GovCo Shenanigans on Droogs.

[Toby Ponsenby]

Strikes me as strange:
GovCo is enacting legislation in Vic to test for droogs.
GovCo believes that drivers are disobeying their stupid statute laws
in the matter.
At the same time, GovCo is saying that mis-use of the testing and data
obtained is against their stupid statute laws.

So, GovCo is certain that there is law breading relating to Droogs
happening, and is taking 'steps' to detect those law breakers.

But GovCo is assuring the community that mis-use of the testing and
Data won't occur.

So we, the citizens are rotten to the core.
And they, GovCo, and their minions are NOT?

Err, maybe. So, just so we trust GovCo to administer these new laws
correctly, we are told there are laws to punish wrong-doers from GovCo
and their minions.

WTF is going on there?
Someone rotten to the core in GovCo mis-uses the information.
But it's a done deal by then.
Perhaps GovCo should wait for the prang if any would be the equivalent
on the community side. But it isn't about to happen that way. Two sets
of rules. Again.

Surely it is some sort of elaborate and expensive JOKE?


--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Spooky]

From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
button on that post.

Spooky

[veritas]

Spooky wrote:
> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
> button on that post.
>
> Spooky
>
>
DUI in charge of a computer and not wearing a seat belt?

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:01:53 GMT, Spooky wrote:

> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
> button on that post.
>
> Spooky

Well, I had to be here, didn't I.

Evidently you missed the point.
Have another look at the post and stop thinking I'm making a victim of
you, this time.
Put the Clear glasses on.


--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Spooky]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1xitjy234s69n$.1061psemnaqp5.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:01:53 GMT, Spooky wrote:
>
>> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
>> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
>> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
>> button on that post.
>>
>> Spooky
>
> Well, I had to be here, didn't I.
>
> Evidently you missed the point.
> Have another look at the post and stop thinking I'm making a victim of
> you, this time.
> Put the Clear glasses on.

I wasn't suggesting you were victimising me. Seriously
though, what is wrong with random drug testing for
drivers? Or, perhaps you'd prefer to let doped up
druggo scumbags, gamble with your life.

Spooky
>
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[Spooky]

"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:DBdsd.58328$K7.15526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Spooky wrote:
>> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
>> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
>> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
>> button on that post.
>>
>> Spooky
> DUI in charge of a computer and not wearing a seat belt?

.....and operating a computer with greater than the allowable processing
power :-).

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:48:12 GMT, Spooky wrote:

> "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1xitjy234s69n$.1061psemnaqp5.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:01:53 GMT, Spooky wrote:
>>
>>> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
>>> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
>>> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
>>> button on that post.
>>>
>>> Spooky
>>
>> Well, I had to be here, didn't I.
>>
>> Evidently you missed the point.
>> Have another look at the post and stop thinking I'm making a victim of
>> you, this time.
>> Put the Clear glasses on.
>
> I wasn't suggesting you were victimising me. Seriously
> though, what is wrong with random drug testing for
> drivers? Or, perhaps you'd prefer to let doped up
> druggo scumbags, gamble with your life.
>
> Spooky
>>
>>
>> --
>> Toby
>> quidquid latine dictum
>> sit, altum viditur

Seriously though - the RealDeal is proactive (Spin term invented by
??) policeing.
I guess you live the results of this trend, and thta's what it is,
towards prempting a crime.
And like I've said time and time again (I'm not sick of it either)
it's a truly disturbing trend indeed.

I don't need to give you chapter and verse on what the police are
'supposed to do', but I believe is certainly isn't pissing about
suspecting crime everywhere. IMO, it's supposedly about detecting
crime and catching those that offend.
*** this is important****
Of course, if that was effectively done, there would be just that as a
deterrent.

The indication right here and now is that GovCo, and perforce your lot
believes everyone is a criminal. Hence the RANDOM nature of these
things.
And it PROVES that GovCo has mis-managed 'crime management' to a point
where, yes, everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise.
Do you see that?

Whether or no, what's the End Game?

Let's guess.
But first, consider how it all started.
Random driver testing for being FOP.
Followed by less tolerance.
Followed by no tolerance.

