoxicated driving". And open container laws make alot of sense. It sends a strong message not tolerating drinking and driving. Airline pilots aren't allowed to drink within a certain period of getting in a plane- at all? Why do you think driving a car is all that different? If anything, driving a car requires alot more attention- flying just requires alot of training.
		Add comment


Paul G. Wenthold 22 March 2005 21:42:49 [ permanent link ]
	Magnulus wrote: "L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message> news:ul1v315juoku0c305nvbmdtd9hin4rm0v9@4ax.com...> It's still illegal.>> It also treats it seriously as opposed to the reactionary childlike>>way MADD approaches the issue with.> Childlike?> Look, 0.08 BAC is 4 drinks for most men- in an hour. You'ld have to be a> borderline alcoholic or problem drinker to consume that much alcohol. If> anything, 0.08 BAC is very generous becaues they've proven that in many> individuals lower levels cause significant impairment. Some European> countries have zero tolerance for alcohol in the blood for driving, so 0.08> is very generous. In Sweden you can be jailed for up to two years for> having a BAC of 0.1, and 1 drink (0.02) is considered "intoxicated driving".> Here's the question I have: what's the real problem? Is it the people who are out driving with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.1? Or is it more the number of people with BACs of 0.1 who aren't getting caught? IMO, the problem is not that we have too many people on the road with BAC of 0.09. It's that too many who drive drunk, whatever the standard, get away with it. Let's start by doing a good job enforcing the standard we have, and then worry about making it more strict. Changing the standard from 0.1 to 0.08 does nothing to get the idiots who have BACs of 0.15 - 0.20 off the road. paul
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 22 March 2005 22:26:10 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:32:36 -0500, "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote: "L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message>news:ul1v315juoku0c305nvbmdtd9hin4rm0v9@4ax.com...>> It's still illegal.>> It also treats it seriously as opposed to the reactionary childlike>> way MADD approaches the issue with.> Childlike?> Look, 0.08 BAC is 4 drinks for most men- in an hour. Or 5 drinks in 2 hours. Or 6 drinks in 3 hours. And that's only if you're male and of a typical weight. You'ld have to be a>borderline alcoholic or problem drinker to consume that much alcohol. Not really. anything, 0.08 BAC is very generous becaues they've proven that in many>individuals lower levels cause significant impairment. No, it's not generous since laws can be written in such a way that actual impairment is the standard. In some states, you can be below the legal BAC and still be convicted for DUI. Some European This is the US. HTH countries have zero tolerance for alcohol in the blood for driving, so 0.08>is very generous. In Sweden you can be jailed for up to two years for>having a BAC of 0.1, and 1 drink (0.02) is considered "intoxicated driving". And in Sweden, you can get on welfare just by asking. And open container laws make alot of sense. We did fine before them. Why not just have a law that says the driver cannot drink? Should someone be busted just because they're taking beer cans to be recycled? It sends a strong message>not tolerating drinking and driving. But it's already been established that drinking and driving is not a problem - it's drunk driving that is a problem. Airline pilots aren't allowed to drink Airline pilots have ALL sorts of requirements that do not apply to drivers. within a certain period of getting in a plane- at all? Why do you think>driving a car is all that different? Why do you think it's the same? If anything, driving a car requires>alot more attention- flying just requires alot of training.> Have you ever piloted a plane?
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 22 March 2005 22:59:35 [ permanent link ]
	In article <423f5726$1@news.cadence.com>, Pete nospam Zakel <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:>In article <423F4803.7BF964F8@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> writes:>>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:> A million times? Steroids are known to make some people violent.> Actually, that isn't proven. Although "roid rage" is an anecdotal problem,>there have been few studies that show any real effect. Maybe it's just because a lot of those who take them are violent people to begin with. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 22 March 2005 23:27:29 [ permanent link ]
	In article <VCY%d.67533$%Y4.10152@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message>news:ul1v315juoku0c305nvbmdtd9hin4rm0v9@4ax.com...>> It's still illegal.>> It also treats it seriously as opposed to the reactionary childlike>> way MADD approaches the issue with.> Childlike?> Look, 0.08 BAC is 4 drinks for most men- in an hour. Don't believe it; 0.08 is somewhere between one and two drinks in an hour. There's two sets of books when talking about BAC; one is when the MADDWomen are pushing the laws, in which case they claim it takes a lot of drinks to get to 0.08. The other is once they've gotten the laws passed and have started the "educational" campaign -- then you find out the truth. individuals lower levels cause significant impairment. Some European>countries have zero tolerance for alcohol in the blood for driving, so 0.08>is very generous. In some countries you can get the death penalty for drinking, so those European countries are being very generous by allowing it at all. And open container laws make alot of sense. It sends a strong message>not tolerating drinking and driving. Want to send a message? Try First Class Mail. Laws are for regulating behavior by threat of force, not for sending messages. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 22 March 2005 23:29:42 [ permanent link ]
	In article <d1plep$apf$1@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>, Paul G. Wenthold <pgwNOTTHIS@purdue.NOTTHIS.edu> wrote:> Here's the question I have: what's the real problem? Is it the people >who are out driving with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.1? Or is it more the >number of people with BACs of 0.1 who aren't getting caught? Neither. It's the number of people with BACs even higher than that who aren't getting caught. Of course, all the resources spent booking Joe Schmo who didn't realize that a pint of 5% beer put him over 0.08 aren't spent nailing Jack the Drunkard who had more like a fifth of his namesake. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 22 March 2005 23:49:55 [ permanent link ]
	In article <6etu31lbbg1bc7o89ctl651aqnn8jn92qo@4ax.com> L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> writes:>On 21 Mar 2005 17:06:38 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)>wrote:>>In article <2npu31hov34sa92ddma533trsb3c3bq6i4@4ax.com> L Sternn <lincolnfs@hm.net> writes: Or smoking while pumping gas - definitely not recommended, but most of>>>the time you'll get away with it. (I only tried it once - I forgot I>>>was smoking) Don't forget filling gas cannisters while they are in the bed of the pickup. Or pumping your own gas in New Jersey or Oregon. What's dangerous about pumping your own gas in New Jersey or Oregon? -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "If someone had told me I would be Pope one day, I would have studied harder." -Pope John Paul I
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 23 March 2005 02:34:05 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:42:34 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: If we got bad drivers off the roads, there would be fewer fatalities.>> Half of the deaths are involving drinking drivers. Ah, but it is people who drive badly sober who are the ones who cause fatalities when they drink too much. Of course there are>other bad drivers but clearly drinking and driving is a huge problem.
		Add comment


