Too funny, nobody is perfect I guess
July 4th, 2007 1:52pm
Kind of looks like a frat boy.
July 4th, 2007 1:57pm
Wow. Is that what they did to Paris Hilton when SHE was arrested for the second time for drunk driving?
"No special priveleges", after all.
>was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour
The Prius might be less environmentally damaging than an SUV, but calling it environmentally friendly is just a grotesque misrepresentation.
Milosevic wasn't as bad as Hitler...so he was Human Friendly?
The Media are dumb fucks, find a bit of grass and they all go nuts, morons
If it was just a bit of grass he'd practically be a hero in some circles, it's the prescription drugs that fuck it up.
That's kind of a neat story and I was about to say good for him to be caught in a hybrid, but he was driving it at 100mph! At that speed, hybrids get worse mileage than conventional cars so the whole point is lost.
Also, pot is no problem, but marijuana AND Valium AND Xanax AND Vicodin AND Adderall AND Soma - HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
Same thing here with the playboy bunny.
July 4th, 2007 8:14pm
Was the drug cocktail in him as well as the car and what would be its emergent properties? IIRC pot on its own could lead to you being pulled over for driving really slowwwwwwwly but adding (say) alcohol would change matters (most often for the worse).
Where's this on the Katzenjammer Kid naughtiness scale compared with Bush & Cheney's bratz?
Well Bush's girls have been arrested for under age drinking and partying, but they've never been found with MJ, or meds. I'm not sure about driving under the influence, I think no. Cheney's kids are all grown and have their own lives, I've never heard anything about them having legal problems.
You mean, except for Cheney's daughter being gay -- but I suppose that's not really a legal problem, until she wants to marry her significant other.
What is up with these people. Should we just legalize drunken driving, get it over with.
July 5th, 2007 12:11am
Oh, HELL no. Keeping it illegal is how we keep the death rate as low as it is, and it's not low enough. Legalize drunk driving, and nobody's going to be safe.
I wonder how many people don't have licenses because of too many DUI convictions? You don't want to put them all back on the road, do you?
Note the common denominator -- these guys were SPEEDING. And drunk/stoned. If they'd ONLY kept the speed down, the cops wouldn't have pulled them over.
In fact, I heard Ms. Hilton only got pulled over that last time because she was ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD.
I was kidding. But it is kind of interesting. Are hearing more about these cases because they we are more focused on this crap or is this an increasing trend.
I can't tell. But all of the people I mentioned aren't exactly low-profile people.
I think it is an increasing trend, an increasing trend of party lifestyle. But I wonder why.
Even when I go out, if I go out at 5-6, places are packed now. People everywhere getting toasted. And I think the party life has been increasing. I could be wrong.
July 5th, 2007 12:21am
"Should we just legalize drunken driving"
YES. I will take this side. Look, have STEEP penalties if you smash into something, do property damage, and rate drunken killing of pedestrians or other drivers as first degree capital murder, I am for all of that. But not for making drunk driving illegal. I should have that freedom as long as I do it safely.
I was listening to this one describe how having the government require us to wear seat belt is a violation of our rights. In some ways similar.
On the seat-belts, it is interesting if you think about it. How can government require me to wear this thing. They dont require me to wear a helmet when I am driving in my car. safety goggles? Why a seat-belt.
On the drinking and driving. It is really too bad that crazy, drunk, drunk people go out there and kill people. A lot are young and a lot are just wreckless people in general. How do we distinguish, Al Gore's son, Paris Hilton, they probably aren't going to hurt people. But there are others that might. Interesting problem.
July 5th, 2007 2:23am
The way I see it is we are putting people in jail, taking away their freedom, when a situation exists where something bad might possibly happen someday.
This is very different from a system of justice which puts people in jail for actually DOING something bad.
Another way to look at it.
We are saying that if you are doing something that globally, as an average, has a slightly higher statistical likelihood of creating a problem than some other behavior, we will arrest you and punish you for that, instead of punishing you because something actually happened. Drunk driving is a thought crime. You are not arrested because you have done some damage. You are arrested because you are existing within a probability potentiality that society has decided for you to be considered criminal.
And that's bullshit, that's fascist control. That's not freedom at all.
Studies show that any cell phone use puts you at as high a risk of getting in an accident as drunk driving, except that you are MORE likely to be in a FATAL accident because it turns out drunk drivers tend to drive real slow because, unlike cell phone users, they are AWARE that they are impaired.
Explain why we arrest one and not the other.
If I am driving the speed limit and not paying attention because I am thinking about last night's Desperate Housewives, and I run over a little child accidentally and he dies, in terrible pain, with blood spurting out of his ears, I will probably not even get a citation. I certainly won't be arrested.
If I am driving slowly home from the pub late at night when no one is out and I drive safely and get home without incident, I can be arrested and sent to jail for many years, longer in some situations than I would be put in prison for rape, pedophilia, or murder.
Does that make sense?
Why not instead punish people for COMMITTING offenses, rather than for being statistically likely overall to commit them?
If you kill or injure someone when driving while drunk, it's too late then for the person whose life was ruined. The drink drive laws are intended as a deterrent to stop people from driving while impaired.
It can be argued that the drink drive laws are badly crafted and don't properly address the stated intent any more, but the intent is there nevertheless.
Driving while using a cell phone is certainly prohibited in some jurisdictions such as in the UK, and I have no idea why it is tolerated so broadly in the USA. Every time I see a car being driven in some fucked up manner I look across and see the driver trying to steer and change gear with one hand while holding a phone to their ear with the other hand. It didn't even need a special law to prosecute people for that in the UK: the existing law of "driving while not being in full control of the vehicle" was available and used.
Well speaking of good intent, the road to totalitarianism is paved with it.
You guys complain about Bush taking away your freedoms, but he doesn't take away freedoms. You give them up voluntarily and beg the government to take even more away. Fools.
Drunk driving is not a crime in the same way that skateboarding is not a crime.
On the other hand, skateboarding drunk probably should be a crime.