thebreakfast.info
General Discussions => Spunk => Topic started by: FrankZappa on May 27, 2009, 05:34:39 am
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an **** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
Just because you have the sense to actually not take a call because you know it\'s distracting does not mean when you do take a call it\'s not a distraction. It just means you made a wrong choice in your vehicle.
Picking your nose, changing a CD, lighting a pipe are all actions that use a different part of the brain than when you are conversing on the phone.
No matter if you have done it a bazillion times it does not deny the FACT that your brain compensates for the activity.
When a person does not see the other person the mind compensates and concentrates on developing a frame of reference for the person on the call.
This causes your conscious mind that is driving to wander.
You\'ve never missed a turn or off ramp because you were on the phone right?
Bullshit.
I am not about to continue this because you obviously will not believe facts and think your brain works differently than the other billions of humans on this planet.
Leith, are u ser right now?
I am totally agreeing with you that talking on a phone is a distraction. This is fact. Rest easy broseph, my brain functions the same way everyone else\'s does.
Despite what the studies you have read have encouraged you to think, when I do talk on my phone, it is not as if I go blind and drive off the road. I\'m sure I have missed a turn or exit ramp while talking on my phone- it is a distraction! However, I have also successfully navigated entire trips while on my phone! Yay!
So here\'s the deal, I know chit chattin while drivin isn\'t usually the best idea. But I also think there do exist situations where it really shouldn\'t be a big deal if I answer the tele for a second. therefore i think it should be up to ourselves to decide, and i don\'t think it needs to be a law.
and the left lane is for passing
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an **** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
Just because you have the sense to actually not take a call because you know it\'s distracting does not mean when you do take a call it\'s not a distraction. It just means you made a wrong choice in your vehicle.
Picking your nose, changing a CD, lighting a pipe are all actions that use a different part of the brain than when you are conversing on the phone.
No matter if you have done it a bazillion times it does not deny the FACT that your brain compensates for the activity.
When a person does not see the other person the mind compensates and concentrates on developing a frame of reference for the person on the call.
This causes your conscious mind that is driving to wander.
You\'ve never missed a turn or off ramp because you were on the phone right?
Bullshit.
I am not about to continue this because you obviously will not believe facts and think your brain works differently than the other billions of humans on this planet.
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
No need to apologize leith. I was not wrong. I did not say "Talking on my cell phone is not a distraction or detriment to my driving." I said I know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my phone. I feel confident in this because I have done it a bazillion times. I have also ignored many phone calls while I was driving because I knew I was not in a position to take on the distraction a phone conversation presents. Picking my nose is a distraction to my driving. So is changing a cd. So is packing up a fatty pipe to the dome. (and I know u know how to get down to that...) But many people do each and every one of these things every day. It is not my goal to make it illegal to do any of these things while one is driving.
In the United States of TimmyPeachtaintia, all persons would be free to talk, talk, talk away on their cell phones at their own discretion. Just be smart about it. And don\'t drive like an **** (most importantly, keep right except to pass.)
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I can say legitimately that, on average, I *get drunk* less than once a week. Maybe, maybe I average one night a week that i have a drink or two. But truthfully prob not.
I obviously have other bad habits, alcohol is just not my vice.
From a political theory standpoint; I am against this law.
I absolutely agree with you. I think this law is unnecessary.
I believe people should be responsible enough to allow other people to imbibe in their car respectfully and responsibly.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
Heh, it\'s funny that you mention conservatives with Yoda, but I have to say, actual conservatives want our liberties and freedoms preserved, and liberals typically want more unnecessary fines/taxes put on obscure so-called "crimes". Just think of the ACLU.
Truth- in politics real conservatives are supposed to want our liberties and freedoms preserved.
Yoda is obviously a unique case.
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
Can I ask a serious question ?
I drink too much beer. But my biggest issue is finding a replacement beverage. I don\'t want to drink too much soda (sugar / caffeine), water gets boring after a while etc etc. What is your go to beverage ? I really like drinking beer but I know it isn\'t really that good for me.
I\'ve never been a real beer drinker. Jack and Ginger. (Huge whiskey fan) Stoli Orange and Sprite with a Splash of Cranberry. Awesome mix that one.
As for non-alcoholic, I drink Iced Chai Soy Lattes like they are water..... i agree...tea is an awesome way to go. Lots of Black Iced Tea. Gatorade when i run.
-
tequila.
-
Tea.
Green, black, white, herbal, doesn\'t matter.
Tea is basically "pleasantly flavoured water."
