• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Does anyone actually think the PATRIOT act is at all good for the US?

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Title says it all basically. I'm just wondering if there's anyone out there with illusions that there's something about this which isn't part of a downward spiral. Particuarly as it seems that it won't ever be expiring....

Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Kyrian



1. Prohibition doesn't work
2. Limiting alcohol is impractical
3. Limiting alcohol may make the problem worse- a la the US
4. Limiting alcohol is unlikely to be fairly enforced



I argue here: -

http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/show...rev=#Post364259
br>
That there is no evidence to show that prohibition doesn't work; that the 'we tried it here...' line of reasoning is not correct.

I also argue in that thread that some forms of prohibition have been very successful.

I can't say it here any better than I said it there, so, I'd suggest you read it and then, if you still disagree, say why, and I'll reply.

-----------

Concerning seatbelts- they save lives. Without the law, people tend not to use them and they then die/get maimed in accidents.

With the law, they tend to wear them. The law therefore saves lives, so I'd say it is effective and good.


Written by: Kyrian


owd- Should all of the things which are potentially ruinous be illegal?




No; but some should.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey


Actually, one of the proposals to cut down on binge drinking is to have the pubs open 24 hours a day.
The reasoning behind this is that the most binging goes on just before the pubs shut, as people try to get as much in before they have to leave as possible.
If they're not getting kicked out at a set time (last orders is 11pm here), people are more likely to take it easy and not binge so much. Also, there won't be so much of a rush as people all have to leave at once, they'd be a more steady trickle of people leaving, so there'd be less violence and the like outside caused by groups of drunkards.
That's the theory behind it anyway, I'm not sure if it'll work but it sounds good to me so far.



The police over here in the UK are mainly against the relaxation of drinking laws.

They say that the reasoning that, without last orders, the UK will adopt continental style drinking habits (which is one of the main ideas behind the removal of last orders) is flawed.

They argue that the drinking situation in the UK, which is pretty horrific, with massive drink fuelled city centre violence being a routine part of friday/saturday nights, leading to casuality units being unable to cope- as well as an increasing problem with under-age drinking: is due, not to the licencing laws, but to some underlying disfunction in UK drinking culture.

A significant portion of the UK drinking population are basically yobs who cannot exercise control over their drinking- increasing the number of hours available to drink, will not, in this view, decrease the problem, but make it worse.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:OnewheelDave has basically said everything I would have, so thanks for fighting my corner. wink

Our Health Service recently reported that a man had died of Cyrosis of the Liver. He was 28. This destruction of the liver is only normally persent in the over 50s, but this guy had been drinking so much that he had died from pumping his body full of alcohol. I doubt that 24 opening times would have helped.

Also it is now common here for 12+ year olds to be drinking. This is indicative of serious problems with our governments attitudes towards drinking, and needs to be rectified quickly. I think that more money on education would be a good start, with some trips to see people in hospitals because of alcohol.

Alcohol harms many others apart from those drinking. People get beaten up, robbed, gang raped, murdered and knifed because of alcohol. Many of them haven't even been drinking. Also the strain that it puts on the NHS is incredible. The money spent treating yobs could be better spent on people with illnesses that AREN'T their fault.

On the seatbelt note, Bovril Monkey is right, but if you're in the front seat and you have no seatbelt, then what happens if you're in a head on collision? You go through the windscreen and in all likelyhood impact on the other persons windscreen headfirst, possibly killing the person in their passenger or driver seat.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Sethis


OnewheelDave has basically said everything I would have, so thanks for fighting my corner. wink







That's OK- it's my corner too, and the corner of many others who see that this issue is far from 'black-and-white'.



-------------



More and more I'm finding that those arguments using the 'people should be allowed to do anything they want, even if it harms them; as long as it doesn't affect others' line to be very short sighted.



Firstly because, as we can see from posts above, very few of the activities in question are actually non-harmful to others.