Manny Davis 23 March 2005 03:11:54 [ permanent link ]
	BlackWater wrote: IMHO, the State should serve mostly as an INFORMATION> SOURCE when it comes to drugs. The state provides information about drugs now. Take a look and decide for yourself how accurate the information is: http://tinyurl.com/59m4v When extreme cases come> along, the ordinary laws against deception or attempted> murder can be brought into play. The kind of environment> we see NOW absolutely REEKS of politics, back-scratching,> corruption, financial exploitation and micromanagement.> No good. Keep it simple - less opportunities for the> process to be corrupted. Government is made up of politicians who are, by their very nature, liars. Even if they enter politics as non-liars, they soon change their ways because in politics you get rewarded for lying and punished for telling the truth. If UL starts telling people that bad products are good, or that good products are bad, they will soon end up going out of business. A state-run drug information agency, OTOH, cannot go out of business for giving false or bad information about drugs, because the agency is funded by taxes, which are taken from people at the point of a gun. The "information" the state agency provides is likely to be false, outdated, or just plain wrong because there is little incentive to do otherwise.
		Add comment


Matty D 23 March 2005 06:11:46 [ permanent link ]
	The reason that the congressional panel is headed by a Republican is because the Republicans have a majority in the House. Whichever party controls the House or Senate will control every committee in that particular House. All committees in the House and Senate right now have Republican leadership. That's just the rules of the committees. If the Democrats controlled the House, then the special committee would be headed by a Democrat.
		Add comment


Shrikeback 23 March 2005 09:08:11 [ permanent link ]
	"Pete nospam Zakel" <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote in message news:424076e3$1@news.cadence.com...> In article <6etu31lbbg1bc7o89ctl651aqnn8jn92qo@4ax.com> L Sternn > <lincolnfs@hm.net> writes:>>On 21 Mar 2005 17:06:38 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)>>wrote:>>>In article <2npu31hov34sa92ddma533trsb3c3bq6i4@4ax.com> L Sternn >>><lincolnfs@hm.net> writes:> Or smoking while pumping gas - definitely not recommended, but most of>>>>the time you'll get away with it. (I only tried it once - I forgot I>>>>was smoking)> Don't forget filling gas cannisters while they are in the bed of the >>>pickup.> Or pumping your own gas in New Jersey or Oregon.> What's dangerous about pumping your own gas in New Jersey or Oregon? I don't know about New Jersey but here in Oregon they shoot you for that.
		Add comment


