🚀 go-pugleaf

In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Drivers who see someone who appears to be 
> operating a vehicle under the influence of 
> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP, 
> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
> 

Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last DUI so
they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too bad their
DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze anymore.

You do know that DUI drivers murder many more people than every act of terrorism
and all the servicemen killed in IRAQ put together?  So if we are strip
searching at the airport, what are we doing at the car door?

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in 
news:e386222281af27392924126ef6e65e19@dizum.com:

> Drivers who see someone who appears to be 
> operating a vehicle under the influence of 
> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP, 
> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP

    	I believe the correct usage is:

    	1-800-RAT-FINK

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 14:06:14 -0600, Ian MacLure <ibm@svpal.org> wrote:

>Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in 
>news:e386222281af27392924126ef6e65e19@dizum.com:
>
>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be 
>> operating a vehicle under the influence of 
>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP, 
>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
>
>    	I believe the correct usage is:
>
>    	1-800-RAT-FINK

Wot's with you guys, you see someone weaving all over the road, you
call the cops.  Of course if it's Lindsay Lohan, first you snap some
pictures.

Lesser cases, that's another matter, I suppose, like your friend Bob
leaves the party snookered and climbs in the car, ...

J.

"Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > Drivers who see someone who appears to be
> > operating a vehicle under the influence of
> > alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
> > said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
> >
>
> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last DUI
so
> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too bad
their
> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
anymore.

Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's license
is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional right to
buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right to
operate a motor vehicle.

D. Stussy <replies@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:

> "DUI" stamped on their driver's license is unconstitutional.  
> The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional 
> right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  

Then why can judges order an offender to stop drinking and go to
recovery meetings as a condition of probation?

I think many "constitutional rights" apply to non-convicted 
people only.

Steve

"Steve Pope" <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:fkmnr3$rv9$1@blue.rahul.net...
> D. Stussy <replies@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> > "DUI" stamped on their driver's license is unconstitutional.
> > The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
> > says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional
> > right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages.
>
> Then why can judges order an offender to stop drinking and go to
> recovery meetings as a condition of probation?
>
> I think many "constitutional rights" apply to non-convicted
> people only.

Usually, only when serving a sentence or while on parole.  Otherwise, the
rights are generally restored.

> Wot's with you guys, you see someone weaving all over the road, you
> call the cops.  Of course if it's Lindsay Lohan, first you snap some
> pictures.
> 
> Lesser cases, that's another matter, I suppose, like your friend Bob
> leaves the party snookered and climbs in the car, ...
> 
> J.
> 
I'm sorry, but when someone nearly sideswiped me and another car I 
called 911 immediately.  The person was all over the road, all different 
speeds and could have easily killed others.  I have no idea if the CHP 
got the driver or not, but I felt that with what I saw it needed to be 
reported.

-- 
Queenie

*** Be the change you wish to see in the world ***

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:48 -0800, Golden California Girls
<GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>> 
>
> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about
> their last DUI so they understand why they were put in a cage
> in the first place.  Too bad their DL can't have a big red
> "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze anymore.

	You would love Sweden. They have registered alchoholics
there, who can't buy booze at the State liquor store. 



> You do know that DUI drivers murder many more people than every
> act of terrorism 

	Well, that's a no brainer. I bet that was true even in
Ulster at the height of "The troubles".

> and all the servicemen killed in IRAQ put
> together?  

	There are more people on the roads in the US. 

	What is the real number for booze related deaths? I know
total road desths is about 45,000 per annum, but of those? How
many booze related. 

> So if we are strip searching at the airport, what
> are we doing at the car door?

	You want more of our freedoms removed?  It's bad enough
now putting up with security theatre at airports and the drunk
checks on the roads - Which I always mess with. They want to
waste my time? I'll waste theirs.


-- 
The Bush administration's incompetence, evident from Iraq to Louisiana, 
alienates people who know about management. - Economist Oct 20 2007

Steve Pope wrote:
> D. Stussy <replies@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
> 
>> "DUI" stamped on their driver's license is unconstitutional.  
>> The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional 
>> right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  
> 
> Then why can judges order an offender to stop drinking and go to
> recovery meetings as a condition of probation?
> 
> I think many "constitutional rights" apply to non-convicted 
> people only.
> 
> Steve
   Exactly. If someone is on parole or probation the authorities do not 
need a warrant to search them or their property. The conditions for 
their release or lack of time can include things such as no 
drinking,gambling or association with with certain people.
   Similarly  the Second Amendment does not cover felons.

