but......this is TOTALLY wrong and unfounded:
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125593,00.html' target='_blank'>Man Loses License After Doctors State His Drinking Habits</a>
RebelKev Wrote:but......this is TOTALLY wrong and unfounded:
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125593,00.html' target='_blank'>Man Loses License After Doctors State His Drinking Habits</a>
I'm not opposed to drilling for oil in federal or state land. In fact I think all that land should be sold. What I am opposed to is sending my tax money to prop-up governments in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait just so that those fatsos who are too lazy to walk to the corner store to buy beer can have cheap gas.
{No GD's please.}
Ok.............., but what do you think about what was posted?
RebelKev Wrote:Ok.............., but what do you think about what was posted?
This what I think, I think that if you hit another car, person, animal, object, or building with your car regardless of if you were drunk or not you should be sent to prison for life and be put to work there to the point where you'll voluntarily want to commit suicide(and if they want to commit suicide I'm in favor of letting them since it won't hurt any of us if they do). No country club prisons. I'm also in favor of spending more on public surveillance equipment like in Singapore instead of spending it on public welfare for bums who are too cheap to get a job or giving it to other countries. Instead of trying to ammend the constitution to keep gays from marrying they should ammend it to do away with the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments for criminals. The day criminals aren't cruel with their victims is the day I'll be in favor of not being too cruel with them. They also need to do away with this electoral college crap and decide elections based on the regular vote. If you get more votes than the other guy you win, gee simplicity what a concept! Oh, yeah and while I'm on the subject of amending the constitution the quotas and government intervention with private business needs to be done away with. If I'm running a business and I decide I only want to hire blue guys or green guys or purple guys it's my friggin business as long as I'm the one paying the taxes. It's called freedom of association. It's also called respecting someone else's right to decide for himself how he runs his business cause if my freedoms ain't respected I ain't gonna have much respect for yours when your turn comes up. The founding fathers didn't create a central government to tell people how to run their businesses or their lives, they created one to protect the public peace and life and property and defend OUR COUNTRY(not other countries) from foreign agressors.
charles Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Ok.............., but what do you think about what was posted?
This what I think, I think that if you hit another car, person, animal, object, or building with your car regardless of if you were drunk or not you should be sent to prison for life
so my mom should go to prison for life, because she dented a parked car when backing out of a driveway? Are you also saying that if someone hits a squirrel they should go to prison. what about when a deer runs out in front of the car?
RebelKev Wrote:but......this is TOTALLY wrong and unfounded:
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125593,00.html' target='_blank'>Man Loses License After Doctors State His Drinking Habits</a>
Agreed. This is outrageous. Glad the 4th estate is proving its worth on this one.
And the physicians should be identified. They are not the victims...they are the ones treading on people's rights. Their patients have the right to know.
DrTorch Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:but......this is TOTALLY wrong and unfounded:
<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125593,00.html' target='_blank'>Man Loses License After Doctors State His Drinking Habits</a>
Agreed. This is outrageous. Glad the 4th estate is proving its worth on this one.
And the physicians should be identified. They are not the victims...they are the ones treading on people's rights. Their patients have the right to know.
I don't like it, but I have more of a problem with the law:
Quote:A state law dating to the 1960s requires doctors to report any physical or mental impairments that could compromise a patient's ability to drive safely, PennDOT spokeswoman Joan Nissley said.
I'd say an admitted drug or alcohol habit
could compromise your ability to drive safely, especially if he also has a heart condition, so I have a hard time faulting the doctors on this one. They'd probably get sued by someone if they failed to report something like this under
this law.
I don't have a problem with the current course of action. The DOT has a responsibility to ensure the safety of other drivers (ex: driver's license tests). If this means revoking the license of a person who has 6 cans of beer daily, then this is a step that needs to be taken to ensure safety of other motorists. It is also the responsiblity of the doctor to do everything within their power to protect the lives of their patients and I don't think it violates any HIPAA rules. Now if this man can prove that he is competent at the wheel, then his license should be reinstated.
flyingswoosh Wrote:charles Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Ok.............., but what do you think about what was posted?
This what I think, I think that if you hit another car, person, animal, object, or building with your car regardless of if you were drunk or not you should be sent to prison for life
so my mom should go to prison for life, because she dented a parked car when backing out of a driveway? Are you also saying that if someone hits a squirrel they should go to prison. what about when a deer runs out in front of the car?