Magnulus 23 March 2005 13:12:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message newsOydnTlFMeQ87N3fRVn-ig@speakeasy.net...> Don't believe it; 0.08 is somewhere between one and two drinks in an hour. A myth. The official figures by the US government are 190 pound male who drinks 4 drinks in an hour will have a BAC of 0.08. Only somebody with a dysfunctional liver will 2 drinks result in a BAC of 0.08. Of course, the best policy if in doubt is simply to not drink and drive. There's two sets of books when talking about BAC; one is when the MADDWomen> are pushing the laws, in which case they claim it takes a lot of drinks to> get to 0.08. The other is once they've gotten the laws passed and> have started the "educational" campaign -- then you find out the> truth. People do lie about how much they drink. Want to send a message? Try First Class Mail. Laws are for regulating> behavior by threat of force, not for sending messages. And drinking and driving is a violent crime. It is wanton disregard for the safety of others. The only people who fight BAC laws are alcoholics and the "hospitality" industry, who correctly see cracking down on drunk driving as lowering social drinking. Too bad. With certain privileges come certain responsabilities, one of them is to not operate a vehicle impaired.
		Add comment


Andrew Tompkins 23 March 2005 22:39:26 [ permanent link ]
	"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Sha0e.73728$%Y4.40062@bignews6.bellsouth.net...> "Cartlon Shew" <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> wrote in message> news:ubo0411a6bibh0igmulh2ipuh7alhjum3a@4ax.com...> > If anything, driving a car requires> > >alot more attention- flying just requires alot of training.> > > Have you ever piloted a plane?> Nope, never flown a real plane, though I have plenty of experience with> all kinds of PC flight simulators. Except for landing and emergencies, I> would say driving requires more concentration.> I would recommend going down to the nearest flight instruction Fixed Base Operator and take a flight lesson or two. You'll gain a greater appreciation for what piloting is really like. As a private pilot and former Air Force navigator, I've never had much regard for PC flight simulators because they come nowhere close to the real thing. --Andy -------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Tompkins Software Engineer Beaverton, OR http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways --------------------------------------------------
		Add comment


Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 23 March 2005 22:43:48 [ permanent link ]
	Magnulus wrote:> And drinking and driving is a violent crime. It is wanton disregard for> the safety of others. It sure is maggie. DUI is a drug crime and very violent crime. Most people don't want to think of it that way (cause they do it), but that's what it is.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 23 March 2005 22:56:03 [ permanent link ]
	In article <moa0e.73730$%Y4.71066@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, Magnulus <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>newsOydnTlFMeQ87N3fRVn-ig@speakeasy.net...>> Don't believe it; 0.08 is somewhere between one and two drinks in an hour.> A myth. The official figures by the US government are 190 pound male who>drinks 4 drinks in an hour will have a BAC of 0.08. Only somebody with a>dysfunctional liver will 2 drinks result in a BAC of 0.08. For one thing, I'm a 150 pound male; it's even worse for females. For another, those "4 drinks" are a lot smaller than an actual drink. For a third, alcohol metabolism varies widely. Put those together and not even one drink is safe. 2 drinks is almost certainly over for many, many people. Of course, the best policy if in doubt is simply to not drink and drive. Which is of course the goal of neo-prohibitionists and authoritarians. Prohibition through the back door. There's two sets of books when talking about BAC; one is when the>MADDWomen>> are pushing the laws, in which case they claim it takes a lot of drinks to>> get to 0.08. The other is once they've gotten the laws passed and>> have started the "educational" campaign -- then you find out the>> truth.> People do lie about how much they drink. Non sequitur. Want to send a message? Try First Class Mail. Laws are for regulating>> behavior by threat of force, not for sending messages.> And drinking and driving is a violent crime. It is wanton disregard for>the safety of others. Drinking and driving is NOT a violent crime; that's a redefinition of "violent crime" for emotional purposes. The only people who fight BAC laws are alcoholics and the "hospitality">industry, who correctly see cracking down on drunk driving as lowering>social drinking. Too bad. With certain privileges come certain>responsabilities, one of them is to not operate a vehicle impaired. Are you accusing me of being an alcoholic or a member of the hospitality industries? In any case, most of those on your side claim these BAC laws won't affect social drinking. Even you did, above. Which is it? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 23 March 2005 23:15:24 [ permanent link ]
	In article <4241A401.2DB800E2@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>, Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote:> How would you explain people who are drunk driving going the wrong way>on the freeway? Doing this for miles which people going the right way>are desperately diving off the road. Sure they could see, but they>couldn't process what they saw in a rational and meaningful manner. Possibly they could see, they could process it, and they thought it was pretty damned cool. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 24 March 2005 00:30:41 [ permanent link ]
	In article <arWdnT-mk9TRXdzfRVn-qg@speakeasy.net> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:>In article <4241A401.2DB800E2@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>,>Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: How would you explain people who are drunk driving going the wrong way>>on the freeway? Doing this for miles which people going the right way>>are desperately diving off the road. Sure they could see, but they>>couldn't process what they saw in a rational and meaningful manner. Possibly they could see, they could process it, and they thought it was pretty>damned cool. Note that this happens with tired driving as well as drunk driving. There are some researchers that claim tired drivers are responsible for more accidents than drunk drivers. My dad would frequently scare me when he was driving. There was one time he picked me and a friend up after a band performance and he started turing onto the exit ramp (instead of the entrance ramp) of the freeway. Fortunately we noticed and yelled really loudly at him! -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 24 March 2005 01:19:18 [ permanent link ]
	In article <4241d10b$1@news.cadence.com>, Pete nospam Zakel <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:>In article <moa0e.73730$%Y4.71066@bignews6.bellsouth.net> "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> writes:>>"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message>>newsOydnTlFMeQ87N3fRVn-ig@speakeasy.net...> Don't believe it; 0.08 is somewhere between one and two drinks in an hour.> A myth. The official figures by the US government are 190 pound male who>>drinks 4 drinks in an hour will have a BAC of 0.08. Only somebody with a>>dysfunctional liver will 2 drinks result in a BAC of 0.08.> [...]> People do lie about how much they drink.> Actually, a big problem is that most people don't understand what a "standard>drink" is and think the triple Mai-tai or jumbo Margerita they ordered is>"one drink".> Maybe bars and restaurants should be required to serve drinks in containers>that have the words "THIS IS 4 DRINKS" (or whatever the number) in large>unmistakable text on the outside of the container. Maybe the government should use more realistic sizes. Obviously a triple Mai-Tai should be three drinks, but a pint of beer should be one, not two. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 24 March 2005 01:21:51 [ permanent link ]
	In article <4241d1f1$1@news.cadence.com>, Pete nospam Zakel <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:>In article <arWdnT-mk9TRXdzfRVn-qg@speakeasy.net> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:>>In article <4241A401.2DB800E2@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>,>>Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born') <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote:> How would you explain people who are drunk driving going the wrong way>>>on the freeway? Doing this for miles which people going the right way>>>are desperately diving off the road. Sure they could see, but they>>>couldn't process what they saw in a rational and meaningful manner.> Possibly they could see, they could process it, and they thought it was pretty>>damned cool.> Note that this happens with tired driving as well as drunk driving. There are>some researchers that claim tired drivers are responsible for more accidents>than drunk drivers.> My dad would frequently scare me when he was driving. There was one time he>picked me and a friend up after a band performance and he started turing onto>the exit ramp (instead of the entrance ramp) of the freeway. Fortunately we>noticed and yelled really loudly at him! Two different situations; there's a big difference between accidentally getting on the wrong ramp and continuing to drive down the road the wrong way for miles. I've never heard of the latter happening without a pretty high BAC. (though it rarely happens) -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 24 March 2005 01:43:37 [ permanent link ]
	In article <282dnVscv4_LQNzfRVn-qA@speakeasy.net> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) writes:>In article <4241d10b$1@news.cadence.com>,>Pete nospam Zakel <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote: Maybe bars and restaurants should be required to serve drinks in containers>>that have the words "THIS IS 4 DRINKS" (or whatever the number) in large>>unmistakable text on the outside of the container. Maybe the government should use more realistic sizes. Obviously a>triple Mai-Tai should be three drinks, but a pint of beer should be>one, not two. Actually, a triple Mai-tai is probably 6 standard drinks. And depending on the alcohol content of the beer, a pint of beer could be anywhere from 1 to 3 drinks (or 4 for some brews). My understanding is that one "standard drink" (in the USofA, anyway) contains .6 oz of alcohol (which is 1.5 oz of 80-proof whiskey, liquor or spirits). -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "Its not the size of the ship, its the size of the waves." -Little Richard
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 24 March 2005 02:47:35 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:14:41 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Cartlon Shew wrote:>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:46:23 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy>> being born')">> <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>>> wrote:>> Cartlon Shew wrote:>> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:10:15 GMT, bw@barrk.net (BlackWater) wrote:>> >> Admittedly though, drunk driving does pose a high>> >> >>> risk to the general public - more than 'guns', more>> >> >>> than 'drugs', more than 'pollution'. Thing is that>> >> >>> SO many people do it - knowingly or unknowingly ->> >> >>> that it's just not practical to implement any REAL>> >> >>> crackdown.>> >> >> Thing is that SO many people do it, yet MOST of those people don't>> >> >>kill or injure anyone>> >> > Pure luck. If you also close your eyes for 60 seconds>> >> > while driving on the freeway there's a pretty good>> >> > chance you WON'T hit anyone else or drive off the road.>> >> That's very doubtful. 60 seconds on a freeway is over a mile in>> >> distance traveled. Even if the freeway is perfectly straight and your>> >> alignment of your wheels is perfect I'd bet there's a very good chance>> >> you'd be in an accident.>> >> What if you keep the wheels in those groves that the trucks and people>> >with studded tires so graciously made for you?>> > Wouldn't prevent you from rear-ending someone - even if those grooves>> existed on every freeway, which they do not.>> How much driving experience on freeways do you have?>> Of course plenty. I'm in Washington state. We can drive for eight hours>and just get to the other side of the state.> Only 8 hours? You've never been cruising along at 75 and then suddenly hit 20 mph>> traffic?>> Wouldn't this apply to the drunk driver similarly? No - because a drunk driver can see traffic slowing. All those brake lights, ya' know. He's busy spinning in>his stupor toss his bottles of Bud out the window, might not be a better>driver than Ray Charles. might not. Compared to closing your eyes for over a mile on a freeway, drunk>> >> driving is relatively safe.>> >> If they are blind drunk, what's the difference?>> "blind drunk" is merely an expression. Just because you don't>> remember what you did last nite, doesn't mean you couldn't see.>> How would you explain people who are drunk driving going the wrong way>on the freeway? How would you explain all the drunks that manage to drive safely? Doing this for miles which people going the right way>are desperately diving off the road. Sure they could see, but they>couldn't process what they saw in a rational and meaningful manner.
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 24 March 2005 05:57:32 [ permanent link ]
	It's a way to pass the time during slow moments at work.
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 24 March 2005 05:58:58 [ permanent link ]
	I don't DUI, and it's not a drug crime, nor is it very violent, retard.
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 24 March 2005 05:59:24 [ permanent link ]
	Projecting your drinking and driving issues on others again, hypocrite?
		Add comment