In article <FaFbj.85016$YL5.7026@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, George
Grapman <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

>    Exactly. If someone is on parole or probation the authorities do not 
> need a warrant to search them or their property. The conditions for 
> their release or lack of time can include things such as no 
> drinking,gambling or association with with certain people.
>    Similarly  the Second Amendment does not cover felons.

Being a felon, thank God for all those gun shows in the 80s and 90s. No
muss, no fuss, no ID, no checks, just cash.


--Tim May

In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
>>>
>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last DUI
> so
>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too bad
> their
>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
> anymore.
> 
> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's license
> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional right to
> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right to
> operate a motor vehicle.

"Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or
possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating
liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as
provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission
hereof to the states by the Congress."

Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of amendment are
void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to make it
illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in public under
the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.

Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a big red
DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to such a
person.

In la.eats Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com> wrote:

> > So if we are strip searching at the airport, what
> > are we doing at the car door?
> 
>         You want more of our freedoms removed?  It's bad enough
> now putting up with security theatre at airports and the drunk
> checks on the roads - Which I always mess with. They want to
> waste my time? I'll waste theirs.

Speaking of such bullshit, here's some highly recommended, not to
mention extremely informative, reading -

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fighting_madd.htm

Billy Y..

In BA.FOOD D. Stussy wrote:
> "Steve Pope" <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote in message
> news:fkmnr3$rv9$1@blue.rahul.net...
>> D. Stussy <replies@newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
>>
>>> "DUI" stamped on their driver's license is unconstitutional.
>>> The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition") basically
>>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional
>>> right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages.
>> Then why can judges order an offender to stop drinking and go to
>> recovery meetings as a condition of probation?
>>
>> I think many "constitutional rights" apply to non-convicted
>> people only.
> 
> Usually, only when serving a sentence or while on parole.  Otherwise, the
> rights are generally restored.

Megan's Law

"Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
> > "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> > news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> >> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
> >>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
> >>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
> >>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
> >>>
> >> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
DUI
> > so
> >> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
bad
> > their
> >> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
> > anymore.
> >
> > Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
license
> > is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
basically
> > says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional right
to
> > buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right to
> > operate a motor vehicle.
>
> "Amendment XXI
>
> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United
> States is hereby repealed.
>
> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or
> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating
> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
>
> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified
> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states,
as
> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission
> hereof to the states by the Congress."
>
> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of amendment
are
> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to make
it
> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in public
under
> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
>
> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
big red
> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
such a
> person.

Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed, it
is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre, via
the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via the
constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right to
itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:02:55 -0000, Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com>
wrote:

>	What is the real number for booze related deaths? I know
>total road desths is about 45,000 per annum, but of those? How
>many booze related. 

Have a fuzzy recollection of it being roughly half, and that was
somewhat generous, it could be more.

D. Stussy wrote:
> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
>>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
>>> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>>>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
>>>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
>>>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
>>>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
>>>>>
>>>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
> DUI
>>> so
>>>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
> bad
>>> their
>>>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
> license
>>> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
> basically
>>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional right
> to
>>> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right to
>>> operate a motor vehicle.
>> "Amendment XXI
>>
>> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
> United
>> States is hereby repealed.
>>
>> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or
>> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
> intoxicating
>> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
>>
>> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
> ratified
>> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states,
> as
>> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
> submission
>> hereof to the states by the Congress."
>>
>> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of amendment
> are
>> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to make
> it
>> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in public
> under
>> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
>>
>> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
> big red
>> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
> such a
>> person.
> 
> Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed, it
> is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre, via
> the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via the
> constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right to
> itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.
> 
> 
   Article 2 of the 21st Amendment allows each state the right to ban 
alcohol.