So, GovCo got away with that. And the road (caution, spin term) toll
didn't so much as bat an eyelash.
OK, you say, what would it have been without the random testing.
Well, we'll never bloody know, will we.

So the same deal with droogs.
And the same old same catch-cry - one of these evil bastard law
breakers (dwunks/dwuggies) might get YOU, so YOU have to tolerate
being stopped when-ever GovCo fancies. And YOU'll be grateful because
GovCo is protecting YOU.
Well, Exsuuuusee me?
Is that what society has become?

I guess it's pertinent to point out that the booze thing hasn't always
been illegal at even close to the levels it is now.
The drug thing hasn't been illegal at all until comparatively
recently.
Both are relatively NEW crimes - plonked on the statutes by GovCo
intent on what?
I'll have a bit of a go at the reasons, just for a larf..

Protecting us from us?
Protecting us from them?
Protecting itself?

Maybe they are desperately trying to deflect blame for a deteriorating
society onto individuals in the community?
Does GovCo seriously believe that the society we have now isn't down
to their fucked management of the education system?
The roads?
The disgusting commercial environment?
The job market being a tool of the corporates rather than a support
for the community itself?
The housing market the same?
BTW, GovCo DOES have total control over the commercial environment per
medium of the legislature.
They rarely if ever use it seriously.
Why?
Piss easy - corporations own every one of the sorry bastards polishing
the leather in parliaments with they bought and sold arses.

So, my view might just be that these ploys are a guise to protect
GovCo from their own mis-management.

Back to the end game.
You can figure it out as well as I can.
Lets restrict this to cars.traffic.

Alco and droog test interlocks on all cars.
(We both know that Random testing will NOT be repealed. Ever.)
GPS and other means of vehicle speed and route tracking
Permitted routes derived from above technology.
Fuel costs mirroring usage has failed to decrease mobility of ordinary
mortals, so next step is charge by the kilometre.

And on and on.
One day when I've got some real time to spare, I might just list these
things in a sort of hierachical structure, and hire a few BIG
bill-boards to entertain the masses with the facts on just how those
same masses have been shaftes and exploited. As if they didn't know.
The problem of course they been scammed into liking it.
Natch, it has to stop some time.
But when, and how, and where?
I'm not being alarmist - just practical here - I believe we, that is,
the ELECTORATE, needs to stop it right now.
If we don't, then our descendent are going to spill a lot of blood on
the streets - yup they'll be legally slaughtered by GovCo.
Because GovCo can never be WRONG.
Because it's GovCo that defines WRONG.

Just a few thoughts and questions, is all.



--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Bernd Felsche]

"Spooky" <spooky24042@hotmail.com> writes:
>"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:1xitjy234s69n$.1061psemnaqp5.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:01:53 GMT, Spooky wrote:

>>> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
>>> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
>>> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
>>> button on that post.

>> Well, I had to be here, didn't I.

>> Evidently you missed the point.
>> Have another look at the post and stop thinking I'm making a
>> victim of you, this time.
>> Put the Clear glasses on.

>I wasn't suggesting you were victimising me. Seriously
>though, what is wrong with random drug testing for
>drivers? Or, perhaps you'd prefer to let doped up
>druggo scumbags, gamble with your life.

Those who aren't space cadets are more concerned about the random,
_arbitrary_ nature of the tests.

We're also concerned that observational skills necessary to cause
patrolling officers to find reasonable cause to test suspicious
drivers appear in general, to be lacking.

And we're concerned that the lack of such skills and personnel on
the road is cause for implementing legislation that would have
caused legislators to be labelled as fascists 50 years ago.
Memories would have been much fresher about what this sort of thing
leads to.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:47:40 +1000, Phuoc Nghuy wrote:

> Toby, its called Fascism, pure and simple. If you want to see where its
> going have a look here http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=442
>
> Phuoc

The truth of it is that we're probably well ahead of the Yankees on
points.
We have far tighter integration of data here, just for starters.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1ef8y0o89syfb$.i2aash3ta5w8$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> Strikes me as strange:
> GovCo is enacting legislation in Vic to test for droogs.