Don McC 24 March 2005 09:56:12 [ permanent link ]
	"Bill Bonde wrote> > But that's not how they are written. Some states, simply having an> > open container - ANY open container - is a violation of their open> > container laws.> > So, basically, someone taking beer cans to be recycled could be arrested. Technically, yes (in practice, no) if the cans were not locked in the trunk as with a van, wagon, SUV, or hatchback. Empties _are_ specifically excluded from the open container laws, but how many drops of beer must remain before the can is no longer considered empty? How many angels. Could a passanger get away with chugging the evidence just before being pulled over? But the can is empty? There are minimum amounts of narcotics required for prosecution, right? A trace amount of cocaine on a C note can't be illegal. -- Don Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable. ~ Mark Twain
		Add comment


L Sternn 24 March 2005 10:06:24 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:57:35 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: But it's already been established that drinking and driving is not a>> >> problem - it's drunk driving that is a problem.>> > Drinking and driving is the problem.>> Why?>> I would guess that the why has to do with the fact that about 20 times>as many Americans who died in Iraq in a year of fighting die each year>from alcohol related car smashes. But how many of them were actually drinking at the time of their accident? How many were over the legal limit? There's a difference between drinking and driving and driving drunk. Ya' know, some of us were taught that there is nothing wrong with drinking and driving as long as you weren't drunk. Of course there are lots of other>things we could worry about as well.> Indeed. You can be impaired with BAC lower>> >than 0.08.>> Some people are impaired with ZERO BAC.>> That would argue for making driving a privilege that required passing a>serious test, included retesting, required not causing accidents to>retain the privilege, stuff like that. That would be a good thing.
		Add comment