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
Can I ask a serious question ?
I drink too much beer. But my biggest issue is finding a replacement beverage. I don\'t want to drink too much soda (sugar / caffeine), water gets boring after a while etc etc. What is your go to beverage ? I really like drinking beer but I know it isn\'t really that good for me.
-
I am anti-17th amendment.
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I\'d say on average I drink once every 2.5 weeks. I went the whole month of april and if it wasn\'t for memorial day would\'ve gone all of may too w/o a drink.
-
i guess my point is more that, if you support the rights of one constitutional watchdog to exist and \'protect\' a certain amdenment, then you have to support the rights of them all, in theory.
you may not agree with specific issues/policies a particular group may have, but if you support the need for (or rights of) constitutional protectors, you need to support them all.
i generally see the problem as folks who support #2 generally support the nra, but a lot of folks who i\'ve talked to around here who support the nra don\'t support groups like the aclu. now, if there were individual groups for each amendment/constitutional guarantee, it\'d be a lot easier. folks could still be opposed to methods or policies, but you\'re not gonna hear many people making the \'those liberal amendment #5 loving commies!!\' comments as you do \'those liberal, aclu-loving commies\'.
i think its easy to hate on the aclu because they take up such a wide range of cases that if you aren\'t a supporter of one issue, you can write off the whole organization.
-
anyone who supports the nra should support the aclu for exactly the same reasons. they are both constitional watchdogs. the converse is also true. if you support the aclu, you\'ve gotta support the nra. if you support one and not the other, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
well, you don\'t have to, but you\'ll look like far less of a douchenozzle to anyone with a brain you may come into contact with...
I don\'t if that is true really. You can be pro 2nd amendment and not support the NRA. There are many pro 2nd amendment groups that do not condone what the NRA does or agrees with its agenda.
The ACLU is a little trickier IMHO. Personally my biggest gripe with the ACLU is their lack of support for the 2nd amendment and they def. come off a douchnozzles on that. Their BS answer that the NRA and others are their to protect the 2nd is bullshyte.
I am very pro 2nd amendment and a card carrying member of the ACLU but I am not to big on the NRA even tho I may agree with some of their arguments.
-
thanks! i\'ve been trynig to spread the word sinc 1989. seeing it on the daily show made my month!! no, i didn\'t originate it (i\'m sure others had thought of it before i did), but i sure as hell have been johnny douchenozzle-seeding the hell outta it ever since!
-
douchenozzle = best insult ever!
-
anyone who supports the nra should support the aclu for exactly the same reasons. they are both constitional watchdogs. the converse is also true. if you support the aclu, you\'ve gotta support the nra. if you support one and not the other, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.
well, you don\'t have to, but you\'ll look like far less of a douchenozzle to anyone with a brain you may come into contact with...
-
Heh, it\'s funny that you mention conservatives with Yoda, but I have to say, actual conservatives want our liberties and freedoms preserved, and liberals typically want more unnecessary fines/taxes put on obscure so-called "crimes". Just think of the ACLU.
I agree that it is normally "librals" who introduce "goverment protects you" laws like cell-phone driving, smoking bans, etc. However, conservatives are just as guilty of passing laws that violate "liberties" - Prop 8 in California and the 30 other states were all introduced by conservatives.
What is the hatred of the ACLU? As far as I remember, they are the one who stand up for induviduals who are being trampled by overbearing laws; they are the ones who sued against the driving check points, and are consistently trying to protect alleged criminals in their suits. They also are huge backers of the 4th admentment (against search and seizure) when it is under a much more constistant and sustained attack than the beloved 2nd.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The last two phrases, in particular are being removed; if the police obtain a warrent to arrest you for crime a, find no evidience of that, but instead find evidience of crime b (evidience that they would not have found without the warrent for a), they can arrest you for b.
That to me was one of the most appualing supreme court cases in a long time.
ALSO, the persumption of innocence is pretty much mute in our society. I refer you to the case of Rob Belogivich who is widely considered "guilty" by society though he has yet to stand trial for any crime.
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I can say legitimately that, on average, I *get drunk* less than once a week. Maybe, maybe I average one night a week that i have a drink or two. But truthfully prob not.
I obviously have other bad habits, alcohol is just not my vice.
From a political theory standpoint; I am against this law.
I absolutely agree with you. I think this law is unnecessary.
I believe people should be responsible enough to allow other people to imbibe in their car respectfully and responsibly.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
Heh, it\'s funny that you mention conservatives with Yoda, but I have to say, actual conservatives want our liberties and freedoms preserved, and liberals typically want more unnecessary fines/taxes put on obscure so-called "crimes". Just think of the ACLU.