Good on them, if pepole can't drive drunk why should others be allowed to
drive stoned or hyped.

> GovCo believes that drivers are disobeying their stupid statute laws
> in the matter.

Driving under drug influence is another stupid law? It's probably arbitrary
too.

> At the same time, GovCo is saying that mis-use of the testing and data
> obtained is against their stupid statute laws.

Cop pulls over some druggo, "you test positive everything we got, but we
can't charge you because it would be a misuse of data, on your way, good day
citizen".

> So, GovCo is certain that there is law breading relating to Droogs
> happening, and is taking 'steps' to detect those law breakers.

About time the connections between the bakery giants & drug syndicates was
explored.

> But GovCo is assuring the community that mis-use of the testing and
> Data won't occur.

What by counting how many are caught using each drug. I hear they also do
this with speeding & road deaths, more data misuse.

> So we, the citizens are rotten to the core.

No, just drug users.

> And they, GovCo, and their minions are NOT?

Some of them are.

> Err, maybe. So, just so we trust GovCo to administer these new laws
> correctly, we are told there are laws to punish wrong-doers from GovCo
> and their minions.

Maybe if we can't trust them with laws we shouldn't have any.

> WTF is going on there?

F'd if I know.

> Someone rotten to the core in GovCo mis-uses the information.
> But it's a done deal by then.
> Perhaps GovCo should wait for the prang if any would be the equivalent
> on the community side. But it isn't about to happen that way. Two sets
> of rules. Again.
>
> Surely it is some sort of elaborate and expensive JOKE?

Probably not.

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:u654d3ucpxwm.1au3gwyeaxa4b.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:48:12 GMT, Spooky wrote:
>
> > "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:1xitjy234s69n$.1061psemnaqp5.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> >> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 07:01:53 GMT, Spooky wrote:
> >>
> >>> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
> >>> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
> >>> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
> >>> button on that post.
> >>>
> >>> Spooky
> >>
> >> Well, I had to be here, didn't I.
> >>
> >> Evidently you missed the point.
> >> Have another look at the post and stop thinking I'm making a victim of
> >> you, this time.
> >> Put the Clear glasses on.
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting you were victimising me. Seriously
> > though, what is wrong with random drug testing for
> > drivers? Or, perhaps you'd prefer to let doped up
> > druggo scumbags, gamble with your life.
> >
> > Spooky
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Toby
> >> quidquid latine dictum
> >> sit, altum viditur
>
> Seriously though - the RealDeal is proactive (Spin term invented by
> ??) policeing.
> I guess you live the results of this trend, and thta's what it is,
> towards prempting a crime.
> And like I've said time and time again (I'm not sick of it either)
> it's a truly disturbing trend indeed.

If random drug testing is wrong so is random breath testing & speed testing.

> I don't need to give you chapter and verse on what the police are
> 'supposed to do', but I believe is certainly isn't pissing about
> suspecting crime everywhere. IMO, it's supposedly about detecting
> crime and catching those that offend.
> *** this is important****
> Of course, if that was effectively done, there would be just that as a
> deterrent.

Ahh so if crashing was to have tougher penalties, people wouldn't drink/drug
drive, streetrace, have bald tyres, for fear of the police penalties imposed
on them if they crash.

> The indication right here and now is that GovCo, and perforce your lot
> believes everyone is a criminal. Hence the RANDOM nature of these
> things.
> And it PROVES that GovCo has mis-managed 'crime management' to a point
> where, yes, everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise.



