This is not the “One Life” argument. God knows if you used that everything would be illegal. I do not have the statistics myself either, but I would be willing to bet that since I alone witnessed 2 in one year in a small area of North America, there must be hundreds if not thousands of accidents directly caused by cell phone use while driving… let alone fatal ones. I do believe that number would make it worthwhile. I honestly think that is true, as I believe some countries have banned their use while driving, however I do not have a cite handy.
Fenris,
I think you might be on the right track with that. I still don’t think you should be able to drive one from the get-go as you still need skills only experience can give, but the idea is sound. Congrats! You just earned your way into bernse’s new board of law-making. No, you can’t back out, its kinda like getting drafted. Bear in mind I still reserve the right to overule you whatever laws you don’t like, specifically the anti-smoking and cellphone laws… afterall, I am bernse and they are my laws.
Excellent point. It wouldn’t hurt then. As a matter of fact, if EVERY resturaunt had a seperate smoking section that was, either extremely well ventilated or in a seperate area (IE - Room) than non-smoking, I would concede on that. But it ain’t gonna happen. It would be easier/cheaper/fairer to make a law to banning it altogether rather than forcing the $30K per year Bistro Fenris to make $40K worth of renovations to his resteraunt … because if not, Fenris would scream bloody murder that its an uneven playing field. The big boys * could * afford it and the little ones couldn’t.
As an aside, I was a 6 year smoker. Quit 5 years ago.
Let’s see…
Whenever I am making a left hand turn, I hate when someone comes up next to me and proceeds to make a right hand turn, thereby blocking my view until I hopefully get another shot at it. The people who are that impatient should have their license suspended for at least a year for every offense. They should also have to sit in traffic for 3 hours without a radio to get their license back.
True: So let the market do it’s job. I firmly believe, given what’s happened in motels with NO LEGISLATION AT ALL (that I know of) the market does work. If Fenris’s Bistro doesn’t offer a well-ventilated non-smoking section, then non-smokers won’t go. Same way almost every major motel chain has smoking and non-smoking rooms (some even have smoking and non-smokeing wings.
My point is that it’s my resturant. If I want to only have a smokeing section, why stop me? No one’s forcing you to eat there…there’re plenty of resturants that could cater to your smokeing preferences, including ones that would have “cones of silence” descend over every taster, filling your nostrils with your scent of choice. Let a thousand flowers bloom…
Wait a sec…I just caught something: Are you saying “ban tobacco all together” or are you saying “Ban tobacco in businesses/public”?
I’m sorry, but this is just bullshit. I can understand banning NON-handsfree cellphones, but why the hell can’t a guy talk into a microphone in his car if he’s not holding up a phone to his ear? How is that different from talking to a person sitting next to you in the car? Seriously, people need to think this shit through…
If people want to waste their money, it’s their business. Yeah, it is bad for the environment, but so is driving a car at all in the first place. Additionally, the car’s engine really shouldn’t go from “frigid” to “drive/boiling” in thirty seconds; it’s bad for it and results in maintenance that would otherwise be unnecessary.
Yeah, this sounds like a great idea. Let’s let every jackass drive around as fast as they want. This used to be the law in Montana. It was changed from “Safe and prudent” to a defined number (I forget what it was, sorry) because people’s definitions of “safe” widely vary and most people couldn’t tell you what the word “prudent” means.
Yes, people do. A lot of people have a hard time having a conversation and concentrating at the same time. Not that loverboy would nor anyone else here for that matter. Did you think about that??? I didn’t think so. I believe it would be tougher to have a law that tests peoples ability to concentrate. That is the basis of my wanting to ban handsfree as well. If you cared to read the rest of the thread, you just may have noticed the slightest possibility of my waivering on that stance.
Apparantly you are a fountain of knowledge on IC engines. The “operating temperature” of the engine doesn’t go from frigid to boiling in thirty seconds whether you start driving or not. That is not the point. Read the rest of the thread please.
Just because you cannot doesn’t mean that nobody else could. This would be a strictly enforced law once it is defined, with no room for recklessness. I am not saying it would be an easy law to work out, but I think it could work.
Unless this gets moved to GD, I’ll refrain from really going after the proposals in the OP, though almost all of them, from a public policy standpoint, are dubious at best.