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
Sorry but you\'re wrong. It has been proven in many different tests that talking on a cell phone even w/ a hands free device is a distraction and a detriment to one\'s driving.
When engaged in conversation w/ someone you can not see your mind compensates, you know forget it, if you don\'t get this by now you won\'t.
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
speaking of the cell phone thing- I also believe this law is totally unecessary...
There are an endless number of things happening while one is driving an automobile. I think my human brain/conscience is intelligent enough to know when I have the time and ability to engage in conversation on my cellular phone, just as I know when I have the time and ability to eat some french fries, change a cd, or pick my nose while i\'m operating my motor vehicle.
-
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
I have always found that a bit interesting from the converstative movement; they rant and wail about "Big Government" and the government intruding on their rights (gun control, free enterprise, non-socialized health care), but then they fully support and champion "big government" dictating what rights people who do not agree with them do not have.
-
there\'s no such thing as unspoken laws.
if i\'m being a law abiding, sober driver, staying off my cell phone, driving the speed limit and following all other "written" laws of the road... and my passangers want to get absolutely smashed, they should be able to do it. Their behavior has no effect on any other drivers or pedestrians.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
I would think uber conservatives would see this as BIG GUBERMENT intruding on their lives.
Yoda\'s just Yoda, I\'m not at all surprised by his opinion on this matter.
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
I can say legitimately that, on average, I *get drunk* less than once a week. Maybe, maybe I average one night a week that i have a drink or two. But truthfully prob not.
I obviously have other bad habits, alcohol is just not my vice.
From a political theory standpoint; I am against this law.
I absolutely agree with you. I think this law is unnecessary.
I believe people should be responsible enough to allow other people to imbibe in their car respectfully and responsibly.
I also believe that persons such as Yoda, who, in bringing a child into this world, have become Uber-Conservatives should not be wishing to take away the freedoms of their fellow citizens, in the hopes that such restrictions will eliminate anything bad from ever happening to their children.
-
From a political theory standpoint; I am against this law.
The driver of the car really should be the only concern on the law. There are laws in most states about young drivers not being able to drive with non-family members. I understand that because teenagers are easily desctracted and do not enough experince driving to understan that they cannot let themselves be distracted.
If a passenger wants to drink, i see no reason why they can\'t. Correct me if i am wrong, but no matter what my passenger drinks, my BAC will not be affected. Second Hand Drinking?
I disagree with the Supreme Court on alot of things; the legality of a drunk driving checkpoint is one of them. If for no other reason for the examples pointed out earlier of people getting busted for any other crime besides drunk driving at one of those stops.
I have learned to not hate or dispise cops. They do not make the laws, they merely enforce them.
If anything my logic would point me to dislike cops who do let people slid on things because they are not the societial arbitures of justice; that duty falls the judges and jurries.
Actually, I think that this "uber enforcement" idea would be helpful in that it would get alot of people really mad at the excess of laws the excess punishments and hopefully elect legislators to change them.
Example:
If everyone who urinated behind a bush was arrested and tagged (in mass at least) as a sex offender, do you really think that law would stay around?
-
do not tempt me to go all over your **** with a red pen, i\'m bored as hell right now!! ;) :lol:
If you\'re that bored, go for it...
-
i like beer. i drink it. sometimes i drive home. sometimes i do not. i like the fact that the people in my vehicle could consume their choice of beverage while i drive. i have also been known to have an open container of said beer in my right hand while driving. is it wrong and unlawful? yes.
does this make me an alcoholic? probably. do i care? nope. relatives of mine have a combined 4 or 6 dui\'s. have i learned from their mistake(s)? somewhat, but i still do it, i\'m just more responsible about now (i understand that statement is an oxymoron, because you are being irresponsible regardless).
my point being, if this law passes, i will still allow my passengers to consume their choice of beverage in my vehicle. i will also drive my half empty bottle of whiskey home from a friend\'s house. and how does the cop know if it\'s an open container of beer or maybe i\'m just going to recycle my empties?