> Do you see that?
>
> Whether or no, what's the End Game?
>
> Let's guess.
> But first, consider how it all started.
> Random driver testing for being FOP.
> Followed by less tolerance.
> Followed by no tolerance.
>
> So, GovCo got away with that. And the road (caution, spin term) toll
> didn't so much as bat an eyelash.
> OK, you say, what would it have been without the random testing.
> Well, we'll never bloody know, will we.
>
> So the same deal with droogs.
> And the same old same catch-cry - one of these evil bastard law
> breakers (dwunks/dwuggies) might get YOU, so YOU have to tolerate
> being stopped when-ever GovCo fancies. And YOU'll be grateful because
> GovCo is protecting YOU.
> Well, Exsuuuusee me?
> Is that what society has become?
>
> I guess it's pertinent to point out that the booze thing hasn't always
> been illegal at even close to the levels it is now.
> The drug thing hasn't been illegal at all until comparatively
> recently.
> Both are relatively NEW crimes - plonked on the statutes by GovCo
> intent on what?
> I'll have a bit of a go at the reasons, just for a larf..
>
> Protecting us from us?
> Protecting us from them?
> Protecting itself?
>
> Maybe they are desperately trying to deflect blame for a deteriorating
> society onto individuals in the community?
> Does GovCo seriously believe that the society we have now isn't down
> to their fucked management of the education system?
> The roads?
> The disgusting commercial environment?
> The job market being a tool of the corporates rather than a support
> for the community itself?
> The housing market the same?
> BTW, GovCo DOES have total control over the commercial environment per
> medium of the legislature.
> They rarely if ever use it seriously.
> Why?
> Piss easy - corporations own every one of the sorry bastards polishing
> the leather in parliaments with they bought and sold arses.
>
> So, my view might just be that these ploys are a guise to protect
> GovCo from their own mis-management.
>
> Back to the end game.
> You can figure it out as well as I can.
> Lets restrict this to cars.traffic.
>
> Alco and droog test interlocks on all cars.
> (We both know that Random testing will NOT be repealed. Ever.)
> GPS and other means of vehicle speed and route tracking
> Permitted routes derived from above technology.
> Fuel costs mirroring usage has failed to decrease mobility of ordinary
> mortals, so next step is charge by the kilometre.
>
> And on and on.
> One day when I've got some real time to spare, I might just list these
> things in a sort of hierachical structure, and hire a few BIG
> bill-boards to entertain the masses with the facts on just how those
> same masses have been shaftes and exploited. As if they didn't know.
> The problem of course they been scammed into liking it.
> Natch, it has to stop some time.
> But when, and how, and where?
> I'm not being alarmist - just practical here - I believe we, that is,
> the ELECTORATE, needs to stop it right now.
> If we don't, then our descendent are going to spill a lot of blood on
> the streets - yup they'll be legally slaughtered by GovCo.
> Because GovCo can never be WRONG.
> Because it's GovCo that defines WRONG.
>
> Just a few thoughts and questions, is all.
>
>
>
> --
> Toby
> quidquid latine dictum
> sit, altum viditur

[Forg]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....
> If random drug testing is wrong so is
> random breath testing & speed testing.
....

Well ... yes, you're right in some respects.

We know that gumbyment minions can't be trusted; we have proof because
of the way they're using their ability to detect/record speed remotely &
cheaply. We know that marijuana testing is hit-and-miss at best in
terms of accuracy. We know that marijuana use makes a major subgroup of
habitual marijuana users into safer drivers (which highlights licencing
inadequacies more than anything else).

Putting all these together, we _know_ that gumbyment minions can't be
trusted with totalitarian laws allowing them to test anyone & everyone
wherever they want. It's a bit like witch-testing really ... what do
you have to fear if you haven't done anything wrong? Oh that's right,
even if you're not guilty the testing process turns out to be pretty
unpleasant ...


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Forg]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....
> Good on them, if pepole can't drive drunk why should
> others be allowed to drive stoned or hyped.
....

You seem to be missing the problem. Current gumbyment & police policies
are leaning towards punishment of the innocent as being preferable to
letting the guilty go free.
Giving them MORE power does not make that situation any better.

And you're completely nuts if you think it's worth living in constant
fear of your police force & your government so that you don't have to
fear the occasional criminal.


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Forg" <Forg@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b24660$0$8932$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Rainbow Warrior wrote:
> ...
> > If random drug testing is wrong so is
> > random breath testing & speed testing.
>
> Well ... yes, you're right in some respects.
>
> We know that gumbyment minions can't be trusted; we have proof because
> of the way they're using their ability to detect/record speed remotely &
> cheaply. We know that marijuana testing is hit-and-miss at best in
> terms of accuracy. We know that marijuana use makes a major subgroup of
> habitual marijuana users into safer drivers (which highlights licencing
> inadequacies more than anything else).
>
> Putting all these together, we _know_ that gumbyment minions can't be
> trusted with totalitarian laws allowing them to test anyone & everyone
> wherever they want. It's a bit like witch-testing really ... what do >
> you have to fear if you haven't done anything wrong? Oh that's right,
> even if you're not guilty the testing process turns out to be pretty
> unpleasant ...