L Sternn 24 March 2005 10:10:38 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:56:12 -0500, "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> wrote: "Bill Bonde wrote>> > But that's not how they are written. Some states, simply having an>> > open container - ANY open container - is a violation of their open>> > container laws.>> > So, basically, someone taking beer cans to be recycled could be arrested.> Technically, yes (in practice, no) if the cans were not locked in the>trunk as with a van, wagon, SUV, or hatchback. Empties _are_>specifically excluded from the open container laws, but how many>drops of beer must remain before the can is no longer considered>empty? How many angels.> Could a passanger get away with chugging the evidence just before>being pulled over? But the can is empty?> There are minimum amounts of narcotics required for prosecution, right?>A trace amount of cocaine on a C note can't be illegal. I heard of someone who got busted last year for open container. He wasn't even aware there was any alcohol in the car - a friend of his had left it there when he was dropped off. But it would be reasonable to suspect he was lying. Did it matter that he had not drunk a thing? Nope, but the cop confirmed it anyway.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 24 March 2005 20:14:20 [ permanent link ]
	In article <77s341hn76dl0u9u5bhf34tu6ebjjqq0rb@4ax.com>, Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> wrote:> But that's not how they are written. Some states, simply having an>open container - ANY open container - is a violation of their open>container laws. And a container is "open" if the tax stamp is broken. And sometimes they've stretched that to the point of having a partial 6-pack of beer is an "open container". -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 25 March 2005 01:24:22 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:47:23 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Cartlon Shew wrote:>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:50:43 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy>> being born')">> <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>>> wrote:>> Of course plenty. I'm in Washington state. We can drive for eight hours>> >> >and just get to the other side of the state.>> >> > Only 8 hours?>> >> I mean going at the legal speed limit and not intentionally going in>> >circles or otherwise backtracking to artificially make it appear that>> >the state is bigger than all that. Clearly Washington isn't even that>> >large. Try driving Montana or California. People on the East Coast have>> >no idea.>> What makes you think I'm on the east coast?>> You'd have to be to ask such a silly question. Really? Where I'm from, you can drive for 8 hours and still be in the same state - and that's even if you're speeding. You've never been cruising along at 75 and then suddenly hit 20 mph>> >> >> traffic?>> >> >> Wouldn't this apply to the drunk driver similarly?>> >> No - because a drunk driver can see traffic slowing. All those brake>> >> lights, ya' know.>> >> Yea but he doesn't realize that the lights mean, thinks "Wow, I'm back>> >in Vegas!">> So? If he drove around Vegas without any problem, why should he have>> any problem elsewhere?>> Because he's drunk and driving the wrong way down the freeway. If he's driving the wrong way, he's going to see headlights, not brakelights. He's busy spinning in>> >> >his stupor toss his bottles of Bud out the window, might not be a better>> >> >driver than Ray Charles.>> >> might not.>> >> The real point is that while you might be able to drive drunk and no one>> >get killed, it does increase risks.>> So let's be realistic about it when passing laws against it.>> Let the punishment fit the crime.>> Right now the punishment is almost nothing. Really? Actually punishments vary from state to state and penalties have been enhanced greatly. What kind of sentence should a first-time offender who blows 0.081 get? Do you think the legal BAC should be lowered even further? Compared to closing your eyes for over a mile on a freeway, drunk>> >> >> >> driving is relatively safe.>> >> >> >> If they are blind drunk, what's the difference?>> >> >> "blind drunk" is merely an expression. Just because you don't>> >> >> remember what you did last nite, doesn't mean you couldn't see.>> >> >> How would you explain people who are drunk driving going the wrong way>> >> >on the freeway?>> >> How would you explain all the drunks that manage to drive safely?>> >> How drunk are they?>> That's part of the issue. Another question to ask is are they good>> drivers when they're sober?>> No matter, when drunk they are worse drivers than when they are sober.> But they could still be better than other legal drivers are sober. Why should we let those people (who are worse even when sober) drive at all? I was following a woman who was drunk and she was>> >weaving back and forth in the two lanes going our direction and into the>> >middle turn lane. She would use her blinker at each weave. How drunk do>> >you have to be to drive like that? I thought someone was going to get>> >killed since the turn lane, I knew, was soon to end.>> Ah, but despite her obvious intoxication she managed no to kill>> anyone, didn't she?>> She happened to be on a road that didn't have pedestrians and happened>to have a centre turn lane. She was stopped before she got passed the>next traffic light.> There ya' go again. She was stopped before she hurt anyone even though she was all over the road. If a drunk isn't all over the road, he's not likely to be caught, but neither is he likely to hurt anyone. You're proving my point.>> Which was what? No one claimed that driving drunk meant that you'd kill>someone, LBMHB did. only that it was irresponsible because it greatly increases the>likelihood and because about half of the traffic deaths each year are>alcohol related.
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 25 March 2005 01:27:30 [ permanent link ]
	In article "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> writes:>Empties _are_>specifically excluded from the open container laws, Actually, most open container laws I know about do not exclude empties. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) "To be, or what?" -Sylvester Stallone
		Add comment


Pete nospam Zakel 25 March 2005 01:31:02 [ permanent link ]
	In article <42430991.17C20F43@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> writes: How can they be locked in the back of a hatch back or station wagon? Most open container laws specify that the container must be in an area that the driver can access. So if the cans are in a plastic trash bag that has been twist-tied shut and the bags are out-of-reach of the driver, that's not breaking the law. However, loose in the back of the wagon or van means the driver could have just tossed them there after finishing them off, so that is a violation. -Pete Zakel (phz@seeheader.nospam) Q: What's the definition of a gentleman? A: One who knows how to play the saxophone, but doesn't!
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 25 March 2005 02:00:14 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Really? Actually punishments vary from state to state and penalties>> have been enhanced greatly.>> They still don't seem like much.> What kind of sentence should a first-time offender who blows 0.081>> get?>> He should lose his licence for at least a year and have twenty hours of>community service a week for that time period. And yet instead, you might just end up in Tent City for a month. (Unless you're Glen Campbell).
		Add comment


Don McC 25 March 2005 03:14:25 [ permanent link ]
	"Bill Bonde queried: Don McC wrote: Technically, yes (in practice, no) if the cans were not locked in the>> trunk as with a van, wagon, SUV, or hatchback. How can they be locked in the back of a hatch back or station wagon? My point was that many vehicles have no space in which to lock a case of empties and that the "empties" probably contain some beer. So I was wondering if this was technically a violation. -- Don I never took the game home with me. I always left it in some bar. ~ Bob Lemon There is much less drinking in baseball today ever since I retired. ~ Rabbit Maranville
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 25 March 2005 03:17:49 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:45:37 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy being born')" <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com> wrote: Cartlon Shew wrote:>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('That he not busy>> being born')">> <stderr@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com>>> wrote:>> Really? Actually punishments vary from state to state and penalties>> >> have been enhanced greatly.>> >> They still don't seem like much.>> > What kind of sentence should a first-time offender who blows 0.081>> >> get?>> >> He should lose his licence for at least a year and have twenty hours of>> >community service a week for that time period.>> And yet instead, you might just end up in Tent City for a month.>> (Unless you're Glen Campbell).>> He can handle the soup kitchen. Ha! He didn't have to. All he did was extreme DUI, hit-and-run and assault on a cop. All he got was a slap on the wrist. He did however visit Tent City to play a little music for part of his community service. I guess forcing prisoners to listen to Rhinestone Cowboy is just Sherrif Joe being "tough".
		Add comment


Cartlon Shew 25 March 2005 04:03:00 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:14:25 -0500, "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> wrote: "Bill Bonde queried:> Don McC wrote:> Technically, yes (in practice, no) if the cans were not locked in the>>> trunk as with a van, wagon, SUV, or hatchback.> How can they be locked in the back of a hatch back or station wagon?> My point was that many vehicles have no space in which to lock a case>of empties and that the "empties" probably contain some beer. So I was>wondering if this was technically a violation. That's actually not a bad question.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 25 March 2005 04:37:13 [ permanent link ]
	Cartlon Shew wrote: On 24 Mar 2005 15:55:12 -0800, pxhxz@cadence.com (Pete nospam Zakel)> wrote:> In article <9lb641ls3b3746gscetq4oaob3ipj4vig6@4ax.com> Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> writes:>> If he's driving the wrong way, he's going to see headlights, not>>>brakelights.>> Note that I've heard if you run out of gas or your car otherwise is sitting>>immobile on the side of the freeway, it is better not to turn your flashers>>on because drunk drivers tend to aim at them.>> While I've never quite heard that exact advice, I have heard that> drunks tend to fixate on lights and that they tend to drift towards> where they are looking.> That happens to some extent with sober drivers as well. Anyone who's ever driven an unusual car that attracts a lot of attention is well aware of this phenomenon. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Xeton2001IsAMoron 20 dwpj65 25 March 2005 06:15:52 [ permanent link ]
	Really! Let's start with Tubby Kennedy, since his drinking and driving murdered his mistress.
		Add comment


Don McC 25 March 2005 08:51:37 [ permanent link ]
	"Pete nospam Zakel" <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:> Actually, most open container laws I know about do not exclude empties. A little Web surfing turned up these tidbits: "Just don't put the empties back in the car. There is always one last drop and the law forbids a container with any amount of alcohol within." "Langton assumes that even "empty" beer cans still contain small amounts of fluid and suggests that the current wording of the ordinance would make it illegal to pick up roadside litter and load it on a vehicle for disposal." "Now his officers are told to weigh the alcohol inside an open container so that no motorist returning empties to the store will face being ticketed, the chief said." "Open container" means a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open, that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed. -- Don Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable. ~ Mark Twain
		Add comment


L Sternn 25 March 2005 09:48:43 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:51:37 -0500, "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> wrote: "Pete nospam Zakel" <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:>> Actually, most open container laws I know about do not exclude empties.> A little Web surfing turned up these tidbits:> "Just don't put the empties back in the car. There is always one last drop>and the law forbids a container with any amount of alcohol within."> That's good advice, I'm sure, but it doesn't tell us exactly what the law is. Perhaps the law is open to some interpretation and even a "broken" 6-pack could be considered an open container. I've been told it was, but not by anyone I would take as a legal expert on the issue. Nonetheless, if I have any doubt, the booze goes in the trunk. I tried finding a good site summarizing state laws, but the best I could find in the short time I tried was a list from MADD's website on states that did and did not comply with "TEA-21" (whatever that is). About 15 states didn't comply. I did find this helpful site on Texas law though: http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Pamphlets&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4902 This particular excerpt was helpful, but remember, it only applies to 1 state: \| What is considered the В“passenger area of a motor vehicleВ”? \|The В“passenger areaВ” is the area of a motor vehicle designed for the seating of the operator and passengers. \|It does not include a locked glove compartment or a similar storage container that is locked, the trunk of a \|vehicle, or the area behind the last upright seat of the vehicle if the vehicle does not have a trunk. But it seems to me this allows for a HUGE loophole for pickup trucks. Your open container can be within arms reach. Even in an SUV, all you have to do is toss your empties behind the rear seat - something that you might have difficulty with if you're actually drunk. "Langton assumes that even "empty" beer cans still contain small amounts>of fluid and suggests that the current wording of the ordinance would make>it illegal to pick up roadside litter and load it on a vehicle for disposal." If the site I posted above can be trusted, I would think if the bottle is bone dry, you're cool: \|What is an В“open containerВ”? \|Under the new law, an В“open containerВ” is a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains any amount of \|alcoholic beverage and that has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially \|removed. But under the above interpretation, even a drop could get you convicted. "Now his officers are told to weigh the alcohol inside an open container>so that no motorist returning empties to the store will face being ticketed,>the chief said."> "Open container" means a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains>any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open, that has been opened,>that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed. Hmmmm - by any chance did you get that off the site I provided a link to? It matches exactly
		Add comment


Don McC 25 March 2005 10:26:36 [ permanent link ]
	"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote: "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> wrote:> "Just don't put the empties back in the car. There is always one last drop>> and the law forbids a container with any amount of alcohol within."> That's good advice, I'm sure, but it doesn't tell us exactly what the> law is. Perhaps the law is open to some interpretation and even a> "broken" 6-pack could be considered an open container.> I've been told it was, but not by anyone I would take as a legal> expert on the issue.> Nonetheless, if I have any doubt, the booze goes in the trunk.> I tried finding a good site summarizing state laws, but the best I> could find in the short time I tried was a list from MADD's website on> states that did and did not comply with "TEA-21" (whatever that is).> DOT Transportation Equity Act http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/n_154.htm> I did find this helpful site on Texas law though:> http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Pamphlets&Template=/ContentManageme nt/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4902> \|What is considered the "passenger area of a motor vehicle"?> \|The "passenger area" is the area of a motor vehicle designed for the seating of the operator and passengers.> \|It does not include a locked glove compartment or a similar storage container that is locked, the trunk of a> \|vehicle, or the area behind the last upright seat of the vehicle if the vehicle does not have a trunk.> But it seems to me this allows for a HUGE loophole for pickup trucks.> I wonder if the beer must be carried in the bed of the pickup.> "Langton assumes that even "empty" beer cans still contain small amounts>> of fluid and suggests that the current wording of the ordinance would make>> it illegal to pick up roadside litter and load it on a vehicle for disposal."> If the site I posted above can be trusted, I would think if the bottle> is bone dry, you're cool:> \|What is an "open container"?> \|Under the new law, an "open container" is a bottle, can, or other> receptacle that contains any amount of alcoholic beverage and that> has been opened, that has a broken seal, or the contents of which> are partially \|removed.> But under the above interpretation, even a drop could get you> convicted.>> "Open container" means a bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains>> any amount of alcoholic beverage and that is open, that has been opened,>> that has a broken seal, or the contents of which are partially removed.> Hmmmm - by any chance did you get that off the site I provided a link to?> It matches exactly> Yes, from the MADD Web site. -- Don Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are much more pliable. ~ Mark Twain
		Add comment


L Sternn 25 March 2005 12:55:57 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:26:36 -0500, "Don McC" <DonMcC@adelphia.net> wrote: But it seems to me this allows for a HUGE loophole for pickup trucks.>> I wonder if the beer must be carried in the bed of the pickup. Did you read what the Texas bar said??? Put the empites behind your seat in a sedan or a cuupe and yu're fucked. Put the empties (or even fulls) beihind the front of your pick-em-up truk and you are cool.
		Add comment


Matthew Russotto 25 March 2005 22:20:16 [ permanent link ]
	In article <cal64199e9fnjjavrlh2aqrt2n8o3gcro1@4ax.com>, Cartlon Shew <cashew@lapazylaplacer.com> wrote:> While I've never quite heard that exact advice, I have heard that>drunks tend to fixate on lights and that they tend to drift towards>where they are looking. Everybody tends to drift towards where they are looking. Drunks are less able to counteract this tendency. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Driving > Steroid use and drunk driving 25 March 2005 06:15:52

	see also: Dvd release? Re: Argentina : bad losers [Way OT]: anyone here an AV guru??		pass tests:		see also: need answer 2002 VW Golf tdi (130bhp) 15% oil light...2007 Honda CRV won't…

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Steroid use and drunk driving

Add new comment