D. Stussy wrote:
> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
>>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
>>> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>>>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
>>>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
>>>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
>>>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
>>>>>
>>>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
> DUI
>>> so
>>>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
> bad
>>> their
>>>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
> license
>>> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
> basically
>>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional right
> to
>>> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right to
>>> operate a motor vehicle.
>> "Amendment XXI
>>
>> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
> United
>> States is hereby repealed.
>>
>> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or
>> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
> intoxicating
>> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
>>
>> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
> ratified
>> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states,
> as
>> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
> submission
>> hereof to the states by the Congress."
>>
>> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of amendment
> are
>> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to make
> it
>> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in public
> under
>> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
>>
>> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
> big red
>> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
> such a
>> person.
> 
> Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed, it
> is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre, via
> the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via the
> constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right to
> itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.

Do you know what the interstate commerce clause is?  Can you see how it could
apply to booze?  If you can't spend some time in law school, until you can.

Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:

[to Golden California Girls]

> You would love Sweden. They have registered alchoholics there, 
> who can't buy booze at the State liquor store. 

According to what I've read[*], it wasn't just a matter of booze
being sold only by state-owned liquor stores.  There used to be 
a government ministry that controlled the production and even the 
importation of alcoholic beverages in Sweden.  And the selection
was pretty much limited to beer, wine and the local version of 
vodka.  Purchases were limited and controlled, with every customer
only being allowed to purchase a certain amount per month.

	[*] http://preview.tinyurl.com/2em959


> What is the real number for booze related deaths? I know total
> road desths is about 45,000 per annum, but of those? How many 
> booze related. 

The figure, whatever it may be, is artificially inflated.  If 
anyone who's involved in an accident is found to have any alcohol
in his system, the accident is presumed to be "alcohol related."  


> You want more of our freedoms removed?  It's bad enough now 
> putting up with security theatre at airports and the drunk
> checks on the roads - Which I always mess with. They want to
> waste my time? I'll waste theirs.

Do tell.  I've never been through one of those things, or even
seen one in operation, and I'd love to engage in a bit of subtle
sabotage if I ever have the opportunity.



Geoff

--
"If everybody in this town connected with politics had to
 leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you 
 would have no government." -- Barry Goldwater

"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:jpRbj.34687$Pv2.16985@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> D. Stussy wrote:
> > "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> > news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> >> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
> >>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> >>> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> >>>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
> >>>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
> >>>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
> >>>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
> >>>>>
> >>>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
> > DUI
> >>> so
> >>>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
> > bad
> >>> their
> >>>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
> >>> anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
> > license
> >>> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
> > basically
> >>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional
right
> > to
> >>> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right
to
> >>> operate a motor vehicle.
> >> "Amendment XXI
> >>
> >> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of
the
> > United
> >> States is hereby repealed.
> >>
> >> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory,
or
> >> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
> > intoxicating
> >> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> >>
> >> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
> > ratified
> >> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
states,
> > as
> >> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
> > submission
> >> hereof to the states by the Congress."
> >>
> >> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of
amendment
> > are
> >> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to
make
> > it
> >> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in
public
> > under
> >> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
> >>
> >> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
> > big red
> >> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
> > such a
> >> person.
> >
> > Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed,
it
> > is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre,
via
> > the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via
the
> > constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right
to
> > itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.
> >
> >
>    Article 2 of the 21st Amendment allows each state the right to ban
> alcohol.

Wrong.  It's exactly the opposite.  It prohibits states from enacting such
laws.  It prohibits recognzing violations of laws resulting from states'
local laws.  (Otherwise, why would it need be said as the 18th, section 2,
gave the states the individual right to enforce prohibition?)

"Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:vfWdnWw_-thzbPLanZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> D. Stussy wrote:
> > "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> > news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> >> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
> >>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> >>> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> >>>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >>>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
> >>>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
> >>>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
> >>>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
> >>>>>
> >>>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
> > DUI
> >>> so
> >>>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
> > bad
> >>> their
> >>>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
> >>> anymore.
> >>>
> >>> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
> > license
> >>> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
> > basically
> >>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional
right
> > to
> >>> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right
to
> >>> operate a motor vehicle.
> >> "Amendment XXI
> >>
> >> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of
the
> > United
> >> States is hereby repealed.
> >>
> >> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory,
or
> >> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
> > intoxicating
> >> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
> >>
> >> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
> > ratified
> >> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
states,
> > as
> >> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
> > submission
> >> hereof to the states by the Congress."
> >>
> >> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of
amendment
> > are
> >> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to
make
> > it
> >> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in
public
> > under
> >> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
> >>
> >> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
> > big red
> >> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
> > such a
> >> person.
> >
> > Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed,
it
> > is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre,
via
> > the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via
the
> > constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right
to
> > itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.
>
> Do you know what the interstate commerce clause is?  Can you see how it
could
> apply to booze?  If you can't spend some time in law school, until you
can.