We should therefore ban all testing?
Some people could show over .05 too when they're not.
There is always a blood test option, same as RBT.

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:47:03 +1000, Rainbow Warrior wrote:

> We should therefore ban all testing?
> Some people could show over .05 too when they're not.
> There is always a blood test option, same as RBT.

Christ Jesus you're a complete *sap*. RW.
Why?
You justify bad laws by citing prior bad laws.
Ruminate on that for at least a minute.
Please.
Then consider that it's evident that the approach allows one bad law
to be a precedent for many. One bad law is all it takes to make many
in RWW.
This is a good thing, because it builds a world according to RW.
So you're completely happy with the situation as it stands, and
anything that happens from here on in is *good* because it's simply an
extension of the now.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Forg]

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....
> There is always a blood test option, same as RBT.
....

Yeah, but RBT's better than the incredibly low accuracy that the pot
tests have. Would _you_ really enjoy having about a 30% chance of being
dragged off to the police station for a blood test every time you were
pulled over for an RBT? [I'm assuming you're not a pot-head there :)].
'Cos that's about where the current tests are ...


--
---
Forg! -DUH#6-

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Brought to you by DUH!Inc.
DUH!Inc; Building Synergistic Wellness For All

[The Interceptor]

Spooky <spooky24042@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HSesd.58419$K7.52555@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DBdsd.58328$K7.15526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Spooky wrote:
> >> From the way that post reads, perhaps we should have
> >> mandatory drug testing in aus.cars. What planet did you
> >> say you were on? I mean at, the time of hitting the "send"
> >> button on that post.
> >>
> >> Spooky
> > DUI in charge of a computer and not wearing a seat belt?
>
> ....and operating a computer with greater than the allowable processing
> power :-).

Of course, anyone who question authority must be lacking intelligence. Just
like George Orwell etc. Conversely, all coppers are very intelligent, just
like those student killing ones in Ohio.

Brett

[reg-john]

"Rainbow Warrior" <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote in message
news:0Kqsd.332$A6.16844@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:1ef8y0o89syfb$.i2aash3ta5w8$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> > Strikes me as strange:
> > GovCo is enacting legislation in Vic to test for droogs.
>
> Good on them, if pepole can't drive drunk why should others be allowed to
> drive stoned or hyped.

these tests may harm casual dope users who dont drive while stoned. someone
who has an occasional joint and can still carry on being a productive member
of society is not a bad guy, really.


>
> > GovCo believes that drivers are disobeying their stupid statute laws
> > in the matter.
>
> Driving under drug influence is another stupid law? It's probably
arbitrary
> too.
>
> > At the same time, GovCo is saying that mis-use of the testing and data
> > obtained is against their stupid statute laws.
>
> Cop pulls over some druggo, "you test positive everything we got, but we
> can't charge you because it would be a misuse of data, on your way, good
day
> citizen".
>
> > So, GovCo is certain that there is law breading relating to Droogs
> > happening, and is taking 'steps' to detect those law breakers.
>
> About time the connections between the bakery giants & drug syndicates was
> explored.
>
> > But GovCo is assuring the community that mis-use of the testing and
> > Data won't occur.
>
> What by counting how many are caught using each drug. I hear they also do
> this with speeding & road deaths, more data misuse.
>
> > So we, the citizens are rotten to the core.
>
> No, just drug users.
>
> > And they, GovCo, and their minions are NOT?
>
> Some of them are.
>
> > Err, maybe. So, just so we trust GovCo to administer these new laws
> > correctly, we are told there are laws to punish wrong-doers from GovCo
> > and their minions.
>
> Maybe if we can't trust them with laws we shouldn't have any.
>
> > WTF is going on there?
>
> F'd if I know.
>
> > Someone rotten to the core in GovCo mis-uses the information.
> > But it's a done deal by then.
> > Perhaps GovCo should wait for the prang if any would be the equivalent
> > on the community side. But it isn't about to happen that way. Two sets
> > of rules. Again.
> >
> > Surely it is some sort of elaborate and expensive JOKE?
>
> Probably not.
>
>

