OUR PRISONS ARE OVERCROWDED!

He does have a point, treating everybody like there is reason to believe that they are drunk is not "reasonable" search. While DUI laws are reasonable, constitutional, and even make sense; simply saying that instead of actually looking for reasons we'll just make everybody show their papers and subject themselves to search is not constitutional, reasonable and doesn't make much sense.
Well I agree that the practice is unconstitutional yet...it does make sense as it does get drunks off the road and it does save lives.

Not to change the subject but I wonder how Uber has impacted DUI arrest rates? The Misses and I always take Uber now when we go out partying and are having more than a couple of drinks.
 
What do you suggest about how to deal with stopping drunk driving? STY said that life is a risk implying that being subjected to drunk drivers on the road was part of life's risk.
Harsher penalties and more widespread public transportation would work. When I've traveled abroad there are so many options for public transportation that you'd be nuts to drink and drive.
 
Harsher penalties and more widespread public transportation would work. When I've traveled abroad there are so many options for public transportation that you'd be nuts to drink and drive.

Harsher penalties as is prison time?

More public transportation as is more taxes to fund it?
 
Harsher penalties as is prison time?

More public transportation as is more taxes to fund it?
Yes for prison time if someone is hurt. Steeper monetary fines and sanctions like loss of license, higher insurance rates, counciling you have to pay for, etc.

No to the later as in most other countries public transport isn't financed by taxation but either public investment via issuing bonds to the market or via small scale entrepreneurship.
 
Yes for prison time if someone is hurt. Steeper monetary fines and sanctions like loss of license, higher insurance rates, counciling you have to pay for, etc.

No to the later as in most other countries public transport isn't financed by taxation but either public investment via issuing bonds to the market or via small scale entrepreneurship.

So as long as there is no harm there is no foul? We should let all the bank robbers that were caught out of prison. No one was hurt by what they did. What you're saying is that because something happened to work out it makes it OK to have done it.

Then it's not truly public transportation.
 
Which is the point of conversation here, STY was saying that police for profit was worse than this, and I want him to tell me which civilian police force has been replaced by a corporation.

besides the NYPD theory of them telling a court that they don't have to abide with FOIA requests because they believe themselves to be a private corporation, the reason why policing for profit is worse than private prisons is that they get the full weight of the law and the courts behind them.
 
and denying citizenship to newly freed blacks was at one time constitutional, so the courts are always right. right?

Write them a letter with your bitches, bitch. I'm sure they'll invite you in to hear your side of the argument.

It's the law, punk. Deal with it.

BTW, the courts are open tomorrow. Gonna run down with your sawed off, 2A VAGINA?
 
yea Damo...Thanks Obama!

What a self righteous crock of shit. You had me agreeing with you on the moral principles involved until you tried to float this bit of inane bigotry by. Any other ad hom logical fallacies you want try? This is the problem with you ideologues. Fact and principle be damned, its ideology that counts.

Maybe you hadn't noticed Damo but it wasn't "liberals" that created for profit prisons or anyone else you'd care to demonize. It's libertarian minded free market fundamentalist conservatives who came up with this brilliant idea but as with any ideologue this isn't a fact that matters cause its heretical to your orthodoxy.

The FACTS, regardless of whether you are liberal, conservative, anarcho-libertarian, communist, Toltec or Mongolian horse herder is that for profit prisons are immoral and unethical. They are unethical because they cannot administer justice impartially as they have an incentive to grow the prison industrial complex and lobby for more incarceration laws with more and longer sentencing to sustain the growth of their profits. This an obvious conflict of interest to the impartial and fair administration of justice.

For profit prisons are immoral simply because the incentive for profit creates increased incentive to put more people in prison.

So see you can base a fact based judgments on the ethics and morality of this issue without resorting to mindless ideology or illogical ad Homs.

So if they made no profit, you'd be OK with them; HUH!!
 
No, it means I want our system for managing the disease of chemical dependency managed by public health professionals who have the training and competency to manage and find solutions to this problem at a far lower cost, both human and economic.

I mean no disrespect to law enforcement or the criminal justice system but they are not trained in managing diseases and study after study has demonstrated that if you successfully treat chemical dependency as a disease and a public health problem, then the criminal aspects of drug abuse tend to go away.

What doesn't work is putting shit loads of people in prison. In fact the data shows conclusively this makes the problem worse.

OK, you let me know how you treat people who don't want to be treated?
Should we force them?
Should we just give them their drugs of choice?

Let's hear your solution of how this is going to be resolved.
 
Write them a letter with your bitches, bitch. I'm sure they'll invite you in to hear your side of the argument.

It's the law, punk. Deal with it.

BTW, the courts are open tomorrow. Gonna run down with your sawed off, 2A VAGINA?

can't answer the tough questions? we understand your hesitance to accept your insufficient intelligence.
 
Yes for prison time if someone is hurt. Steeper monetary fines and sanctions like loss of license, higher insurance rates, counciling you have to pay for, etc.

No to the later as in most other countries public transport isn't financed by taxation but either public investment via issuing bonds to the market or via small scale entrepreneurship.

You seem to be of the mind that they should be able to continue being a threat to everyone else, until they actually harm someone else.
Should we have lesser penalties, when they only harm a single individual as opposed to three or four?

We already know that certain people will drive, whether they have a license / insurance or don't.
 
can't answer the tough questions? we understand your hesitance to accept your insufficient intelligence.

You are a fucking ignoramus when it comes to the Constitution. I have yet to see anyone so consistently wrong and bitch so much. You constantly bitch, but want someone else to be the test case. You feel that strongly, you whiny cunt? Step up to the plate or have a big cup of shut the fuck up.

2A VAGINAL SWAB
 
You seem to be of the mind that they should be able to continue being a threat to everyone else, until they actually harm someone else.
Should we have lesser penalties, when they only harm a single individual as opposed to three or four?

We already know that certain people will drive, whether they have a license / insurance or don't.

Suspending the license of someone that was caught driving drunk doesn't mean they won't drive. It means they won't be doing it legally.
 
Back
Top