Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Off Topic - Anything Goes -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (825)	3/13/2008 2:03:11 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6846

"et's try DUI here. Do you think it should be illegal? Or should you be allowed to drive stoned out of your gourd? DUI could be considered "reckless endangerment". Sort of like shooting off a rifle in an LA mall. Even if it doesn't hit someone you've put people's lives in danger. "But prostitution isn't? Is THAT the story? As I said before, the ONLY way you can argue it's not hazardous if if the woman is checked after each trick and she can't do another until te lab results are back. Now YOU cite me a place where prostitution is legal where that is the case. You think AIDS or multi-resistant syphilis or gonorrhea DOESN'T put people's lives in danger? Surely this can't be your argument." Of course lots of things cause danger to others. The cut off where it goes from normal activity, to risky activity, to reckless endangerment is fairly subjective, and you can get a slippery slope here. Still I don't have a big problem with DUI laws, or laws against discharge of a firearm (without sufficient justification like self defense) in a crowded area. "But it's OK to give someone AIDS?" An example of the slippery slope involved in this idea can be found just within DUI. It used to be that you would normally only face arrest if it obviously effected your driving. "When? Before they could easily test for drunkeness?" Then they started things like checkpoints and more vigilance in general, and pushed the .10 standard. "Oh yeah. They did that because people got tired of innocent, sober drivers getting killed by drunks." Now its often down to a .08 standard. I don't think I agree with the idea that .08 should be considered proof of a serious crime. "I don't drink because I don't need useless calories. I'm hardly obese, but I've had an MI and my heart can do without the extra strain. But the fact remains that we have an accident, I'll pass the sobriety testing. OH GAWD!!!!!! Just came in. Barney Frank has introduced a bill to allow the FHA will buy all those bad mortgages. DJII up 90 in no time at all. All my worst fears realized."