She would go to prison for damaging property. In this case it was property, next time it could be a life. Those who, due to carelessness or malice, turn their vehicles into weapons are no different than any other criminals. As for the possibility that something or someone runs out on the road...well you'll just have to drive very carefully and try to persuade the jury somehow that despite your utmost defensive driving this person or animal was on a suicide mission and it hit your car rather than you hitting it.
HuskieDan Wrote:I'd say an admitted drug or alcohol habit could compromise your ability to drive safely, especially if he also has a heart condition, so I have a hard time faulting the doctors on this one. They'd probably get sued by someone if they failed to report something like this under this law.
I agree with Huskie. :eek: :D
I don't know that the law is fair since what COULD happen is a little sketchy, but I don't fault the doctors for doing it if that's what the law requires.
charles Wrote:She would go to prison for damaging property. In this case it was property, next time it could be a life. Those who, due to carelessness or malice, turn their vehicles into weapons are no different than any other criminals. As for the possibility that something or someone runs out on the road...well you'll just have to drive very carefully and try to persuade the jury somehow that despite your utmost defensive driving this person or animal was on a suicide mission and it hit your car rather than you hitting it.
Why don't we just arrest anybody for driving, obviously they are wielding a deadly weapon with intent to kill. I guess Iraq really did have weapons of mass destruction, cars.
What if you open your driver's side door and put a dinger in the car next to you? Life Sentence? Clearly in your case, the punishment fits the crime.
charles Wrote:She would go to prison for damaging property. In this case it was property, next time it could be a life. Those who, due to carelessness or malice, turn their vehicles into weapons are no different than any other criminals. As for the possibility that something or someone runs out on the road...well you'll just have to drive very carefully and try to persuade the jury somehow that despite your utmost defensive driving this person or animal was on a suicide mission and it hit your car rather than you hitting it.
I just want to make sure I got this straight. If it doesn't fit you, then I apologize.
Libertarians blamed 9/11 on our foreign policy and said that the correct and prudent response was to bring all of our troops home. Terrorists killed 3000 innocent civilians, cause
billions of dollars in property damage and the correct and prudent response was isolationism.
Someone backs into a parked and you want to throw their butt in jail.
Okie dokie...
charles Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Ok.............., but what do you think about what was posted?
This what I think, I think that if you hit another car, person, animal, object, or building with your car regardless of if you were drunk or not you should be sent to prison for life and be put to work there to the point where you'll voluntarily want to commit suicide(and if they want to commit suicide I'm in favor of letting them since it won't hurt any of us if they do). No country club prisons. I'm also in favor of spending more on public surveillance equipment like in Singapore instead of spending it on public welfare for bums who are too cheap to get a job or giving it to other countries. Instead of trying to ammend the constitution to keep gays from marrying they should ammend it to do away with the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments for criminals. The day criminals aren't cruel with their victims is the day I'll be in favor of not being too cruel with them. They also need to do away with this electoral college crap and decide elections based on the regular vote. If you get more votes than the other guy you win, gee simplicity what a concept! Oh, yeah and while I'm on the subject of amending the constitution the quotas and government intervention with private business needs to be done away with. If I'm running a business and I decide I only want to hire blue guys or green guys or purple guys it's my friggin business as long as I'm the one paying the taxes. It's called freedom of association. It's also called respecting someone else's right to decide for himself how he runs his business cause if my freedoms ain't respected I ain't gonna have much respect for yours when your turn comes up. The founding fathers didn't create a central government to tell people how to run their businesses or their lives, they created one to protect the public peace and life and property and defend OUR COUNTRY(not other countries) from foreign agressors.
There is so much simplistic generalization here I don't know where to begin...so I'll just assume that either you are saying these things to intentionally get a rise out of people or you view life as a serious of yes and no questions. And if that works for you, great. But I find it interesting that a libertarian wants to send every car accident to trial (more government spending), put up cameras in public (I think that violates my right to live without government intrusion, especially if I live in a building near a 'public' area), and pretend that we can turn a blind eye to the rest of the world (because isolationist policies always work out really well).
My guess is that if you mix some sense in these hardcore beliefs, you might actually be on to something, but as is they are just impractical.