Not to detract from your point Joe (which I do get and support BTW), but for some of those CIII and CII cough syrups with Codeine or Hydrocodone Bitartrate, etc. , they *should* definitely not be driving. Perhaps, not even "NyQuill" or "Z-Quill" either.Originally Posted by Tegg
Regards,
Arnold.
The arguments some people seem to be making would apply to a belief that society should have no laws whatsoever.
Taking arguments to a ridiculous extreme does not help form a constructive argument. Suggesting, for example, that divers present certification cards at a site and get a permit which could be displayed on a dashboard, which is done in some places, is not the same thing as outlawing all diving everywhere.
Unless you are falling down drunk reading and keying in 5 digits isn't that difficult. It really is much more of a knee jerk feel good type device to make others think something is being done and would allow far to many legally drunk drivers to quite easily start a car. In Illinois some offenders are forced to get a breathalyzer device installed on their vehicle that requires the driver to breath into it to start the vehicle and to breath into it at regular intervals while the vehicle is running. I've seen a few of these and they are far more effective, and extremely embarrassing to the driver as they are prominently placed for all to see.
Jeff Rouse
Chicago, IL
I tend to be a civil libertarian, and am definitely not an advocate of the nanny state. But when it comes to drunk drivers, I'm all for anything that keeps them off the public roads, from car interlocks to incarceration to a firing squad for repeat offenders.
I can see how an otherwise decent and law abiding person might get one DUI conviction. But the drunk driver who killed my friend's son had 11. (The Vermont state record, but he wasn't in jail!) The drunk driver who almost killed my wife had 3. Neither of them owned a car or had a valid drivers license, but that didn't stop them. After 38 years of dealing with the tragedies they cause, I think that drunk drivers ought to be viewed much more seriously by the criminal justice system. It is the most common preventable tragedy we see in the ER.
As I say, I'm pretty much a civil libertarian. I don't think we need more laws; we just need to enforce the ones we have more effectively. If you want to get falling-down drunk on your own property, that's not my business. If you want to get drunk and drive your car around in your own cow pasture, that's not my business either. It's only when you choose to drive drunk on a public road and endanger the rest of us that you become someone about whom something needs to be done.
Mike
PS: As far as access to Eagle's Nest goes, I don't think anything needs to be changed. One of the most powerful forces in the world is human stupidity, and people who are determined to do life-threateningly stupid things won't be dissuaded by any reasonable restrictions on access.
According to another thread going on right now, Florida Fish and Wildlife is considering new ways to restrict access at Eagles Nest. That is based on a new published story that is horribly written and could be totally inaccurate. If it is true, though, I would think that active and educated cave divers would like to be part of the decision-making process.
I am a cave diver with full trimix certification, but I have never dived at Eagles Nest and have no idea what the current access rules are. I therefore cannot judge if they are OK or not. If I decide that I would like to dive there, I hope that someone does not make it too difficult for me to do it. It seems to me that helping develop a process that works best of all purposes would be in our (or at least my) best interest.
It's very common for judges in Virginia to require a breathalyzer ignition interlock for people convicted of DUI. What more are you asking for? Perhaps lobbying the FL or GA lawmakers for a similar policy in the state of your choosing (if they don't have it already) is better than suggesting a policy that wouldn't have prevented the accident at EN.
-Jon
I have no desire to see a change at Eagle's Nest. I was just addressing the hijack, concerning drunk drivers. I think drunk drivers should serve long prison terms and then never be allowed to drive again.
Whoever said money can't buy love never bought a puppy.
or a texting driver....
it's not a nanny state when the person shows themselves to be incapable of controlling their own behavior.
it's a nanny state when the actions of a few or too many results in laws that take self-responsibility away from the self-responsible. Drunk driving laws, so far, are after the fact. When all cars are outfitted with a breath-analyzer and are thus imposed on all drivers, then we have the nanny state.
the more responsibility you take away from individuals, the less responsible the individual. This blaming outside agency (its the fault of the cave, it's the fault of the state for not closing the cave) is the direct result of the increasing Nanny State - the removal of responsibility from the individual.
skip
"Learning the techniques of others does not interfere with the discovery of techniques of one's own." B.F. Skinner, 1970.
Drunk driver control, texting control, drug control, gun control.....where the hell is the stupidity and irresponsibility control? We have prison for criminal but only leave death for stupid people. There are really only two options. Control or death. We as a society can control the first. They, as an overwhelming large population control the last. Either we get active to help them or set back an watch the stats grow faster the marijuana sales in Colorado!! Carry on....
Walter- some of us TRY to stop the March of the nanny state here- but on this one I think it's ok- if you are convicted of drunk driving having an interlock as a condition to drive again seems a reasonable trade off... No?
Dan... In NYC....and yet still a libertarian republican
Dan-O
NSS-CDS- Full Cave
PADI- OWSI
TDI-Trimix
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks