lets bring in minimum sentancing and mandate stiff penalties for crimes. Lets go after the offender and not the general public. Lets step up enforcement of current laws.
Until we do this, stuff your nanny laws up your ass.
StereoPrincess
quote:
Originally posted by English Rachel
I agree with most of that Yohan, but can you see nanny Canada allowing ads like this when '' is bleeped out of shows?...
why wouldn't they allow those ads?
English Rachel
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
why wouldn't they allow those ads?
Maybe they would/should :) I am not saying they definitely wouldn't but I haven't seen anything like that on TV here...
StereoPrincess
quote:
Originally posted by English Rachel
Maybe they would/should :) I am not saying they definitely wouldn't but I haven't seen anything like that on TV here...
if you are talking about the grusomeness, have you seen these ads(not for drunk driving):
MarkT
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
lets bring in minimum sentancing and mandate stiff penalties for crimes. Lets go after the offender and not the general public. Lets step up enforcement of current laws.
Until we do this, stuff your nanny laws up your ass.
meh. I edited my big long post. short and sweet (relatively speaking):
I agree this new from the gov't is crap. I also agree that it's wrong for everyone to suffer because of a minority of idiots. but I disagree with your suggestion of stiffer penalties and minimum sentencing. neither deter future offenses. If anything, they deter repeat offenses, but not the general public.
an example is that the police having admitted that the speed racing laws have not significantly altered general driving behaviour. the # of repeat offenses is apparently low, but that could easily be because people aren't being caught again. even if you accept that it reduces repeat offenses, the numbers being nabbed is not substantially dropping...so it's not having the general deterrent effect that was envisioned.
I agree the proposal is complete garbage for the most part...but I don't agree with your suggestion of stiffer penalties. it will indeed punish the offenders but it neither deters future offenders nor protects future victims. punishing an offender more severely when there is little to no deterrence factor is ignoring victims altogether.
the goal is to avoid the illegal or negligent behaviour and protect the public...not to punish people more severely for the sake of punishing them.
7-4-7
no speeding
no drinking
no excesses passengers
every ounce of this is the right thing to do. The only other option is to give minors the choice; something they are incapable as a mass of people of doing properly.
Sorry you have to live in the nanny state.
move.
DigiNut
As Penn says:
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws... that's insane!"
MarkT
lol. I like that.
Nick Cenik
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze
The 0.08 BAC limit
If your BAC level is between 0.05 and 0.07% your license can be taken away, i.e., suspended, immediately for 90 days--it's called an administrative license suspension.
I wanted to point that out for all those who believe that as a long as one registers under 0.08% one cannot face penalties for DUI of alcohol.
Ortemy
Zero alcohol tolerance - I am all for that.
Less speeding tolerance for young drivers - I am also all for that.
But not more than one passenger in the car - plain stupid! What about DDs? What about car pooling? What about students driving to school together where only one of them has driving license?
And what about the fact that you do not even need to be able to drive in order to get G2 in Ontario? All you drivers, remember how easy it was? That test is just plain jokes, if my father did not teach me how to drive afterward I would for sure end up in an accident. They need to teach people how to drive normally in this country to begin with.
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by 7-4-7
no speeding
no drinking
no excesses passengers
every ounce of this is the right thing to do. The only other option is to give minors the choice; something they are incapable as a mass of people of doing properly.
Sorry you have to live in the nanny state.
move.
How about we keep our democracy (whats left of it) and you move to a nanny state? There are plenty of them out there. I hear cuba has nice weather this time of year.
Sorry, my bad... in cuba you can drink and smoke anywhere you wish.
kaniz
quote:
Originally posted by 7-4-7
no speeding
no drinking
no excesses passengers
every ounce of this is the right thing to do. The only other option is to give minors the choice; something they are incapable as a mass of people of doing properly.
Sorry you have to live in the nanny state.
move.
As long as every passenger in the car is wearing a seat belt, I don't see whats excessive by having 3-4 other people in the car. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a city that has a solid transit system where they can hop into a bus with their group of friends and get to the club / movies / mall / friends house easily.
We should be trying to teach kids independence, not baby-them until the last very minute possible. I can agree with no speeding, I can agree with no drinking, its the limitations on passengers that really has me scratching my head.
Kids are moving out at younger ages to attend University. With there no longer being an OAC, there are kids as young as 17-19 moving out on their own to attend school.
So, they are old enough to move out, live on their own - but heaven forbid if they want to car-pool into class in the morning?
This just in: People will get into car accidents. People have been getting into car-accidents since they put them onto the road, and people will continue to get car accidents with moving vehicles as long as we have moving vehicles. No amount of restricting drivers is going to stop this, and there comes a point when you ask "Have we done enough? are we going too far?", and I think some of the proposed new laws are going too far.
If we continue to treat teens / young adults as babies, they will continue to act as babies.