-
ascenine
asinine
refencing
referencing
drug
drunk
guarrantee
guarantee
you were surprisingly good with they\'re, there and their in this thread. also, your your and you\'re usages were in good shape too.
i\'m an editor for a living and a writing/reading comp tutor on the side. i have completed all of my work for this week. do not tempt me to go all over your **** with a red pen, i\'m bored as hell right now!! ;) :lol:
-
^^ Leith, i know its wrong to drink and drive, even when you don\'t get caught. i just don\'t cast stones. i\'ve done it myself. sometimes we make bad decisions and its unavoidable. it\'s wrong period. But we\'ve all or majority have done it. And just because i am engaged to him, doesn\'t mean i don\'t have a functioning will power to make my own choices. I have done, will do, and still do things he doesn\'t approve of. I guess he likes me for who I am, not what i do.
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
i\'d say in general pretty nobody has common sense
I know i seriously don\'t. I am the queen of bad choices.
I\'m def an alcoholic.
i have at least a beer everyday. am i an alcoholic... some would say yes, but i can go with out drinking if i want to but i don\'t want to and don\'t have to. i don\'t drink to get drunk i drink to drink. do i drive after yes. do i have common sense enough to limit my drinking when i drive? yes. do i always? no.
-
this discussion is mute
no, its really not.
now, moot, yes. this discussion is quite moot. but its not now, nor has it ever been, nor shall it ever be mute.
Fine smart ass... Now, since you\'ve singled out my gramatical error here, go back and knock every "they\'re" / "their"... I guarrantee those have been left alone...
-
this discussion is mute
no, its really not.
now, moot, yes. this discussion is quite moot. but its not now, nor has it ever been, nor shall it ever be mute.
-
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
No one is an angel... I\'ve done **** in the past and I choose not to do it now... Certain things get to me now because I\'ve got a kid and I don\'t want anything to happen to her... If that means your passenger can\'t have a beer while you drive, so be it... That being said, this discussion is mute because I haven\'t driven in CT in almost 2 years now...
-
I\'m def an alcoholic.
-
^^ Leith, i know its wrong to drink and drive, even when you don\'t get caught. i just don\'t cast stones. i\'ve done it myself. sometimes we make bad decisions and its unavoidable. it\'s wrong period. But we\'ve all or majority have done it. And just because i am engaged to him, doesn\'t mean i don\'t have a functioning will power to make my own choices. I have done, will do, and still do things he doesn\'t approve of. I guess he likes me for who I am, not what i do.
I seriously can\'t believe that someone on here doesn\'t drink at least once a week. Wow. Maybe I\'m an alcoholic.
i\'d say in general pretty nobody has common sense
I know i seriously don\'t. I am the queen of bad choices.
-
i\'d say in general pretty nobody has common sense
-
So much for you saying he doesn\'t care about pot and won\'t arrest people for it.
And your friend with 3 DUI\'s, Ya that guy is an alcoholic. He isn\'t some misunderstood guy etc, if you get pinched for 3 DUI\'s you have a drinking problem. It isn\'t bad luck, it is dumb luck. The guy is drinking all the time and getting behind the wheel.
I am really surprised he still has car insurance. most carriers are gonna drop you for 1, if u can even get ins after 2 it is going to be crazy expensive, now 3 on the other hand, I\'m surprised they haven\'t revoked his license already.
DUI check points are a different tale, my friend. The Chief and Higher ups are ALWAYS there. He has no ability to make his own choices. There is no forgiving any small pot infractions on those details. No way. Not when the man is there and they are working from money paid by state grants.
I said once that he doesn\'t care when he is working his normal job as a narc. Which is 60 hours of his week.....
yeah, my friend\'s dad is a jerk for getting caught that many times. But also had bad luck, i bet there are plenty of people on here who drink and drive every weekend and never get caught. I wouldn\'t call him alcoholic...because then maybe we all are. Who doesn\'t go out drinking at least once a week??? Getting caught doesn\'t make you a bad person, just proves you made a bad choice.
He once had his license revoked but got it back...and When he gets out, he will not have his license. Once again moral of tale: CT laws are strict. Don\'t drink and drive.
To the bolded.
Yeah I am sure there are plenty of idiots on here that drink and drive on a daily basis. Doesn\'t make it right just because they don\'t get caught.
Damn engaged to a cop and you don\'t get this?
Your friend\'s dad is an alcoholic and yeah I would say many of you are alcoholics. Functional but alcoholics nonetheless.
There are a lot of people a lot that do not go out drinking once a week.
As for passengers boozing up in the car - how the **** does it compromise the safety of the vehicle? I regularly throw down a beer when headed out to a show.
Obviously you haven\'t been privy to the obnoxious drug who can\'t sit still in the car. That can be a tad distracting to a driver.
Oh and things happen to non drunk folk also and who is going to be able to drive the vehicle if the sober driver can not?
