bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:As we have discussed in the past, speech is limited. I can be prosecuted by the govt for yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Constitutional rights are not absolute. I'm lost, though. How did we get here?



Somebody mentioned gun, which is a direct violation of the second amendment. Well unless you say GUNS ARE GREAT and then fellate it (this is where that kind of safety might be nice).

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:You mean like comparing auto deaths to gun deaths?

Looking at the US alone,automobiles are used by the vast majority of people over 18. And the vast majority of those people use their car daily, likely multiple times per day. The "use-time" of automobiles is exponentially greater than the "use-time" of firearms. So, comparing any numbers between the two to say if this, then that is absurd no matter what you're trying to get the statistics to say.



The point I'm trying to make is that there are far more ways to die than by guns. More people died in Auto accidents, yet guns are the villains and need to be controlled.

Guns are also used daily by millions, safely. There's around 89 guns per 100 people. A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.

There's around 137 million passenger cars (around 1 for every 2 Americans), but estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million.

Put another way, there were 120,859 accidental deaths in 2010. Of those deaths, the top three causes were Motor Vehicle (33,687), Unintentional Poisoning (33,041), & Unintentional Falls (26,009). Only 606 accidental deaths were by firearm. And that has been declining every year.

33,041 deaths due to motor vehicle and 606 deaths due to firearms. Discrepancy anyone?


If CM and the others are so concerned about human life, wouldn't you eliminate the Top 15 causes first (because guns aren't even in the Top 15)? If you were truly concerned that is.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:As we have discussed in the past, speech is limited. I can be prosecuted by the govt for yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Constitutional rights are not absolute. I'm lost, though. How did we get here?



We got here because you seem to be fine with taking civil rights away.


2nd Amendment rights are also limited if you are a felon. Just as they lose their right to vote. But they are a felon, not a citizen.

You talk about limiting rights like it's much ado about nothing. I'm trying to show that it's a slippery slope. Once you start redefining one Amendment, you can also start redefining other Amendments as well.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:If every NEW VEHICLE had to have it then basically yeah. I'm not talking retrofit. I'm talking NEW, in which case nothing changes. Not caliber, not capacity, nothing. It just had a new feature. Like, oh, catalytic converters, unleaded gas, seatbelts...



Yes, but it wouldn't stop at only NEW guns. Eventually, there would be a requirement to retrofit ALL old guns or turn them in.

And unlike the catalytic converter or unleaded gas, it's not a minor thing. Even now, the bell dings if you don't put the seatbelt on, but it stops eventually.

The breathalyzer (and "smart" gun) wouldn't let you drive (or shoot) if you didn't proceed. But then again, there would be ways people would figure to get around the restriction, and we'd be back to square one.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:We got here because you seem to be fine with taking civil rights away.


2nd Amendment rights are also limited if you are a felon. Just as they lose their right to vote. But they are a felon, not a citizen.

You talk about limiting rights like it's much ado about nothing. I'm trying to show that it's a slippery slope. Once you start redefining one Amendment, you can also start redefining other Amendments as well.



What do you mean "you." I haven't said a single thing about requirement re: the new tech. Nor have I said you shouldn't have guns. I'm challenging your limit speech argument.

And I don't buy the "slippery slope arguments in most situations. In theither instant case, amendments are (re)interpreted in the SC all the time. Hyoerbolic, scary speak doesn't make it more true.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:As we have discussed in the past, speech is limited. I can be prosecuted by the govt for yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Constitutional rights are not absolute. I'm lost, though. How did we get here?



I'm not sure how we got here. My personal opinion is that we should avoid watering down rights if at all possible. That's not such an easy thing when different people's rights are coming into conflict, but this one is pretty easy. If I buy a gun, it's not hurting you. Shooting you is already illegal, and rightfully so. It bugs me so much when we restrict everyone on the possibility that some jackass might abuse the privilege (not that you were saying we should do that).

I'm going to out myself as a piss-poor liberal here, but I have little interest in preventing suicide via removal of the general public's rights. If you want to commit suicide, that is your choice and it is probably the most fundamental freedom we have (or don't have). It's tragic and a cruel thing to do to your loved ones, but...that is a personal decision.