[Rainbow Warrior]

"reg-john" <jab@bab.com> wrote in message
news:oxvsd.59306$K7.45107@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Rainbow Warrior" <sleek@sbs.com.fr> wrote in message
> news:0Kqsd.332$A6.16844@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> > "Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:1ef8y0o89syfb$.i2aash3ta5w8$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> > > Strikes me as strange:
> > > GovCo is enacting legislation in Vic to test for droogs.
> >
> > Good on them, if pepole can't drive drunk why should others be allowed
to
> > drive stoned or hyped.
>
> these tests may harm casual dope users who dont drive while stoned.
someone
> who has an occasional joint and can still carry on being a productive
member
> of society is not a bad guy, really.

Fair enough, as long as we protect those who do drive stoned in the process,
then again some people stoned probably still drive better than many drivers
who aren't under any drink/drug influence.

> > > GovCo believes that drivers are disobeying their stupid statute laws
> > > in the matter.
> >
> > Driving under drug influence is another stupid law? It's probably
> arbitrary
> > too.
> >
> > > At the same time, GovCo is saying that mis-use of the testing and data
> > > obtained is against their stupid statute laws.
> >
> > Cop pulls over some druggo, "you test positive everything we got, but we
> > can't charge you because it would be a misuse of data, on your way, good
> day
> > citizen".
> >
> > > So, GovCo is certain that there is law breading relating to Droogs
> > > happening, and is taking 'steps' to detect those law breakers.
> >
> > About time the connections between the bakery giants & drug syndicates
was
> > explored.
> >
> > > But GovCo is assuring the community that mis-use of the testing and
> > > Data won't occur.
> >
> > What by counting how many are caught using each drug. I hear they also
do
> > this with speeding & road deaths, more data misuse.
> >
> > > So we, the citizens are rotten to the core.
> >
> > No, just drug users.
> >
> > > And they, GovCo, and their minions are NOT?
> >
> > Some of them are.
> >
> > > Err, maybe. So, just so we trust GovCo to administer these new laws
> > > correctly, we are told there are laws to punish wrong-doers from GovCo
> > > and their minions.
> >
> > Maybe if we can't trust them with laws we shouldn't have any.
> >
> > > WTF is going on there?
> >
> > F'd if I know.
> >
> > > Someone rotten to the core in GovCo mis-uses the information.
> > > But it's a done deal by then.
> > > Perhaps GovCo should wait for the prang if any would be the equivalent
> > > on the community side. But it isn't about to happen that way. Two sets
> > > of rules. Again.
> > >
> > > Surely it is some sort of elaborate and expensive JOKE?
> >
> > Probably not.
> >
> >
>
>

[Rainbow Warrior]

"Toby Ponsenby" <toby@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gumu7stvsv1z.wkdphyjcld9n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:47:03 +1000, Rainbow Warrior wrote:
>
> > We should therefore ban all testing?
> > Some people could show over .05 too when they're not.
> > There is always a blood test option, same as RBT.
>
> Christ Jesus you're a complete *sap*. RW.
> Why?
> You justify bad laws by citing prior bad laws.

I didn't really say the prior ones were bad. I think Blood alcohol limits
are a good thing, perhaps they should have degrees, rather than zero
tolerance, but over all they have reduced the chances of some pisshead
wiping your car off the road.

> Ruminate on that for at least a minute.
> Please.
> Then consider that it's evident that the approach allows one bad law
> to be a precedent for many. One bad law is all it takes to make many
> in RWW.
> This is a good thing, because it builds a world according to RW.
> So you're completely happy with the situation as it stands, and
> anything that happens from here on in is *good* because it's simply an
> extension of the now.

Well if it puts more pressure against drug users and the police tolerance of
them driving, yes.