As for new laws . . . off the top of my head (and since the OP mentioned dog shit), how about we tighten the pooper scooper laws? When your dog craps in the middle of the sidewalk, it’s a messy goddamn affair. Even if it is picked up (and it often isn’t), there’s still a nice, big, chunky shit stain on the sidewalk. Just fucking great. Now that’s littering.
Anyplace that serves/sells alcohol is required to card all customers who purchase it. Make ID’s and or Drivers licences that say “no alcohol” for people who get DUI’s. Instead of revoking their licences revoke their permission to have alcohol. Make providing for those people a similar charge to providing for a minor.
Not turning off your phone/pager in a theatre, everyone in the theatre should be allowed to throw a handful of popcorn at you. Off duty emergency personell exempt.
If you are ever in a car accident where you are 0% at fault the person who hit you pays your insurance for a year via payroll deduction.
All non vehicle personal injury lawsuits are reviewed by a jury to determine merit before the case is tried. If 100% of the jury thinks the suit is BS, the case is tossed immediately. Hopefully sorting out those “I didn’t know the coffee was hot” kinda cases.
All schoolchildren will be learned in the ways of computers so they don’t grow up to be AOL users.
(This succeeded in one California city). Graffiti artists shall be sentenced to clean all graffiti within two blocks of the site of their offense and remain responsible for keeping the area graffiti-free for six months.
Reduce mandatory sentences of six years or more by one year for nonviolent drug offenders only. Use the savings to put more cops on the street. Given current prison costs, every three cases treated this way would pay one beat cop’s wages and salary for a year.
Filing of frivolous legal actions shall be a crime punishable by court costs on first offense, court costs plus 100 hours community service for each subsequent offense.
Under current postal rates first class mail essentially subsidizes fourth class bulk mail (a.k.a. junk mail). Rates shall be restructured so that the reverse is true.
(This one is in force in one Connecicut town). Persons who qualify for handicapped parking permits may become deputized for one purpose only: issuing citations against illegal use of handicapped parking spaces.
In an individual’s private physician deems that driving may be unsafe, DMV may require a new road test and suspend license upon failure.
Persons convicted of domestic abuse in a criminal court shall be subject to the following:
*mandatory jail time of not less than three months
*automatic wage garnishment of child support
*no unsupervised visitation with their minor children
For states that have the initiative process, no person may be paid to collect signatures to get a measure on the ballot. Nor shall any person be required to volunteer time for this purpose as a condition of employment. (Ballot initiatives would be fewer and better).
FEMA funds to repair or rebuild a residence in a geologically unstable area shall be limited to a maximum of three times the county’s median home price. People who plant mansions in flood plains ought to get private insurance.
Current Social Security laws penalize many stay-at-home moms and unpaid caregivers for the seriously ill. With a letter from the pediatrician or other supervising physician, these caregivers would continue to receive credit toward their eventual retirement benefit as if they had held paid employment.
In Texas if you fail a breathalyzer or refuse to take one, your license is automatically suspended for 90 days before you even get a trial. This happened to me, I lost a job because a cop pulled me over and took me in without giving me a field sobriety test, my truck was already being towed by the time I blew a .03 on the breathalyzer, I was made to blow repeatedly without his changing the filter until I got a reading over the limit (your reading will continue to go up with each blow), and this was enough to keep me in jail that night and have my license suspended. Of course the breathalyzer results were obviously messed up (no two readings were within .05 of each other) and was able to get the case plead down (my lawyer was 95% sure he could get me off if we went to trial, but I didn’t want to take my chances in a city that gave a guy 25 years for a non-injury DWI charge), but it still cost me $1000 in legal costs, $430 in fines, $200+ to get my truck out of impound, and I could no longer commute and had to work for far less until I could get it all straightened out.
Ban it in public, period. As the OP mentioned,“Enjoy killing yourself in your own home.”
Between you and me though, regardless of when the bernse laws get adapted, I wouldn’t be one bit suprised if 20 years or so from now there are places where tobacco is banned altogether.
Old people are not allowed to play the lottery anymore.
Convicted drunk drivers that have killed someone as a result of the accident will serve no jail time. Instead, they will be used in automotive crash tests.