I hate the safety features on my washing machine. I don't have any kids and if I did, I'd consider it my own responsibility to prevent them from stuffing themselves into the machine. At least let me disable the safety features. This is turning into a rant.

Carry on, folks. To each his own. Recognize that your gun is dangerous and it's your own responsibility to secure it. Shoot yourself if you want to, don't let your kids get hold of it, don't lend it to your shady cousin. That is all.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

I agree with the suicide thing. And I think I agree with everything else you said, at least to some degree.

I am OK with the advancement of technology, though. And I'm OK with a company offering an option. Whether it should/will be a requirement is a different question. One that I'm not sure about.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman

And I mostly agree with you guys also. Where I was objecting was the reaction by extremists that refuse to even allow the thought of new safety mechanisms on any gun anywhere. Sigh.

This discussion kind of proves my point on the state of politics in the country though. Wish it hadn't.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Oops.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote: Dude ... would limiting your speech be okay?


It already is limited, I cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre or threaten the president or anyone else with bodily harm. For public safety. Not in broad or political contexts though

MarkDaSpark wrote: Limiting who you could associate with?


I don’t know of any safety or political contexts where this is limited… perhaps a restraining order counts. Once again, safety.

MarkDaSpark wrote: Extending your argument (that saving one life is worth ANY civil rights violation)

Not at all what I said. There needs to be a balance and it needs to be strongly justified and defined.

MarkDaSpark wrote: Drinking in large groups causes excessive drinking, which causes violent behavior and drunk driving. Ergo, the state has mandated that you can no longer drink in groups larger than 4. That would save lives as well.
But it would violate the Constitution. It would seem you approve of violating anyone's rights where you feel appropriate. What you fail to comprehend is that the founding fathers feared the mob (i.e., majority rule), which is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.


Indeed banning such groups would be unconstitutional. Banning guns outright is as well. Banning the types of guns one can have or sell is a grey area that the courts are dealing with. Mandating certain safeties would also be a court issue. OFFERING such guns is not a constitutional issue. I am ok with such mandates going to the courts, are you? If not, why not?

MarkDaSpark wrote: Which is why they specifically put in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" into the 2nd Amendment.

infringe: to wrongly limit or restrict. The constitution does NOT say that it shall not be LIMITED.

MarkDaSpark wrote: You would impose on my rights, based on your "opinions". It would be as wrong as mandating that everyone own a gun. It's our right to own a gun or not own a gun.

I would not impose upon your rights, I have no power to do so other than electing persons, voting for a ballot measure or running for office myself. I also do not believe that there is a constitutional provision (outside freedom of religion) preventing a universal gun mandate. I think such a thing would be colossally stupid, but I think it would be constitutional.

MarkDaSpark wrote: Just because you think it would save lives, doesn't mean it will. Mainly because you are assuming that it will be a high rate of accuracy, when it's obvious it will never be that high.

Mark – I have learned in these kind of discussions, one has to break them down in parts to figure out where the differences truly lay or else people will wheedle out of the discussion on technicalities. This is why I proposed a very high accuracy (but not perfect) as a basis for the discussion.

MarkDaSpark wrote: And you are assuming that the gun is totally to blame…

This is flat wrong, I never made any such assumption.

MarkDaSpark wrote: …when it's the behavior of perpetrator. The suicide rate won't go down because of a "smart" gun, because they will just do it another way.

Not every person thinking or even attempting suicide truly wants to go through with it. Some, or many, yes, but if the EASE of doing it with a gun is gone, SOME may be saved. Admittedly it is a supposition, but do you think it is totally untrue?

MarkDaSpark wrote: The accident rate might go down, but it's not a one to one relationship. People will find ways to disable the "smart" feature, because it is unreliable and unwieldy. It's the behavior that counts, and training is the answer. Which you have totally sidestepped as well.

Of course it isn’t 1:1, but a reduction of 1% of gun accidents, gun suicides, and gun deaths as a whole is still a lot of people.

MarkDaSpark wrote: Or don't you feel education is the answer?

Of course education is PART of an answer. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid, or forgetful, or rageful people out there that no amount of education is going to make go away. How do we stop those people from revoking the right to life of those around them? There isn’t one answer for everything, but we can find ways to reduce tragedies.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that there are far more ways to die than by guns. More people died in Auto accidents, yet guns are the villains and need to be controlled.

