Author Topic: Drugs kill! (Read 8324 times)

Dune · « **Reply #105 on:** November 24, 2003, 12:35:30 AM »

If you refuse to do the FST's (field sobrieity tests), then the cop has to decide if he has enough probable cause to arrest you and make you take a breath/blood/urine test. If you refuse to take the test in Arizona, the DMV will automatically take your license for 1 year. You would have to fight it in an admisitrative hearing at the DMV, not a court of law.

They can do this becuase you don't have a right to a driver's license, the state gives you one.

Creamo · « **Reply #106 on:** November 24, 2003, 12:54:31 AM »

And I think I have paid for the right drive my car anywhere in America after giving Nevada $1600 for registering my car after I shipped it into NV, and $300 this year to register my tags again.

The having to put up with cops pulling over me or say someone like Laz, and making him do anything other than identifying himself and signing a ticket is outragous.

I have applied for a ATF permit to have goofy sport rocketry motors in my garage, and with it it gives the jackboot 21 year old 22K a year ATF tards the right to come into my house. But I won't open the door.

Maybe they will shoot my wife holding a baby, they have done that before.

-Concho- · « **Reply #107 on:** November 24, 2003, 12:59:46 AM »

what does thier age and how much they make a year haveto do with it?

hate to be the one to break it to you creamo, but you state considers it a privilege, not a right to drive.

Creamo · « **Reply #108 on:** November 24, 2003, 01:02:15 AM »

Thats my point.

SOB · « **Reply #109 on:** November 24, 2003, 03:27:07 AM »

Well, that hardly sounds voluntary to me, but whatever. The one time I was pulled over for suspected DUI, the officer just had me follow his finger as he moved it side to side while shining his flashlight in my eyes. It was about 3 am and I was pretty tired and driving my 84 mazda b2000 that had about 1-2 inches of play in the steering, so he probably had good reason to pull me over.

mora · « **Reply #110 on:** November 24, 2003, 05:31:34 AM »

I wonder why people are against sobriety tests, but at the same time they accept drug testing.

Sobriety/breathalyzer tests unlike drug testing measures your current impairment and if you are impaired you are a danger to others. I fail to see the problem with this.

lazs2 · « **Reply #111 on:** November 24, 2003, 08:20:38 AM »

creamo... if I were you I wouldn't argue with me either.

I do not believe in the government having much power. I do not believe in the homeland security.... I also do not want intoxicated people on the public roads with me. They are of diminished capacity and a danger. They are of diminished capacity because they have chossen to be.

I don't feel that the police abuse the field sobriety thing. If it began to appear that they were something would have to be done.

in my case.. my girlfriend had been drininking. it was a small car (a mustang) I imagine the cop could smell the booze in the car. it was 2:30 in the morning. when I got out and started the test He realized I was not drunk but red eyed from being up and didn't stink of booze... I probly did about 3 quick tests and he poilitely told me I could go after writing me a ticket for seatbelt infraction.

the seatbelt law is much more heinous than the any field sobriety law in my opinion. the seatbelt law is simple do gooder intrusion into my life... still... it is not the police who made the law.

One time a cop tried to give me a lecture on the seatbelt law. I told him thank you but I was an adult and allready knew all the latest statistics and what mangled people looked like but thanked him for his concern. I told him that in my cars with lap belts I wore them but felt the law was a bad law.

lazs

gofaster · « **Reply #112 on:** November 24, 2003, 09:35:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Maybe they will shoot my wife holding a baby, they have done that before.

They shot your wife while she was holding a baby? Or is this a reference to Ruby Ridge?

gofaster · « **Reply #113 on:** November 24, 2003, 09:36:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
the seatbelt law is much more heinous than the any field sobriety law in my opinion. the seatbelt law is simple do gooder intrusion into my life... still... it is not the police who made the law.

If forcing you to wear a seatbelt will lower my insurance rates, then you're going to wear that seatbelt, mister!

lazs2 · « **Reply #114 on:** November 24, 2003, 11:24:04 AM »

if not allowing you to overeat will lower my insurance rates then I think overweight people should be jailed.... and mountain climbers and especially.... swimmers.

the easy thing to do is have different rates for people who indulge in risky behavior.

Helmet laws and seat belt laws have not lowered rates in any case. you were conned... you gave up peoples freedom for nothing.

lazs

Gunthr · « **Reply #115 on:** November 24, 2003, 12:02:51 PM »

So this is where all the cops are hanging out, huh? I thought I smelled pork over here.

I often thought that the Seminole Indian PD here in Florida was like a privatized police department .... they appear to work at the pleasure of the tribal council... the turnover rate is quite high, and they are one of the lowest paid agencies in Broward.

Dago · « **Reply #116 on:** November 24, 2003, 01:17:12 PM »

Quote

Helmet laws and seat belt laws have not lowered rates in any case

The one thing about wearing a helmet when motorcycling, it does significantly reduce injuries, especially the kind that leave you a vegtable for life. Living as a vegetable for the next 40 years or so with constant expensive medical care at taxpayers expense is a drain on all our wallets.

I don't like to see government intrude on our freedoms and rights to make our own choices, but I hate to see people make bad choices that result in everyone else paying higher taxes.

The city I live in passed an ordinance a couple years ago, that for 6 months a year, we can't park a car on the street in front of our house at night. Might need to plow you see, even if it hasn't snowed in a month, and won't snow for another month. Mind you it never caused a problem before, they could just plow around you, its a big street. This is one law that pisses me off. With 4 cars in our family, 2 in the garage, 2 in the driveway, it gets crowded.

dagoooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo

lazs2 · « **Reply #117 on:** November 24, 2003, 02:25:54 PM »

fair enough dago... can you give me the stats for motorcylists who have been turned into veggetables and are now being supported by the state because they didn't have a helmet on? I believe that the last time someone tried to get those figures he came up with...... zero. it is an urban myth. The busybodies allways lie.

90% or so of all motorcyle injuries are to the lower extremities... It would be far preferable to simply insist that all motorcyclists be insured.

did you know that a major portion of injuries incurred in car wrecks occur to the head? would you be willing to have to wear a helmet in your car to save money..... even if it then turned out that your insurance didn't go down a bit?
lazs

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #118 on:** November 24, 2003, 02:34:36 PM »

The Viper GTS came with the twin bubble roof feature to better facilitate helmets--of course this was just a carry over from the racing version of the car. Personally, I think it would be a bit disconcerting to pull up to a red light and see an 80 year old woman in the neighboring car decked out like she's planning to drag race you to the next light.

gofaster · « **Reply #119 on:** November 24, 2003, 02:42:14 PM »

Gary Busey lives.

This lady didn't.

Been hurt in an accident? They're ready to help you!

Interesting statistic from the above URL:

Quote

Five crash types account for 86% of fatal motorcycle crashes: motorcycle runs-off-road 41%, motorcycle or other vehicle runs traffic control 18%, head-on collision 11%, car turns in front of cycle 8% and motorcycle goes down in roadway 7%.