**** common sense is not so common in CT.
-
As for passengers boozing up in the car - how the **** does it compromise the safety of the vehicle? I regularly throw down a beer when headed out to a show.
Obviously you haven\'t been privy to the obnoxious drug who can\'t sit still in the car. That can be a tad distracting to a driver.
-
Is there a law that says that you should eat your own ****, no, but common sense says that you shouldn\'t.... .
A lot of people do not think for themselves/do everything as instructed by the book and would indeed eat **** if it was entered into law.
As for passengers boozing up in the car - how the **** does it compromise the safety of the vehicle? I regularly throw down a beer when headed out to a show.
-
Heh, not as strict as in New Hampshire.
*not so patiently awaiting the reinstatement of my license in 2010.*
-
So much for you saying he doesn\'t care about pot and won\'t arrest people for it.
And your friend with 3 DUI\'s, Ya that guy is an alcoholic. He isn\'t some misunderstood guy etc, if you get pinched for 3 DUI\'s you have a drinking problem. It isn\'t bad luck, it is dumb luck. The guy is drinking all the time and getting behind the wheel.
I am really surprised he still has car insurance. most carriers are gonna drop you for 1, if u can even get ins after 2 it is going to be crazy expensive, now 3 on the other hand, I\'m surprised they haven\'t revoked his license already.
DUI check points are a different tale, my friend. The Chief and Higher ups are ALWAYS there. He has no ability to make his own choices. There is no forgiving any small pot infractions on those details. No way. Not when the man is there and they are working from money paid by state grants.
I said once that he doesn\'t care when he is working his normal job as a narc. Which is 60 hours of his week.....
yeah, my friend\'s dad is a jerk for getting caught that many times. But also had bad luck, i bet there are plenty of people on here who drink and drive every weekend and never get caught. I wouldn\'t call him alcoholic...because then maybe we all are. Who doesn\'t go out drinking at least once a week??? Getting caught doesn\'t make you a bad person, just proves you made a bad choice.
He once had his license revoked but got it back...and When he gets out, he will not have his license. Once again moral of tale: CT laws are strict. Don\'t drink and drive.
-
it doesn\'t matter who it comes from if you talk like a tool your going to get called out on it.
as far as open containers and passengers..... what does it matter. it\'s the drivers responsibility to control themselves and if they feel whats going on it there car is threatening other motorist then its up to them to say something.
rt. 34 has ALWAYS been a bad section for years now.
if you get caught drunk driving 3 times..... you shouldn\'t be allowed to drive anymore period. if you don\'t have enough common sense to learn your lesson the first time then why should you be allowed to even drive a car. maybe if you had to pedal everywhere you would relish your privilege to drive.
-
And while we are on the subject of DUI, here\'s my advice...
when you are going through a DUI Check point, smoking a bowl, joint, etc. isn\'t recommended. Because they are looking for alcohol, that doesn\'t mean that pot is okay. Remember they\'re cops.
Mark did a DUI check point on saturday night and had ZERO alcohol arrests, yet he had THREE marijuana arrests because brilliant individuals thought "that" was okay. One kid actually had a bowl out in the open...BRILLIANT....
So much for you saying he doesn\'t care about pot and won\'t arrest people for it.
And your friend with 3 DUI\'s, Ya that guy is an alcoholic. He isn\'t some misunderstood guy etc, if you get pinched for 3 DUI\'s you have a drinking problem. It isn\'t bad luck, it is dumb luck. The guy is drinking all the time and getting behind the wheel.
I am really surprised he still has car insurance. most carriers are gonna drop you for 1, if u can even get ins after 2 it is going to be crazy expensive, now 3 on the other hand, I\'m surprised they haven\'t revoked his license already.
-
And while we are on the subject of DUI, here\'s my advice...
how about "don\'t drink and drive" :?:
Of course that. If you read what a wrote like two above it:
Moral of this: don\'t drive drunk, don\'t drive with open bottles. It\'s not rocket science here.
But also don\'t freaking pack a bowl and drive through the check point thinking you are safe cause you aren\'t drunk....
once again, this thread, like pretty much every thread on this board, has become "the people of .info vs. Yoda"
Nice way to instigate a long drawn out battle today, Numbers.
I swear to god its like a freaking broken record on here. If you don\'t agree with Yoda, don\'t agree with Yoda. He has an effing right to his own opinion and the right to state it. I hate the whole "let\'s pick on yoda cause its what everybody does." Because honestly, thats what its become. It lost its humor a loooooooooong ass time ago.