Guns are also used daily by millions, safely. There's around 89 guns per 100 people. A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US households own a gun.

There's around 137 million passenger cars (around 1 for every 2 Americans), but estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million.

Put another way, there were 120,859 accidental deaths in 2010. Of those deaths, the top three causes were Motor Vehicle (33,687), Unintentional Poisoning (33,041), & Unintentional Falls (26,009). Only 606 accidental deaths were by firearm. And that has been declining every year.

33,041 deaths due to motor vehicle and 606 deaths due to firearms. Discrepancy anyone?


If CM and the others are so concerned about human life, wouldn't you eliminate the Top 15 causes first (because guns aren't even in the Top 15)? If you were truly concerned that is.



Mark -

There are TONS of people ACTIVELY working very hard to make cars safer so that fewer people die accidental deaths that way.

The thing about guns is that you have to look at both accidental and non-accidental deaths. there may be only 600 accidents but there are nearly 30,000 non-accidents and some of those too can be prevented by having a more secure firearm.


Are there concerns about the ability of such things to work properly when needed? yes (battery, EMP, ect) but those are NOT reasons to shut down discussion. You're using it as a cop-out.


Would you be open to such regulations IF they had a high rate of recognition, if batteries were a non-issue, and had a reasonable level of EMP hardness? why?

Would you be open to the existing weapons hitting market? why?

Are you afraid of the New Jersey law hitting the courts?

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon

Oh and Mark -

None of my replies are meant to be personal. I am just trying to have a thorough conversation of the topic and you're the only one holding down the other side.




There is always a middle ground and it's usually better than either side.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
cmaldoon wrote:Oh and Mark -

None of my replies are meant to be personal. I am just trying to have a thorough conversation of the topic and you're the only one holding down the other side.




There is always a middle ground and it's usually better than either side.



It just seems that you (and others) are being especially obtuse.

For example ...


MarkDaSpark wrote:
Which is why they specifically put in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" into the 2nd Amendment.

Your response:
infringe: to wrongly limit or restrict. The constitution does NOT say that it shall not be LIMITED.



Evidently, you are using the wrong definition of Infringe.

Definition of infringe (v)

in·fringe[ in frínj ]
1) disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement

2) encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way


Definition of obtuse (adj)
ob·tuse[ əb tóoss ]
slow to understand: slow to understand or perceive something


The middle ground is sometimes a swamp, and not a good place to be.

Our civil rights are not something you want a "middle ground" on. Once you give something up, you will never get it back. Whether it's our 1st Amendment rights or 2nd Amendment rights. Or any of the others.


Perhaps you don't feel threatened by all the militarization of our police. Or the fact that instead of knocking on our door to serve a warrant, they bust in the door with full gear and ready to shoot.

Or didn't you read about the 80 year old man shot to death by the Sheriff's deputy during a bad raid (where another deputy swore he smelled Meth, but nothing was found)?


The point was that yes, both are limited (Fire, Libel, Slander, etc for 1st Amendment; Automatic Weapons, etc. for the 2nd Amendment), but that those are extremely limited in scope.

The changes you propose go far beyond that, which is what my example was supposed to show. Just how easy it will be to abrogate our civil rights in the name of "safety".


And you still ignore the fact that guns are NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 15 CAUSES OF DEATHS. As well as the fact that these proposed changes will NOT AFFECT THE SUICIDE RATE one iota.

Yes, there are attempts which are cries for help. But none of those would be affected by any "smart" gun. It's the proverbial "red herring".


As I've repeatedly said, if someone wants to buy a "smart" gun, that's fine. Just don't infringe my rights by requiring it.



BTW, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled that police no longer need a search warrant to search your vehicle. 4th Amendment infringement anyone?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:BTW, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just ruled that police no longer need a search warrant to search your vehicle. 4th Amendment infringement anyone?



They can already enter your home if they have "probable cause." How is your car more special than your home? It's not hey, I pulled you over, now I'm gonna go through your ████ JUST CAUSE I CAN! Though I have a feeling that will be your rebuttal is that they will do EXACTLY that.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

No matter what the definition of infringement, we need to clarify what is (or is not) being infringed.

