From: Atheist Chaplain on
"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)> wrote in message
> Atheist Chaplain <abused(a)> wrote:
>> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)> wrote:
>>> I'm hearing that NSW are proposing 0.02 at the moment, too.
>> do you have a cite for this as I haven't heard or seen a thing about NSW
>> considering this.
> Heard it on the radio news in the past few days. They clearly
> mentioned it as a NSW gumbymint proposal.
> --
> Athol
> <> Linux Registered User # 254000
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

so not a credible source then.

[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

From: Diesel Damo on
On Mar 15, 3:30 pm, Athol <athol_SPIT_S...(a)> wrote:
> Diesel Damo <Diesel_...(a)> wrote:
> > All that's going to happen is they'll catch a SHITLOAD more drivers
> > for being over a limit. A limit so low that many will feel completely
> > sober while being horribly and callously illegal. <sarcasm> Gee, I
> > wonder what the motivation behind this push is... </sarcasm>
> I'd love to see a legal requirement applied that any change along
> these lines needs to be based on verifiable evidence, and that the
> evidence has to be released as part of the implementation...

Heh, just trying to get evidence/data released as a matter of course
is enough of a challenge.
From: Doug Jewell on
D Walford wrote:
> F Murtz wrote:
>> D Walford wrote:
>>> F Murtz wrote:
>>>> Sekula wrote:
>>>>> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing
>>>>> themselves and
>>>>> others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending
>>>>> rockapes?
>>>> Statistics interpretation is the problem,
>>> Lack of detail in the stats is the problem, of the 71 deaths it doesn't
>>> mention how many were above 0.02 but below 0.05, any deaths above the
>>> current limit are irrelevant to the current discussion.
>>> Without relevant stats they shouldn't get too much support for their
>>> proposal.
>>> Daryl
>> The stats would be known they just do not want us to know,
> Most likely.
> it would be
>> proof of their sneakiness to wheedle money out of us in fines and the
>> sheeple would realise that they were not doing anything substantive to
>> alleviate the problem
> I suspect introducing a law that most consider to be draconian without
> justify it with facts might be political suicide.
They don't need facts, they only need spin.
A look at the readers comments in the article in The Courier
Mail (link below) shows a fair portion (i haven't counted,
but I'd guess close to half) of the commenters who are in
favour of it. Just a bit of spin and an ad campaign and the
sheeple would happily accept it without any electoral backlash.

As I said before, I don't drink, so it doesn't personally
affect me, but I can recognise a money grab.

> Daryl

What is the difference between a duck?
From: The Raven on
"Sekula" <noreply(a)> wrote in message
> How about proving that 0.05 is the reason people are killing themselves
> and others, BEFORE that proposal is considered you banana-bending
> rockapes?

I could be cynical and suggest they teach people how to drive properly in
the first place but, governments have no interest in that as it eats in to
future fine revenues....despite it probably being the most effective means
of saving lives.

The argument for reducing the BAC to 0.02 is as justifiable as dropping
speed limits 50%. People will still kill themselves, whilst many more will
become revenue fodder in the name of safety.

So called health officials are promoting it as a life saving measure but,
would not want to be part of a campaign to force all fast food outlets to
produce only healthy foods...

Sure, no-one wants to see people die but bringing in draconian laws that
give politicians a self-righteous attitude towards revenue raising isn't
going to address the underlying problem.

From: Diesel Damo on
On Mar 15, 10:53 pm, Athol <athol_SPIT_S...(a)> wrote:

> If it was introduced and the general public saw that it forced the
> government to be open and honest about the reasons behind actions, it
> would change the way a lot of people view government.  I suspect that
> if it got started, no future government would be game to withdraw it
> because of the implication that they wanted to hide something...

I'm of the opinion that the government no longer fears the public
thinking they're hiding something. When Labor got into power and did
the instant 180 on withdrawing troops, they had a spokesman on prime
time news blatantly come out and say that now they were in power and
were privy to inside information and could see what was really going
on, they've changed their minds. That was it. No mentioning what this
information was at all. No-one in the room with me even raised an
eyebrow at this.