An alcoholics choice or binge drinkers choice (and IMO, 'choice' in that context requires substantial qualification) to destroy their health also affects many others, for example members of their family (who may well be minors) victims fo those hurt if said drinkers drive or become violent etc.



Secondly, widespread misuse of alcohol, creates a climate in which an activity which is actually deeply disfunctional; is seen as 'normal', acceptable, and even desirable.



Hence the numbers of 12 year olds who develop drinking problems (one of the factors anyway, I know that there are lots of others).



Thirdly, and on a somewhat deeper level; I often detect an attitude of 'people should basically be able to do pretty much what they want with their own bodies'- which, on face value, seems fairly reasonable.



Yet, as I've tried to explain above, it's not as straightforward as it sounds.



So I'd like to throw in this idea: -



For those who edge towards an attitude of 'it's the individuals life, and they should be left alone to do what they want'; how would you respond to someone who replies-



'OK, you're right- poeple should be allowed to do what they want. However, bear in mind that some of those people are going to want to band together, form groups and form a consensus opinion for what they would like their environment to be like. And that includes the behaviour of other individuals, and it may well include the setting of rules, whci they will, in some circumstances, impose on people who disagree with those rules.'



After all, that is just a case of people doing what they what.



----------



Again I will point out that I am not here supporting the Patriot Act- I DO NOT support the Patriot act as, IMO, it crosses the line quite substantially.



Rather, I am challenging what I'm coming to see as a bit of a knee-jerk argument that pervades these kind of discussions.



There are many, many reasons why the Patriot Act, and others like it, are deeply flawed.



However, 'people should be allowed to do whatever.........' etc, is not, IMO, valid, and, furthermore, simply detracts from establishing the real reasons why the Patriot Act is flawed


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:*applauds loudly*

Well Said.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

dR pSYcHo
SILVER Member since May 2003

dR pSYcHo

member
Location: Nottingham (UK)

Total posts: 88
Posted:Just a few small points before I carry on my merry way.

1. I work in (and have a major interest in) emergency medicine and Trauma. Trust me when I say seat belts work and they work incredibly well at preventing you from becoming a vegetable or meat pate on the road. There is good, evidence based proof from many countries that this is the case (involving data from a few hundred thousand RTAs over the last 2 decades). In short, not wearing a seatbelt is dumb if your the driver, and even dumber if you allow people to travel with you not wearing them. Not to mention the cleaning bill it will be those daft f**ks who direct approx 7 X 10^6 Newtons through YOUR body as you become the cushion btween them and the windowscreen. Not pretty............ Not survivable much beyond 50mph unless your very very lucky.

Having said all that the evidence for airbags is more debatable; shifting the pattern of injuries rather than prevent deaths.

2. UK drugs laws are:
- Hypocritical
- Non sensical
- Ignorant

Alcohol, probably one of the more insidious and nasty drugs of choice, responsible for huge numbers of physical and mental health problems (not to mention economic, emotional, societial costs) and is not only a nice taxable drug but one we should be endorsing with 24h licensensing. Now I enjoy a drink as much as the next guy but having seen the fall out of friday/saturday binges I personally feel this is another silly idea that we're gonna regret further down the line. Plus the average age of death for an alcoholic who can't stop is 40.... Just 40!

I reakon it's now a case of shifting the culture (and in all honesty I really would care less if the laws weren't so hypocritical), and the only way to shift it is to educate people, cause at the end of the day if you want to drink yourself into the grave then society must let you, since that is your choice. However society must ensure you understand the consequences of your choice (self determined mortality if you will)

People should be allowed to make an EDUCATED choice, and express themselves in whatever way they choose (idealistically speaking), the law should be there for when your choices start impacting on others (in a negative fashion), thereby proving freedom. E.G. Drink driving, universally recognized as a irresponsible dangerous idea.