-
And while we are on the subject of DUI, here\'s my advice...
how about "don\'t drink and drive" :?:
Fine, I was wrong on the amount, but how many people actually go to a show or bar and say, I\'m going to have 2 beers and that\'s it... I do it, but I guarantee that I\'m not the majority...
:wave:
Paul, you\'ve always been good like that, but the Paul\'s of the world are few and far between...
-
And while we are on the subject of DUI, here\'s my advice...
how about "don\'t drink and drive" :?:
Fine, I was wrong on the amount, but how many people actually go to a show or bar and say, I\'m going to have 2 beers and that\'s it... I do it, but I guarantee that I\'m not the majority...
:wave:
-
once again, this thread, like pretty much every thread on this board, has become "the people of .info vs. Yoda"
Fine, I\'ll take myself out of the open booze in car discussion so that everyone can agree that it\'s okay to booze it up as long as you\'re not driving...
http://www.beertown.org/education/calc/bac/bac.aspx
Fine, I was wrong on the amount, but how many people actually go to a show or bar and say, I\'m going to have 2 beers and that\'s it... I do it, but I guarantee that I\'m not the majority...
-
once again, this thread, like pretty much every thread on this board, has become "the people of .info vs. Yoda"
-
People need to realize that 0.08 is less than one full beer
false
depends on body weight and other factors
-
People need to realize that 0.08 is less than one full beer
false
-
And while we are on the subject of DUI, here\'s my advice...
when you are going through a DUI Check point, smoking a bowl, joint, etc. isn\'t recommended. Because they are looking for alcohol, that doesn\'t mean that pot is okay. Remember they\'re cops.
Mark did a DUI check point on saturday night and had ZERO alcohol arrests, yet he had THREE marijuana arrests because brilliant individuals thought "that" was okay. One kid actually had a bowl out in the open...BRILLIANT....
-
As a side note, "highway" by the states definition includes all route roads, so in addition to 91, 95, 15/merritt/wilbur, 9, 8, 324, etc, it will also include 34, 68, 17, 80, etc.
Route roads also have other names and will often go right through the center of towns, so don\'t think this means as long as you\'re not on 95 you\'re safe.
Also, even numbers go east west and odd numbers go north south.
-
People need to realize that 0.08 is less than one full beer... I\'ve never claimed to be a saint, but after one night of just getting home and then having sea-legs, it never happened again...
-
3 times is a lot... I would think that most people\'d learn after the first time...
Like i said, he has bad luck. ;) And thought like most of us, he could get home quick and never get caught. It doesn\'t take much to be over the legal limit. And those Orange cops along route 34 are BASTARDS. I\'ll be the first to admit it.
-
I never knew about this law before I met fitzy and tka. I didn\'t believe them until I saw it was being revoked.
That said, I think you should all show up drunk to protest this. :lol:
-
3 times is a lot... I would think that most people\'d learn after the first time...
-
This kind of was an "unspoken" law already. It\'s obviously illegal to drive drunk, and if you had an open container, you would be immediately suspect, so they\'d give you a breathalizer and tests. Kind of common sense there. And then perhaps find you to be under the influence...now...if they pull you over, thats it. You\'re immediately doing an illegal act without even giving you a test.
Moral of this: don\'t drive drunk, don\'t drive with open bottles. It\'s not rocket science here.
CT Laws on drinking and driving are brutal now. My friend\'s dad, a good average guy, got thrown in jail because he stupidly got caught THREE times drinking and driving. Yes, he had bad luck. Who gets caught three times? You want to know where? Coming and going between the valley and orange. Right near most of us. Be it a lesson learned, they mean business.
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
Agreed. The cell phone law, as well as several others, could already be legislated and are covered by prior existing laws. If someone\'s hands aren\'t on the wheel/clutch and they aren\'t paying attention, we have a damn law for that. The celly law is just to red tape up an even higher fine.
As for open container laws--- Some enjoy alcohol in someone\'s car while they are passengers, and it\'s likely a safe bet to, as long as your driver is competent and the road is clear. Take pregaming as a case in point. If you were to get stopped for a roadblock for instance, just make sure the passenger is 21! Otherwise, don\'t agree to any search of the car (if at all possible) and stash away.
Where the hell are you driving. Unless is 3:30 in the morning, I don\'t think I\'ve ever been on a main road anywhere I\'ve lived that doesn\'t have another driver on it...