Is it the right to bear arms? Or is it the right to bear whichever forms of arms you dang well please to own?

If the former, I'm not sure how requiring safety features on new sales qualifies, though I am of course open to elucidation. If the latter, then a slippery slope argument can ensue in the other direction. There are a lot of types of "arms" that I certainly don't want to have freely available to the general public, and we need to figure out just where the line needs to be drawn.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
coynedj wrote:No matter what the definition of infringement, we need to clarify what is (or is not) being infringed.

Is it the right to bear arms? Or is it the right to bear whichever forms of arms you dang well please to own?

If the former, I'm not sure how requiring safety features on new sales qualifies, though I am of course open to elucidation. If the latter, then a slippery slope argument can ensue in the other direction. There are a lot of types of "arms" that I certainly don't want to have freely available to the general public, and we need to figure out just where the line needs to be drawn.



It's the former (as established by assault gun bans - and stupid bans on things that look assaulty)
Also, I have conceded earlier that a mandate of safety features would take a challenge all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Additionally I think it would be unwise for such a requirement to be put in place before the technology becomes far more mature.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
klezman wrote:And I mostly agree with you guys also. Where I was objecting was the reaction by extremists that refuse to even allow the thought of new safety mechanisms on any gun anywhere. Sigh.

This discussion kind of proves my point on the state of politics in the country though. Wish it hadn't.



Oh. I thought that we had acknowledged that and moved on to their supposed motivations for objecting, which was that the tech would become mandatory. I agree with you about the bullying. All these extremists have proven is that they want liberty for themselves, but not for others.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
Additionally I think it would be unwise for such a requirement to be put in place before the technology becomes far more mature.



100% agree. But in orfer to reach a more mature (functional) level, the technology needs to be allowed to grow organically and not be bullied away by the NRA or anyone else.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:All these extremists have proven is that they want liberty for themselves, but not for others.



Cue new law in Tennessee that criminalizes pregnant women who are addicted to drugs? Seems like a poor solution to a real and tragic problem.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

Is it okay to feel dirty about police stopping a school massacre?

I personally don't think either him "acting strangely" at the storage place or that he liked the Columbine kids on Facebook to be probable cause allowing them to enter the Storage Locker. Or maybe I'm misreading the story and they brought him in without seeing the locker, just for questioning (which still seems flimsy).

I don't know. I mean, I'm glad they stopped him, but I'm fairly certain they violated his civil rights. If I had to choose, I'd take the rights violation and no massacre over a massacre and no rights violation. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong though.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:Cue new law in Tennessee that criminalizes pregnant women who are addicted to drugs? Seems like a poor solution to a real and tragic problem.



Better solution, they get confined to rehab for the duration of the pregnancy. They get clean and hopefully the baby is spared being ████ed up by the drugs.

Probably cost about the same as sending her to prison.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:Is it okay to feel dirty about police stopping a school massacre?

I personally don't think either him "acting strangely" at the storage place or that he liked the Columbine kids on Facebook to be probable cause allowing them to enter the Storage Locker. Or maybe I'm misreading the story and they brought him in without seeing the locker, just for questioning (which still seems flimsy).

I don't know. I mean, I'm glad they stopped him, but I'm fairly certain they violated his civil rights. If I had to choose, I'd take the rights violation and no massacre over a massacre and no rights violation. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong though.



Sounds like he was there when they arrived to check him out ... and that everything was inside the locker and visible to them. And they brought him to the station from the locker. So no, it doesn't sound like a civil rights violation, based on that.

It also sounds like it was the manager or owner of the storage facility who called police. He was acting funny in that he closed the storage door, and took 10 minutes to open it.


The scary part is CNN focusing on "Liked guns, heavy metal".


In a photo, he can be seen picking an electric guitar with a skull on its shoulder strap; his preferred bands -- more than 190 of them in total -- are predominantly heavy metal.

His taste in movies is dominated by blood, gore, combat and fisticuffs. His favorite authors are Stephen King and the master of literary darkness, Edgar Allen Poe.

He also seems to like to hunt. His avatar is a picture of himself in hunter's orange, posing with a slain deer with a rifle draped over it.