3) One of my main problem with the patriot act is the unchecked level of access a government has to YOUR personal information, the books you read, the products you buy. and the powers it has handed (on a plate) to the government in power. If you think this administration is bad just think, all the powers and laws already now exist for the enforcement of a police state (legally), all it takes is one frightened government to implement it. That won't happen in the near future while people remain oblivious to this fact and running scared in their own little lives.... God bless TV huh...

ANyway, the night draws on and I need a new place to live, so back to the house hunt.

Rant fin juggle


taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco taco Damn those MexICan BANdits taco taco taco taco TACOFICATION taco taco taco taco taco taco

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:11???? Ye gods..... thats early... I thought the US was bad.

I don't know anyone who can still manuvere their car when crashing it, but I guess the possibility stands. I'll take that for the moment- its an interesting one. Here they told us the seatbelt laws are so taxpayers don't have to support people who paralyze themselves because they didn't wear seatbelts... which I don't agree with. Additionally, I was only thinking about drivers- I suppose there's a good argument for backseat passengers.

Written by:

Written by: Kyrian



owd- Should all of the things which are potentially ruinous be illegal?




No; but some should.




How do you decide which is which, then?



I read a lot of the prohibition thread- I hope its enough. It was getting a little repetitive and I didn't want to sit through it word for word. And I got to your most interesting point, which was a culture that doesn't use drugs and education about what happened. I'm really not sure how you would get that culture. Since I understood this to be a suggestion of a solution to a current problem, I would like to know how you intend to do that.
But I do have something to say about education. The way I would put it first is: People are stupid. Currently, drug education in america gives children with no previous expirience with drugs ideas. The plural of anecdote is not data- and the studies we have done arn't conclusive enough to prove that our education program is at fault for the correlation of increased drug use where the programs happen. But in groups where the parents and peers were both against drugs, and fully knowing the bad things that could happen, some kids have decided that it was worth it.
What I think is, and I can only give circumstancial evidence, that if any information is given that people felt good when using the drugs, some members of a generation will decide to try it even if they are the only ones. And they will get others to, and so on. I don't know how it would work starting from a drug-free society. (I don't know how we'd get one either). And I strongly suspect Opiates and Mj would have a much higher place than Alcohol in that sort of a world. But I don't think it would work while we still have the problems that drive people to drugs today.

I don't think relaxing the drinking laws will help in this generation- the police are probably right about it being and underlying society problem, although removal of alcohol is unlikely to fix the problem either. But it might help the next generation. (We have drinking culture issues in america as well).

We did hijack this thread, huh? Can't belive I got at my own :/

[rant]
Anyway, I do support that reasoning quite a bit, (you should be able to do what you want as long as not harming others), which is probably obvious, but what I'd like to see is borders opening. Then people can pick which set of people in groups making rules they want to live in. I know this is a whole other argument, and revolutions will happen anyway, and power corrupts, etc, etc, etc, but at the moment thats the best idea I have. And I am aware that my way of looking at things makes the world more volitile- but I also belive its an improvement over the alternative. I won't take this discussion anywhere on this thread, or probably even this board, but I see a lot of uphevel in the future, and even knowing the meaning of the word revolution (a full circle) I'd like to try and do whats right
[/end rant]

I'm off my soapbox now. Don't try and make it relavent to this thread- It isn't, its a diatribe defending my philosophy on letting people mess themselves up, which isn't necessary to these arguments.

I know seatbelts are good. I just don't agree with forcing good on people. But I gave on the seatbelt laws for the moment.

I think dr psycho did a good job saying stuff i wanted to say smile in (2)

And I would like to, finally, get back on the original subject and call everyone's attention to this police state... Its not getting off the ground very well because there arn't enough people. I know some of you don't belive it is- people are even saying "the laws are all there FOR IT TO BECOME..."

But free speech zones and arresting anyone near the president who protests him, sounds a fair amount like a police state to me. (Also the laws requiring you to carry id with you at all times).

-K


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

Sethis
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University

Total posts: 1762
Posted:You have laws that mean you *have* to carry ID?