The 21st talks about more than transportation across state lines.

D. Stussy wrote:
> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
> news:vfWdnWw_-thzbPLanZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>> D. Stussy wrote:
>>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
>>> news:XqmdnRiqY_svrfLanZ2dnUVZ_qainZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>>>> In LA.EATS D. Stussy wrote:
>>>>> "Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MeSdnaHPoOO4C_PanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
>>>>>> In BA.FOOD Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>>>>> Drivers who see someone who appears to be
>>>>>>> operating a vehicle under the influence of
>>>>>>> alcohol or other substances can call (800) TELL-CHP,
>>>>>>> said Officer Todd Workman of the CHP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me thinks someone needs more days in lockup to think about their last
>>> DUI
>>>>> so
>>>>>> they understand why they were put in a cage in the first place.  Too
>>> bad
>>>>> their
>>>>>> DL can't have a big red "DUI" stamped over it so they can't buy booze
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that will never happen.  "DUI" stamped on their driver's
>>> license
>>>>> is unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment (repealing "prohibition")
>>> basically
>>>>> says that any citizen of the age of majority has a constitutional
> right
>>> to
>>>>> buy and consume alcoholic beverages.  In contrast, there is no right
> to
>>>>> operate a motor vehicle.
>>>> "Amendment XXI
>>>>
>>>> Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of
> the
>>> United
>>>> States is hereby repealed.
>>>>
>>>> Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory,
> or
>>>> possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
>>> intoxicating
>>>> liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
>>>>
>>>> Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
>>> ratified
>>>> as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
> states,
>>> as
>>>> provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
>>> submission
>>>> hereof to the states by the Congress."
>>>>
>>>> Seems like that only laws that support the eighteenth article of
> amendment
>>> are
>>>> void.  So a City, County, State, or the Federal Government is free to
> make
>>> it
>>>> illegal to drink in your front yard, on the beach or even be out in
> public
>>> under
>>>> the influence, never mind drive a car or tax it.
>>>>
>>>> Now a convicted criminal has forfeit their constitutional rights.  So a
>>> big red
>>>> DUI stamp would be legal.  As would a law prohibiting anyone selling to
>>> such a
>>>> person.
>>> Tell me this:  With the 18th, which prohibited alcohol, being repealed,
> it
>>> is clear (by conclusion) that there IS a right to drink.  Furthermre,
> via
>>> the 10th, a state or local government has NO RIGHT TO REGULATE as via
> the
>>> constitutional amendments, the U.S. Government has reserved that right
> to
>>> itself.  Section 2 is a bit redundant but makes that clear.
>> Do you know what the interstate commerce clause is?  Can you see how it
> could
>> apply to booze?  If you can't spend some time in law school, until you
> can.
> 
> The 21st talks about more than transportation across state lines.

Go ahead, make your shine!  I don't care (expect to collect the reward money)
Transport it across state lines for sale.  Sell it to 15 year olds.  Don't get
tax stamps or pay taxes on it to the Feds or the States.  When you are busted,
tell the judge that the 21st says you can do it.  Make your appeal to the
Appellate court.  Make your petition for Cert. to the US Supreme Court.  Then
from your cell resolve to learn about "the law" first.  (You might want to try
looking this up first, I'm sure you will find a case where someone else claimed
that 21 made booze legal.)

Consider wine made from grapes for a second.  Are those grapes a native plant to
the USA?  No, they are imported.  Guess what, the interstate commerce clause
applies to anything you do with those grapes - like make wine.  Same thing for
beer.  Same thing for distilled spirits.  Some part of something used in making
the booze will have been imported or crossed state lines.  Even the bottles or
boxes you use to hold it.