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
Agreed. The cell phone law, as well as several others, could already be legislated and are covered by prior existing laws. If someone\'s hands aren\'t on the wheel/clutch and they aren\'t paying attention, we have a damn law for that. The celly law is just to red tape up an even higher fine.
As for open container laws--- Some enjoy alcohol in someone\'s car while they are passengers, and it\'s likely a safe bet to, as long as your driver is competent and the road is clear. Take pregaming as a case in point. If you were to get stopped for a roadblock for instance, just make sure the passenger is 21! Otherwise, don\'t agree to any search of the car (if at all possible) and stash away.
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
I think that most people would think that this was a law, but not know that this law didn\'t exist in the past. I don\'t think that it\'s blindly following "commonly believed" laws, it\'s a matter of using common sense...
Common sense is not putting your dick in a blender.
Having a passenger in my car with an open container is not. It is his right, just like someone can drink a pepsi in their car.
If you assume that it was a law than your an ass.
Know your rights.
You\'re right, everyone should know all the federal laws and state laws in which they live, but the reality of it is that that "no one" knows all the laws... Common sense says to me, if you\'re stepping in my car, you\'re going to do a couple things off the top:
- Wear a seatbelt (I don\'t care if you\'re of age and will get the ticket, my car, my rules)
- No booze in the car (again, my car, my rules)
- Radio control (put what you want on, but ultimately I have the final say)
This line of discussion is so ascenine.... Is there a law that says that you should eat your own ****, no, but common sense says that you shouldn\'t.... I know that\'s an extreme example, but thinking that you\'re right to have open containers of alcohol in your car is right because it wasn\'t a law on the books is just plain stupid...
Yoda I think it is safe to say that you take an extreme position when it comes to anything revolving around alcohol and automobiles.
how does allowing your passenger to consume an alcoholic beverage in any way cause a risk to other people on the road ?
This law does nothing to address drunk driving or anything like that.
And No alcohol in your car ? ever ? how do you get it home ? do you always walk to the liquor store or grocery store when you want to buy beer ?
You\'re right, I do take that to an extreme... I believe that the law is refencing "open containers"... If you buy a sixer and drive it home, I think you\'re okay...
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
I think that most people would think that this was a law, but not know that this law didn\'t exist in the past. I don\'t think that it\'s blindly following "commonly believed" laws, it\'s a matter of using common sense...
Common sense is not putting your dick in a blender.
Having a passenger in my car with an open container is not. It is his right, just like someone can drink a pepsi in their car.
If you assume that it was a law than your an ass.
Know your rights.
You\'re right, everyone should know all the federal laws and state laws in which they live, but the reality of it is that that "no one" knows all the laws... Common sense says to me, if you\'re stepping in my car, you\'re going to do a couple things off the top:
- Wear a seatbelt (I don\'t care if you\'re of age and will get the ticket, my car, my rules)
- No booze in the car (again, my car, my rules)
- Radio control (put what you want on, but ultimately I have the final say)
This line of discussion is so ascenine.... Is there a law that says that you should eat your own ****, no, but common sense says that you shouldn\'t.... I know that\'s an extreme example, but thinking that you\'re right to have open containers of alcohol in your car is right because it wasn\'t a law on the books is just plain stupid...
Yoda I think it is safe to say that you take an extreme position when it comes to anything revolving around alcohol and automobiles.
how does allowing your passenger to consume an alcoholic beverage in any way cause a risk to other people on the road ?
This law does nothing to address drunk driving or anything like that.
And No alcohol in your car ? ever ? how do you get it home ? do you always walk to the liquor store or grocery store when you want to buy beer ?
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
Good for your grandmother.
Next time you want a place to hang out, don\'t come to my "rock."
:point:
-
Yeah, this law is a total waste of tax payers money. What right does the state have over passangers in my car?
This is a clear case of a State over stepping their bounds.
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
I think that most people would think that this was a law, but not know that this law didn\'t exist in the past. I don\'t think that it\'s blindly following "commonly believed" laws, it\'s a matter of using common sense...
Common sense is not putting your dick in a blender.
Having a passenger in my car with an open container is not. It is his right, just like someone can drink a pepsi in their car.
If you assume that it was a law than your an ass.
Know your rights.
You\'re right, everyone should know all the federal laws and state laws in which they live, but the reality of it is that that "no one" knows all the laws... Common sense says to me, if you\'re stepping in my car, you\'re going to do a couple things off the top:
- Wear a seatbelt (I don\'t care if you\'re of age and will get the ticket, my car, my rules)
- No booze in the car (again, my car, my rules)
- Radio control (put what you want on, but ultimately I have the final say)
This line of discussion is so ascenine.... Is there a law that says that you should eat your own ****, no, but common sense says that you shouldn\'t.... I know that\'s an extreme example, but thinking that you\'re right to have open containers of alcohol in your car is right because it wasn\'t a law on the books is just plain stupid...