We're getting an ID card scheme introduced over here, it's currently going through Parliament and I hope like hell it fails.

1. The Cards aren't secure.
2. They will cost everyone in the country over 100.
3. No-one has explained properly WHY they are being introduced.
4. It is in violation of privacy laws.

Combine this with the plan to put a black box in *every* car in the UK that can be tracked by satellite and I get *very* worried about the attitude our government has.

It's quite a funny point you make about protests near the President. John Prescott had an Egg thrown at him several years ago, and he punched the guy ubblol Tony Blair had a flour bomb thrown at him *in the Houses of Parliament* and the person wasn't imprisoned, and when Michael Howard was campaigning in this general Election, there was a lone Labour supporter at one of his rallies. Rather than ignoring him, or asking him to go away, Howard actually bantered with the guy.

According to what you've said Kyrian, we still have a bit more free speech than you do, but we're rapidly losing our privacy.


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Yeah, free speech has taken an abrupt and somewhat bizarre hit here recently (last year or maybe two) and none of the original patriot act even addresses it- as far as I know they havn't even gotten around to passing a law which limits it yet, they are just acting like a stupid police state.

Our privacy, a la this "Act to protect the american way of life" is completly gone, but they don't have enough people or centralization to take care of everything (yet). Those are scary propositions- I've been told britain wasn't as far behind us as its citizens would like to think (Although, generally, I understand you have to be Irish or in North Ireland to really see it there) but thats kinda ...scary. We havn't gotten around to tracking everyone yet.
The ID laws are currently state, not national, which in a way is more scary. They are trying to implement a national ID law here, too, but it hasn't limped very far off the ground yet- they are more concerned with the flag burning amendment. But some states have passed laws requiring you to carry ID when you leave your house.


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

DarthMeaux


The artist formerly known as Phae'xorl.
Location: South-East Ohio (the foothills...

Total posts: 145
Posted:I absolutely do not think that the PA is good for anyone (anyone that is not a friend of the current admin. that is)..There are many things I would like to say, but they have mostly all been stated by my fellow countrymen (I.E. Gnarly Cranium, NYC, Promethius...etc.)...There are just soooooo many things wrong with the whole idea of the PA....Anyone else read "1984"? We are allowing the conservative christian right to decieve us...
Come on do any other of my fellow americans truly believe that the "new and improved" electronic voting machines (that incidentally leave no paper trail to double check potential errors) were not tampered with? After all, it was a fellow Ohioan (that [censored] Kenneth Blackwell, who is in the pocket and party of the consevative right incidentally) who pushed so hard to get them used in the state. Hmmm, what state did it all come down to in the end? What state was the decideing factor in the theft of the recent election? Any guesses anyone? If you guessed Ohio you arte correct!!
All of the exit polls (which have never been wrong before mind you) said that it was Kerry (who I agree is the lesser of the two evils, and it sucks that you have to choose between two corrupt rich guys, but you have to start somewhere) who was in the lead for the win.
Okay, I am getting off topic, I apoligize....The PA is most definately a terrible idea (I reiterate)...We are allowing the right conservatives to trick us into thinking that we are in constant danger of the world ending if they do not strip us of our privacy to make sure that we are not "bad people"...
Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up their essential liberties to obtain a temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The american people need to find their strength. Our "founding fathers" would absolutely not approve of the direction the country has been heading in for years now...Granted they weren't the best people either, but still....
Anyway, sorry for such a long rant...this stuff just makes me so angry.....


"...heaven is ordering a six piece chicken nugget and getting seven...and a switchblade."

Delete

Kyrian


Dreamer
Location: York, England

Total posts: 4308
Posted:Another note- it was ruled in court that no one could look at Ohio's voting machines to correct accuracy.

And with that I have to sign off guys- I leave my house in less than seven hours (3am my time frown) and head over to rainy britain.

-K


Keep your dream alive
Dreamin is still how the strong survive

Shalom VeAhavah

New Hampshire has a point....

Delete

Page: 123