Not sure any of those are proper indicators.


The problem isn't that they caught one guy by potentially violating the 4th Amendment. The problem is the potential 99 times they do violate rights and find nothing.


Edit: And also not sure they can justify the charges of "four counts of attempted murder in the first degree, two counts of attempted criminal damage to property in the first degree"

IMO, you need to actually commit the acts to be charged with them. Otherwise it's intent only. Unless you're Catholic, and then you get 3 sins for the price of 1 (Thinking of it, intending to do it, and actually doing it) IIRC.

But in all likelihood, it's a ploy by the DA for plea bargaining.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:Better solution, they get confined to rehab for the duration of the pregnancy. They get clean and hopefully the baby is spared being ████ed up by the drugs.

Probably cost about the same as sending her to prison.



It looks like you can avoid criminal charges by going into treatment. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/30/tennessee-criminalize-pregnant-drug-use/8502813/

Better solution, do not get pregnant. You go from person to incubator in no time flat. The mom smoked, had an occasional glass of wine, drank coffee? For shaaaaame. Won't someone think of the children?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:It looks like you can avoid criminal charges by going into treatment. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/30/tennessee-criminalize-pregnant-drug-use/8502813/

Better solution, do not get pregnant. You go from person to incubator in no time flat. The mom smoked, had an occasional glass of wine, drank coffee? For shaaaaame. Won't someone think of the children?



I think the issue is the state is having to pay for medical problems the children have due to their mom's drug problems (if they're a junkie, then they probably don't have a job and are on welfare). So they're trying to reduce the problem by deterrent.


Edit: Yup ... "Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome."

There is a sunset provision which ends the penalty in 2016, and then they can look at it again to see if it worked or not.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:I think the issue is the state is having to pay for medical problems the children have due to their mom's drug problems (if they're a junkie, then they probably don't have a job and are on welfare). So they're trying to reduce the problem by deterrent.


Edit: Yup ... "Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome."

There is a sunset provision which ends the penalty in 2016, and then they can look at it again to see if it worked or not.



Problem being, a pregnant woman so addicted she's using during pregnancy, doesn't give a ████ if it's a felony. And not getting pregnant isn't really an option either, since the types of folks this law targets probably don't think far enough ahead to "not get pregnant" in the first place. See Orange is the New Black. (good show)

Here's something I never got. My friend became an incubator, stopped smoking the entire time she was pregnant. Had the kid, started smoking again.

WHAT THE ████ logic is that?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:Problem being, a pregnant woman so addicted she's using during pregnancy, doesn't give a ████ if it's a felony. And not getting pregnant isn't really an option either, since the types of folks this law targets probably don't think far enough ahead to "not get pregnant" in the first place. See Orange is the New Black. (good show)

Here's something I never got. My friend became an incubator, stopped smoking the entire time she was pregnant. Had the kid, started smoking again.

WHAT THE ████ logic is that?



Liberal Logic.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Liberal Logic.



love it

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:I think the issue is the state is having to pay for medical problems the children have due to their mom's drug problems (if they're a junkie, then they probably don't have a job and are on welfare). So they're trying to reduce the problem by deterrent.


Edit: Yup ... "Tennessee officials have wrestled with what to do about the growing numbers of infants born dependent on drugs and who often suffer from a condition known as neonatal abstinence syndrome."

There is a sunset provision which ends the penalty in 2016, and then they can look at it again to see if it worked or not.



Yeah, it's a problem but this seems like the worst possible solution. Not that I have any better ideas. If they're using illegal drugs, well that's already illegal. If they're using legal substances, that's crossing over into another area. The link mentioned alcohol. I know you guys hate slippery slope arguments, but I worry about things which you should do, such as stop smoking when pregnant, becoming things you are required by law to do.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:Here's something I never got. My friend became an incubator, stopped smoking the entire time she was pregnant. Had the kid, started smoking again.

WHAT THE ████ logic is that?



I guess she really enjoys smoking? Good for her that she was able to stop when she got pregnant.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:I guess she really enjoys smoking? Good for her that she was able to stop when she got pregnant.



I guess so, but knowing what we know about smoking I can't imagine starting, much less, stopping, then starting again after 9 months. Not sure if she still smokes, haven't seen her much since like 2002.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:Not sure any of those are proper indicators.