People that pronounce the letter “T” in “often” will be shot for such an offense (big pet peeve with me).
Married women will no longer be allowed to hyphenate their names. Either keep your maiden name, or take your husband’s. Make up your mind.
If you are so unimaginative that you cannot think of an original name (as opposed to naming the child after their parent), then you cannot have children (I REALLY hate people who do this. “This is Gary. And this is our son, Gary.”)
Parents will no longer be allowed to use someone’s middle name as their form of address. If you wish to call your child by his or her middle name, make that the first name (My brother was going to do this if his wife had a boy. He would have been Zachary Dale, and they were going to call him Dale).
All of the criminals currently in prison for violent offenses will be executed. Anyone convicted of a violent crime (excluding drunk drivers…see above) will be executed immediately after trial. The white-collar criminals will be set free, but have their offenses tattooed on their forehead. The prisons will then be used as homeless shelters.
Kathie Lee Gifford will never be allowed to act or sing again.
Slight hijack just to clarify something that Fenris and bernse were discussing…
IANA lawyer or a police officer, but this is what a police officer friend tells me is the way it works in Canada (at least in Ontario, where we live):
You are stopped by an officer. This can be at a random roadside check that stops all traffic going through, or it can be an officer who sees you driving erratically and has reason to believe you may be impaired.
The officer asks you if you have been drinking. You reply yes or no, as applicable.
The officer’s judgement comes into play here. You might answer Yes, but add the caveat, “I had one beer three hours ago.” You might answer No, and have it be the truth (perhaps you were driving erratically because you were tired and need sleep–dangerous, but not illegal). You could answer No, but the officer could still have reason to believe you have been drinking to excess–alcohol breath, slurred words, red eyes, and so on.
But it’s a judgement call. If the officer feels you can drive a car safely, he or she sends you on your way. But if he or she feels that you have consumed more than is safe for a driver, then the next step comes into play.
“Will you take a breath test?” the officer asks.
If you answer No, you can be arrested and charged with failing to provide a breath sample. You are not automatically assumed guilty of either drunk driving or failing to provide–the charge of “failing to provide a sample” can be defended in a court of law like any other charge. And, as far as I know, you cannot be made to incriminate yourself in a court or anywhere else. But the officer will not pronounce you guilty at the roadside; you can only be pronounced guilty by a court that finds you guilty.
Let’s assume you agree to the test. The officer gets out the breathalyzer machine and makes you blow.
In Ontario, the legal limit is 0.08. At and above that point, you can be arrested and charged with drunk driving. Again, you will have your day in court.
But–and here is what bernse is referring to–the 24-hour suspension limit is 0.05. If you blow 0.05, 0.06, or 0.07, your license will be automatically suspended on the spot; the suspension to last for 24 hours.
The idea is to get someone off the road who, though below the legal limit, is still feeling the effects of alcohol. A 24-hour suspension carries no arrest or charge, does not require reporting to courts, does not affect insurance rates, and does not carry any kind of stigma the way a conviction would. If you get a 24-hour suspension, the police will call a taxi for you, or let one of your passengers drive you home in your car (assuming the passenger hasn’t been drinking, of course).
According to my police officer friend, it is an inconvenience more than anything else. But at no time does the officer act like judge and jury at the roadside. For chargeable crimes, like drunk driving and failing to provide a sample, you will be arrested and have your day in court. And for the non-chargeable suspension, you leave the scene (but not behind the wheel) and you’re inconvenienced for a day, after which the incident is forgotten by the police.
Ok…why? And more importantly, why is it any of your business?
**
Given that Jews name their kids in rememberance of recently dead relatives, do you really want to go there? My nephew is named after my Grandfather who died about 4 months before my nephew was born.
**
Major problem here: I don’t recall that she ever sang or acted. Oh, she tried, of course…
<Singin’ In the Rain>
She can’t sing. She can’t dance. She can’t act. The Triple Threat!
</Singin’ In the Rain>
**Given that Jews name their kids in rememberance of recently dead relatives, do you really want to go there? My nephew is named after my Grandfather who died about 4 months before my nephew was born. **
That I have no problem with. I’m referring to people that, for the by and large, occupy the same house at the same time. In the area of the country that I live, most people have not yet learned to differentiate between Gary Sr and Gary Jr. They will refer to “Gary,” and expect me to know to which they are referring (Some may feel that this is a gross generalization. Tough ). I have no problems with naming someone in memory of someone else.
Not necessarily. If an officer sees it apropriate, they can give a 24 hour without blowing. I know of two times this happened personally. I think the officer was being nice though (quite possibly at times when they shouldn’t) since the officer said both times to the accused “I am not going to make you blow, but I will suspend your licence.” However, the caveat was understood that if the person refused to surrender their licence, the officer would then ask them to blow. Hence, I believe that the officer thought the driver was impaired but not ruining that persons life for several years.
I think I know where you’re going with this. I think banning old people maybe a little extreme. The most wealthy people I know are seniors, or on the verge of becoming. Perhaps a law that people on social assistance cannot? Or maybe a ceiling of $5 week?
**
No problems here.
Oh man, no arguments here. Are you my brother-in-law by chance? My wife is soo annoyed by this. She is an Engineer, and associates with other female Engineers. Many of them seem to do this. I guess it makes them feel “important”. She feels it makes them look like dolts.
How would you know if you’re in trouble then?
I am pro capital punishement myself…however, what about the other criminals? What do you define “violent?” A mugging? Do you really want to execute them too? That may be a tad extreme, even for me Another problem is that a lot of these “homeless” shelters will be in the middle of nowhere. That makes it kind of hard for these people to get back on their feet.
Personally, I think we have enough fucking laws. I realize this isn’t a serious thread so much as an “in an ideal world” kind of thing, but there you go.
**
I could be…you never know…WEG Chances are not, though. This isn’t the sort of forum my family, entended or otherwise, would frequent.
May I should clarify that…what I meant was using the middle name ONLY as a form of address. Like in the above-mentioned example, using Zachary Dale" if the kid is in trouble is one thing. Calling him Dale for everything is another. If you want to call the kid Dale, make that his first name.
All of the criminals currently in prison for violent offenses will be executed. Anyone convicted of a violent crime (excluding drunk drivers…see above) will be executed immediately after trial. The white-collar criminals will be set free, but have their offenses tattooed on their forehead. The prisons will then be used as homeless shelters.**
[/quote]
I am pro capital punishement myself…however, what about the other criminals? What do you define “violent?” A mugging? Do you really want to execute them too? That may be a tad extreme, even for me Another problem is that a lot of these “homeless” shelters will be in the middle of nowhere. That makes it kind of hard for these people to get back on their feet.
**
[/QUOTE]
Mugging? No. By violent, I mean anything that causes loss of life, limb, or function. Rape would qualify. Mugging wouldn’t, unless someone were injured. Fine line, I know. It would all be up to me to determine.
Very little annoys me more than the problem of unsolicited bulk email. I don’t ask for it. I don’t want it. I’m the one who has to pay to download it. And yet it is not illegal for people to send it to me (aside from those who use illegal means to send it). And then the scumbags make a few extra dollars selling my email address to the next spammer. Who gave them permission to sell my email address? I sure as hell didn’t. Just because I use my email address in public doesn’t mean that any moron with something to sell can send me advertising material.
I don’t mind watching ads on television, because they pay for the show I’m seeing. However, spam adds to my costs on the internet, inconveniences me and millions of others, costs the community at large big bucks, but it is not illegal. Permission is the key. I have no objection to people doing business on the internet, but it has to be permission based. I have been forced to abandon at least one email address because of the volume of spam it gets. Another address I maintain (on Hotmail) gets over 80 unsolicited messages every week. If I was trying to use these addresses as business contact addresses, I would be losing customers. Something needs to be done about this!!
Some estimates say that spam already accounts for up to 40% of all email sent. ISPs are forced to buy more storage space to house their customer’s email, and more bandwidth for sending and receiving mail, and those costs are passed on to you and me, the consumers. It’s a fact that spammers are getting a free ride on our dollars.
Bear in mind I still reserve the right to overule you whatever laws you don’t like, specifically the anti-smoking and cellphone laws… afterall, I am bernse and they are my laws. 
). I have no problems with naming someone in memory of someone else.