What the 21st did is make all regulations about booze written after the 18
passed but before 21 passed moot.  Anything written after it passed is legal.
Things like serving to someone under 21 or not selling it on the Internet.  Read
clause 2 a little more carefully.  The laws banned are those made to support 18
but no others.  Was 18 even necessary to ban booze?  Probably not, but it made
the question moot.

Everyone, please stop including so much quoted text in your 
followups.  When reading the last several posts in this thread,
it was necessary to scroll down past 4-6 screensful of quoted
material in order to read what the current contributor had to
say.

The idea isn't to include the entire thread in its entirety
within each and every post.  Kindly edit out all but the most
strictly relevant quoted material when you follow up.



Geoff

--
"One notes, as a matter of sociology, that Islam in 
 its current incarnation seems to offer a larger pool
 of stupid angry men than other world religions." 
				-- National Review

Golden California Girls wrote:

> You do know that DUI drivers murder many more people than every act of terrorism
> and all the servicemen killed in IRAQ put together?  So if we are strip
> searching at the airport, what are we doing at the car door?

The number of fatal accidents in which at least one operator had a BAC of
over 0.08% (which is a ridiculously low definition of "intoxicated") was
about 15,000 in 2006.  Compare this to the number of hospital patients
killed annually by iatrogenic causes (which is estimated at 800,000).  Care
to ban the practice of medicine?

Since the advent of the definition of the 0.08% BAC as de facto intoxication,
we no longer keep good statistics on what percentage of accidents are
really caused by intoxication.

-- 
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.

Michael Sierchio wrote:
> Golden California Girls wrote:
> 
>> You do know that DUI drivers murder many more people than every act of
>> terrorism
>> and all the servicemen killed in IRAQ put together?  So if we are strip
>> searching at the airport, what are we doing at the car door?
> 
> The number of fatal accidents in which at least one operator had a BAC of
> over 0.08% (which is a ridiculously low definition of "intoxicated") was
> about 15,000 in 2006.

A .04 is very easily measured by watching a person operate a vehicle compared to
that person at .000 on a test course.  (And yes you can be convicted at .04, but
they have to prove impairment below .08.  That's what the field sobriety test is
for.)

A talking on a hands free cell phone is at least a .10

What do you want the cops to do, give everyone a tailgating ticket if they don't
allow at least 4 seconds to the car in front?  Like 99% of the people will get a
ticket.  Fact is simple, too damn many cars on the road so the drivers need to
be kept stone cold sober to operate them as close as they do.

But since you think .08 is so low, why don't you ask the pilot of the next plane
you're getting on to get sloshed to .08 then fly you there!

Golden California Girls  <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote:

> A .04 is very easily measured by watching a person operate a 
> vehicle compared to that person at .000 on a test course.  

If they have built up no alcohol tolerance.

S.

Golden California Girls wrote:

> But since you think .08 is so low, why don't you ask the pilot of the next plane
> you're getting on to get sloshed to .08 then fly you there!

But 0.08 isn't "sloshed" -- I ride a motorcycle, and don't drink at
all when I'm going to be on the bike. I'd rather pilots didn't drink
in the 12 hours before a flight, but I'd rather they had a nip than
experience delerium tremens.   There isn't a scientific basis
for 0.08 -- most accidents in which alcohol was a contributing cause
(not "alcohol related," which could mean a drunk pedestrian) involve
an average BAC of over 1.6.

Yes, yes, people who drink and drive are bad.  I'm not thrilled about
training the sheeple to do the bidding of illuminated signs.  Remember
after 9/11, when paranoid passengers caused numerous swarthy types
to be ejected from planes because they exhibited "suspicious" behavior?
How about in China, where they have the equivalent of America's Most
Wanted, but the crimes are fictive and the fugees are political?

-- 
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.

Michael Sierchio wrote:
> There isn't a scientific basis
> for 0.08 -- most accidents in which alcohol was a contributing cause
> (not "alcohol related," which could mean a drunk pedestrian) involve
> an average BAC of over 1.6.

1.6 huh?  You are long in the grave before 1.6!  So I guess that would be a
fatal accident having a corpse driving.