They describe an awful lot of people, don't they?

MarkDaSpark wrote:IMO, you need to actually commit the acts to be charged with them.



You need to commit the acts to be convicted, but being charged with them is a different thing. Such as:

MarkDaSpark wrote:But in all likelihood, it's a ploy by the DA for plea bargaining.



Exactly.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:MarkDaSpark wrote:
Not sure any of those are proper indicators.


They describe an awful lot of people, don't they?



But the majority of whom aren't involved, nor are they likely to be.



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 187 Private Messages chipgreen
bhodilee wrote:I guess so, but knowing what we know about smoking I can't imagine starting, much less, stopping, then starting again after 9 months. Not sure if she still smokes, haven't seen her much since like 2002.


It's like any other addiction. I quit 2 years ago but still crave them. Not as much as when I first quit but I don't think the urge will ever go away.

chipgreen


quality posts: 187 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:But the majority of whom aren't involved, nor are they likely to be.


Probably a food eating, air breather too. How could he have gone undetected for so long? The signs were obvious!

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:Probably a food eating, air breather too. How could he have gone undetected for so long? The signs were obvious!



You forgot Water Drinking!!!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 187 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:You forgot Water Drinking!!!


Oh yeah, water drinkers are the worst! Nearly 100% of violent crimes are committed by water drinkers.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:But the majority of whom aren't involved, nor are they likely to be.



This is pretty similar to "racial profiling" isn't it? Liked guns and heavy metal = religious Iraqi man man getting on an airplane.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:This is pretty similar to "racial profiling" isn't it? Liked guns and heavy metal = religious Iraqi man man getting on an airplane.



Works for the Israeli's ... no hijackings or bombings on their planes. Oh wait, that's not racial profiling. But then they also don't have an █████ press and left-wing freaks who scream "racist" at the drop of a hat.

And they are both totally different. One is based only on the color of your skin. The other is an abstract subset of likes culled by a biased news organization. It's like the Right saying that all mass shooters for the past 20 years were Democrat or influenced by Democrats.




Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Works for the Israeli's ... no hijackings or bombings on their planes. Oh wait, that's not racial profiling. But then they also don't have an █████ press and left-wing freaks who scream "racist" at the drop of a hat.

And they are both totally different. One is based only on the color of your skin. The other is an abstract subset of likes culled by a biased news organization. It's like the Right saying that all mass shooters for the past 20 years were Democrat or influenced by Democrats.



So profiling is OK if you're basing it on race? Or religion? I'm seriously asking. My mind isn't made up about profiling yet. This seems to me along the same lines, if not identical.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:So profiling is OK if you're basing it on race? Or religion? I'm seriously asking. My mind isn't made up about profiling yet. This seems to me along the same lines, if not identical.



Perhaps you need to learn more ...

What Israeli Airport Security Can Teach the World

"Much of the airport's security protocol is achieved through a combination of comprehensive due diligence, common sense, and consistency"

"Departing passengers are questioned by highly trained security agents before they reach the check-in counter. These interviews could last as little as one minute or as long as an hour, based on such factors as age, race, religion and destination."


Now, let's learn something that most people seem to ignore ...

Semitic (sɪˈmɪtɪk) or less commonly Shemitic
n
1. (Languages) a branch or subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, and such ancient languages as Akkadian and Phoenician
adj
2. (Languages) denoting, relating to, or belonging to this group of languages
3. (Peoples) denoting, belonging to, or characteristic of any of the peoples speaking a Semitic language, esp the Jews or the Arabs
4. (Peoples) another word for Jewish

Seems like most people think it refers to only #4, when in actuality, it refers to everyone in the area.


The key is that it isn't "racial" profiling ... it's suspicious activity/actions profiling. Yet every time, some nutjob calls it "Racial" and goes ballistic without using any common sense.

It's stupidity like this that makes me despair. Not everything is about race or religion.


Except when you have a majority of religious leaders (Imams, Ayatollahs, etc.) of one religion saying it's okay to lie and kill someone not of their religion. And recruit young people to suicide while taking out innocents.

Then I have a major problem with that religion. And think they need extra scrutiny. That's not racist, that's common sense.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.