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
Good for your grandmother.
Next time you want a place to hang out, don\'t come to my "rock."
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
I think that most people would think that this was a law, but not know that this law didn\'t exist in the past. I don\'t think that it\'s blindly following "commonly believed" laws, it\'s a matter of using common sense...
Common sense is not putting your dick in a blender.
Having a passenger in my car with an open container is not. It is his right, just like someone can drink a pepsi in their car.
If you assume that it was a law than your an ass.
Know your rights.
-
this is def already a law in NY
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
I think that most people would think that this was a law, but not know that this law didn\'t exist in the past. I don\'t think that it\'s blindly following "commonly believed" laws, it\'s a matter of using common sense...
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
Has nothing to do with being a lush as much as it does that you live under a rock.
My grandmother knows about this law.
I wonder how many people really know what there rights are or do they just blindly follow what is "commonly believed." There are so many stupid laws that exist.
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
Because I don\'t drink in the car. It\'s never been an issue for me. Forgive me for NOT being a lush.
-
Isn\'t it common sense not to be in a car with an open container of booze?
If I am the driver and have open booze, yes.
If I am a passenger, then no.
You ain\'t from these parts.
-
Isn\'t it common sense not to be in a car with an open container of booze?
-
How can you live in CT and not know that this law exists?
-
I did not know we didn\'t already have this! I learn something new everyday. With that being said, I thought it was pretty much a given that you shouldn\'t be cracking a beer and driving at the same time? no? Just me?
-
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to: (1) Any passenger in a motor vehicle designed, maintained and primarily used for the transportation of persons for hire, or (2) any passenger in the living quarters of a recreational vehicle, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes.
But at least party buses (and taxis (?) so it seems from the phrasing) are still legit.
-
Surprised you guys don\'t already have that law...
Surprised you guys don\'t already have that law...
Yeah, I thought that law was pretty universal in the north eastern/western parts of the country.
Yeah, I thought that law was pretty universal in the north eastern/western parts of the country.
-
Surprised you guys don\'t already have that law...
-
Surprised you guys don\'t already have that law...
-
already passed the senate, moving onto the house:
General Assembly
Raised Bill No. 1054
January Session, 2009
LCO No. 3824
*03824_______TRA*
Referred to Committee on Transportation
Introduced by:
(TRA)
AN ACT PROHIBITING OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOL IN MOTOR VEHICLES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) For the purposes of this section:
(1) "Alcoholic beverage" has the same meaning as provided in section 30-1 of the general statutes;
(2) "Highway" has the same meaning as provided in section 14-1 of the general statutes;
(3) "Open alcoholic beverage container" means a bottle, can or other receptacle that (A) contains any amount of an alcoholic beverage, and (B) (i) is open or has a broken seal, or (ii) the contents of which are partially removed;
(4) "Passenger" means any occupant of a motor vehicle other than the operator; and
(5) "Passenger area" means (A) the area designed to seat the operator of and any passenger in a motor vehicle while such vehicle is being operated on a highway, or (B) any area of a motor vehicle that is readily accessible to such operator or passenger while such person is in such person\'s seating position, except that, in a motor vehicle not equipped with a trunk, "passenger area" does not include a locked glove compartment, the area behind the last upright seat closest to the rear of the motor vehicle or an area not normally occupied by the operator of or passengers in such motor vehicle.
(b) No person shall possess an open alcoholic beverage container within the passenger area of a motor vehicle while such motor vehicle is on any highway in this state.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to: (1) Any passenger in a motor vehicle designed, maintained and primarily used for the transportation of persons for hire, or (2) any passenger in the living quarters of a recreational vehicle, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statutes.
(d) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars.
This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1
October 1, 2009
New section
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles.
[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]
General Assembly
Proposed Bill No. 6062
January Session, 2009
LCO No. 1340
Referred to Committee on Transportation
Introduced by:
REP. MUSHINSKY, 85th Dist.
AN ACT PROHIBITING OPEN CONTAINERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to adopt a state open container law prohibiting open alcoholic beverage containers in motor vehicles located on a public highway or right-of-way.
Statement of Purpose:
To conform with federal law and to reduce the incidence of drunk driving.
source (http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillInfo/CGABillInfoDisplay.asp)