@happy tiger said:
@Bob said:
@happy tiger said:
@Bob said:
Until one day you just finish washing your mouth with listerine before work, have to wait 10 minutes for the mouth alcohol reading to go down so speed to work and kill someone…
This is just one reason mouth alcohol readings are not used in court and you must provide a blood sample. Hence why it's a blood alcohol limit not a mouth alcohol limit. Maybe we could just insert a needle into our arm instead of a blowing into a mouth alcohol reader. Or maybe we should take away al personal responsibility and move into small individual rooms where our food is rationed and exercise is monitored and other people can decide what's safe and what is not. That way no one will ever cause any harm. I mean sure we are jailing people who haven't done anything wrong yet, but they could, Se we need to safe proof the future! Won't somebody think of the children!!! Ok so I'm sorry I haven't really added anything to this conversation but my god we have to stop this nanny state mentality....
Maybe Bob when you lose your pregnant wife to be and Grandmother within 7 months due to drink drivers you might understand
Or maybe not
If thats a personal story I'm sorry, but my point still remains that you cannot put restrictions on everybody because of the stupid minority. I do not get why enforcing everybody to have to return a negative test because a minority make poor decisions.
Do we need to extend this to being tested for ice before you walk down the street as some people become violent when on the drug?
Your hypothesis is so detriment to our view of society and brings us to the lowest denominator instead of rewarding those who can make sound decisions.
From the posts of yours that I read you don't sound like a teenager, surely you can remember in your youth you were given freedoms and they were taken away if they were abused. The mentality these days is to just remove freedoms for everybody because punishing those who have made mistakes and are now reformed is unjust. It just seems backwards to me. However it seems Hobbo agrees with you… Hell maybe I just have things absolutely wrong.
But the stupid minority kill the intelligent totally innocent majority
Yes Bob and the only time I drank drive I got done and lost my licence for 4 months
But Bob my stupid decision was made because I thought I was under the limit and I would never had done it if I'd known
And the story is my story
And yes I think that nightclubs should be able to test their patrons for drug use if they want
Bob I'm not trying to throw you under the bus , but I don't think people understand how bad Ice is and the amount of Ice being used is now
Maybe Willow could give some figures if that doesn't interfere with his job or would cause him grief
Right well, clearly this is beyond the topic and if the powers to be want it gone I honestly cannot disagree with them. However I think that although the onus may not be football related, it is however a discussion about civil liberties that Australia will have to have in the near future, so I will tip my hat once more into the discussion
I have been a member of his website for almost four years. I love football, I didn't grow up in a football household. However living in the football eccentric town of Bathurst, having the body of a tennis player I enthusiastically followed the tigers at the age of three because I was told too. I played for my high school being the smallest kid on the field by a mile and got punished for it. Loved every minute of it. I now live in Taiwan and besides a very detailed discussion with my parents each week on the weather, football is one of the few religiously followed links back to my home country. The reason I have bought this up is simply to state that, although there has been very little posts from me in the past, you can see and assume from my profile that I have been an avid reader of his forum and have a appreciation for the vast football knowledge that this forum has.
With all due respect to your individual circumstance please understand that without any understanding of your background I am not in any way talking about your personal experiences. You have obviously had a personal incident regarding drink driving. I am 100% sure that you have delved into your own physicy more than any stranger on the internet could entice you too, so I ask that you take a step back and have a look at the bigger picture.
Go to any Australian city and you will be surrounded by signs telling you what you can and can’t do. In Sydney, it is illegal to buy a shot of alcohol after midnight and those who want to smoke must not only go outside but also be seated. You can no longer buy a drink anywhere in Australia’s biggest city after 3am. Vaping is banned indoors in several states and it is illegal everywhere to sell e-cigarette fluid if it contains nicotine, which is the point of e-cigarette fluid.
Australia has the longest list of prohibited video games in the world (with the possible exception of China) and has banned more than 200 since March 2015\. Other proposals that have not yet become law include breathalysing pedestrians and banning jogging at lunchtime.
Australia has three levels of government, all of which like to meddle in our lives.One man’s nanny state law is another man’s sensible regulation. How does he distinguish? Broadly speaking, we define it as when someone restricts your personal choices — even though they affect no one else — for your own good. Australia and New Zealand are the only countries that have laws mandating the wearing of bicycle helmets. Perhaps we need helmets in fear of running into signs telling us to not wear helmets!!. People I know have been pulled over by motorcycle coppers with sirens blaring for not wearing helmets to protect themselves, It’s ridiculous.
It is also counter-productive. After Sydney introduced a helmet law in 1991, the number of cyclists on the roads plummeted because many cyclists couldn’t or wouldn’t buy a helmet. Research has shown that cycling becomes more dangerous when there are fewer bikes on the road and motorists tend to leave cyclists less room when they are wearing a helmet. The result? Fewer people got to enjoy the health benefits of cycling and there was a higher rate of accidents among those who remained. (yeah I know, I have cyclist too, but still!)
Such unintended consequences are common, but the architects of the nanny state are never around to pick up the pieces. When the tax on alcopops was hiked up by 70 per cent in 2008, there was a wholly predictable rise in the sale of spirits and mixers. A few months ago, when the government banned smoking in outdoor dining areas of cafes and bars, owners responded by banning customers from eating outside, thereby turning dining areas into smoking areas. It is obvious to presume that this was not the’ intention.
How has it come to this? What happened to Australia’s shark-punching outlaw spirit? ‘Australians like to present themselves as rugged individualists, but the fact is it’d be against the law for Crocodile Dundee to use a knife to protect himself in Sydney.
**Australian governments at all levels suffer from the belief that whenever something bad happens that “something must be done”**. Surely there must be self regulation without the need for government interference. Do we really need breathalysers in every car for every person. If we depend on our Federal government to make common sense decisions for us will it take away our ability to make common sense decisions?
Does it not make sense that the more than 300 laws since 2013 telling us how to act has had a direct impact impact on our social persona?
Now please for all our sanity can we get back to the football? The tigers might be out but I've got a last man standing competition to win, named in your honour!