Golden California Girls wrote:

> 1.6 huh?  You are long in the grave before 1.6!  So I guess that would be a
> fatal accident having a corpse driving.

Scrivener's error -- 0.16%.  Which used to be the legal standard defining
intoxication, before the neo-prohibitionists went to work.


-- 
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.

Golden California Girls wrote:
> ... So I guess that would be a
> fatal accident having a corpse driving.

I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather --
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

-- 
Do not send me email replies -- this is a honeypot
address for spam.

Michael Sierchio wrote:
> Golden California Girls wrote:
> 
>> 1.6 huh?  You are long in the grave before 1.6!  So I guess that would
>> be a
>> fatal accident having a corpse driving.
> 
> Scrivener's error -- 0.16%.  Which used to be the legal standard defining
> intoxication, before the neo-prohibitionists went to work.

That must have been another state (this thread is being cross-posted to two
California specific groups) or a long long time ago.  In high school drivers Ed
I remember 0.10% as the limit and that was some 35+ years ago, long before MADD.
 Back when you saw the original Red Asphalt, not the censored version shown now.
 Back when it was two felonies - why it was called a duce.

Now repeat offenses are a misdemeanor unless someone gets hurt.  Big break that
shouldn't have been given.  First one and no one gets hurt, I can see a
misdemeanor.  Second one and you have already proven you can't tell when you are
drunk, go spend some quality time getting to know Charlie Manson.

"Golden California Girls" <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote in message
news:8_mdndk3178Ewe3anZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@championbroadband.com...
> Go ahead, make your shine!  I don't care (expect to collect the reward
money)
> Transport it across state lines for sale.  Sell it to 15 year olds.  Don't
get
> tax stamps or pay taxes on it to the Feds or the States.  When you are
busted,
> tell the judge that the 21st says you can do it.  Make your appeal to the
> Appellate court.  Make your petition for Cert. to the US Supreme Court.
Then
> from your cell resolve to learn about "the law" first.  (You might want to
try
> looking this up first, I'm sure you will find a case where someone else
claimed
> that 21 made booze legal.)
>
> Consider wine made from grapes for a second.  Are those grapes a native
plant to
> the USA?  No, they are imported.  Guess what, the interstate commerce
clause
> applies to anything you do with those grapes - like make wine.  Same thing
for
> beer.  Same thing for distilled spirits.  Some part of something used in
making
> the booze will have been imported or crossed state lines.  Even the
bottles or
> boxes you use to hold it.
>
> What the 21st did is make all regulations about booze written after the 18
> passed but before 21 passed moot.  Anything written after it passed is
legal.
> Things like serving to someone under 21 or not selling it on the Internet.
Read
> clause 2 a little more carefully.  The laws banned are those made to
support 18
> but no others.  Was 18 even necessary to ban booze?  Probably not, but it
made
> the question moot.

WTF is this rant?

The issue is that DUI is illegal because the states have the right to
regulate DRIVING.  Driving is NOT A RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:53:39 -0000, Geoff  Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>
>
> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>> You want more of our freedoms removed?  It's bad enough now 
>> putting up with security theatre at airports and the drunk
>> checks on the roads - Which I always mess with. They want to
>> waste my time? I'll waste theirs.
>
> Do tell.  I've never been through one of those things, or even
> seen one in operation, and I'd love to engage in a bit of subtle
> sabotage if I ever have the opportunity.

	I've been in one of these line up and chat to the officer
roadblocks a few times.

	Once, on the evening of St Patricks day I was riding my
motorbike and found myself in line.

	I inched forward and as I drew up to the cop, I noticed
he had motorcycle boots on. He just waved me through, no
chatting, no slowdown.

	A couple of times I have been in a car. They start with
the stupid question: "Have you been drinking?"

	The correct answer is: "Do I look dehydrated?"

	That usually jars them. Then they try the lateral
nystagmus test. I refuse to look at them, never give the Filth
full face anyhow. You have no obligation to play their game, but
not playing along enrages them. So you can go back and forth a
few times and have a few discussions about what the purpose of
the fuzz really is etc. Finally after they have waived through
lots of potential customers, they may let you go. I once managed
to assemble 4 cops round me - I was asking them if they could
discriminate or whether they suspected everyone. 

	Fuck them. Ifv they can round up enough Filth to run
Commie style road blocks they don't need more members or more
money.
	
-- 
The Bush administration's incompetence, evident from Iraq to Louisiana, 
alienates people who know about management. - Economist Oct 20 2007

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:17:50 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Golden California Girls  <GldnCAGrls@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>
>> A .04 is very easily measured by watching a person operate a 
>> vehicle compared to that person at .000 on a test course.  
>
>If they have built up no alcohol tolerance.

Yeah, it should say on your license what your personal tolerance level
is.

I served on a drunk driving jury once, and the driver obviously had a
high "tolerance" built up, and was only dinged for 0.08, and ... we
found him guilty on being over 0.08, but not guilty on being impaired.
Turned out it didn't matter a whit, since it was a first offense,
either or both had the same consequences.  Go figure.  Actually turned
out we gave him exactly what he wanted to go to trial for, since the
DA had offered him the same deal without trial.  Public defender, no
skin off his teeth.

J.

D. Stussy wrote:
> 
> WTF is this rant?
> 
> The issue is that DUI is illegal because the states have the right to
> regulate DRIVING.  Driving is NOT A RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE.

Thought you were talking about drinking in general.  It can be regulated too.

Julian Macassey wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:53:39 -0000, Geoff  Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>>
>> Julian Macassey  <julian@tele.com> writes:
>>> You want more of our freedoms removed?  It's bad enough now 
>>> putting up with security theatre at airports and the drunk
>>> checks on the roads - Which I always mess with. They want to
>>> waste my time? I'll waste theirs.
>> Do tell.  I've never been through one of those things, or even
>> seen one in operation, and I'd love to engage in a bit of subtle
>> sabotage if I ever have the opportunity.
> 
> 	I've been in one of these line up and chat to the officer
> roadblocks a few times.
> 
> 	Once, on the evening of St Patricks day I was riding my
> motorbike and found myself in line.
> 
> 	I inched forward and as I drew up to the cop, I noticed
> he had motorcycle boots on. He just waved me through, no
> chatting, no slowdown.
> 
> 	A couple of times I have been in a car. They start with
> the stupid question: "Have you been drinking?"
> 
> 	The correct answer is: "Do I look dehydrated?"
> 
> 	That usually jars them. Then they try the lateral
> nystagmus test. I refuse to look at them, never give the Filth
> full face anyhow. You have no obligation to play their game, but
> not playing along enrages them. So you can go back and forth a
> few times and have a few discussions about what the purpose of
> the fuzz really is etc. Finally after they have waived through
> lots of potential customers, they may let you go. I once managed
> to assemble 4 cops round me - I was asking them if they could
> discriminate or whether they suspected everyone. 
> 
> 	Fuck them. Ifv they can round up enough Filth to run
> Commie style road blocks they don't need more members or more
> money.

This unconstitutional stop you anywhere and strip search you stuff SCOTUS has
allowed because 200 years ago there where highway men and that made you insecure
in your person is total BS.  If I were head of the DC cops twice a day every one
of those nine people would get stopped and searched.  Bet PDQ they would find it
unconstitutional.

Now as for those drunk stops, been through one.  Lots of fun because the seat I
was in the seatbelt didn't work.  Got the wave through.

Much better is have a bottle of water handy and just before they belt the
question out take a swig and answer them yes, you just saw me.  Smart cops
switch pretty quick to "imbibing alcoholic beverages"  You get waved through
quick by the smart ones, the assholes just waste their time and then you ask to
talk to their watch commander.  Usually they get it right about then.

Michael Sierchio  <kudzu-usenet2@tenebras.com> wrote:
>Golden California Girls wrote:
>
>> 1.6 huh?  You are long in the grave before 1.6!  So I guess that would be a
>> fatal accident having a corpse driving.
>
>Scrivener's error -- 0.16%.  Which used to be the legal standard defining
>intoxication, before the neo-prohibitionists went to work.

By the way, does anyone know where the raw data on drinking & driving
accidents are to be found?  I have a hypothesis which needs testing.


Francois.