Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
#2.
That should be the opening of your novel...
I'm showing her how to use a cell phone while driving in WA state as we speak.
OUT OF THE WAY!
In WA courts hearing DUI matters, judges often assign x amount of AA classes per week, where x is very closely related to the BAC of the defendant. If you blew twice the legal limit, you are hitting AA meetings at least 5 days a week.
And usually, the judge orders you not to drink while on probation, and yes, this is something you theoretically agree to, in lieu of going to jail.
I bet the alarm on that thing goes off at least once and she claims either that she accidentally picked up the wrong drink or someone spilled alcohol on her or some other completely unbelievable lame excuse, she'll get thrown in jail which she will say is unjust persecution because she honestly didn't drink anything and the bracelet is defective.
She'll do all of a week in jail (but will act like she's Nelson Mandella), will get out and have to wear the thing again for however long her probation is. On the day she gets it taken on she'll get ripped out of her head to celebrate it coming off and will die in a fiery car accident, or maybe an overdose/alcohol poisoning.
I'm guessing.
So if you take all THOSE things away, then yeah, it's really stupid.
I'm sure everyone else that goes through the court systems in Los Angeles gets the same treatment.
Probation is a punishment handed down for a violation of the law. It's not as severe as a prison sentence, but you lose some of your rights and privileges in exactly the way you would if you went to prison. And I'm pretty sure there are no bars LA County lockup.
But now I see how silly that sounds. There are bars, just not the kind that serve drinks. D'oh.
Seriously, who cares?
That is some serious old-man rock & roll.
As a general note--guys, chill. Dan asked if he was missing something; turned out he was. I think it's safe to assume he's never been pulled over for drunk driving.
Possession of up to 1 ounce of pot is decriminalized (not legalized) in Massachusetts. It's still in violation of the law, and you can face a civil fine of up to $100, but it's not a crime. It's rather like getting a parking ticket; if you park illegally, you are in violation of the law, but you will not face criminal sanctions. The proposition that we're seeing in in California, by contrast, is one to legalize, rather than merely decriminalize.
Otherwise, she's just a stupid feckin' twat who deserves what she gets...
@ 29 - The regulations are dicey, but what California is looking at is a legalization measure, not a decriminalization measure. Sure, that legalization is limited in scope, but it's inaccurate to characterize it as decriminalization. I'm just saying that simple possession of a certain amount (within some pretty strict guidelines) will no longer be in violation of the law when it comes to pot. And I was responding to derbenistambesten's confused use of "decriminalization" as regards alcohol. Pot was just an example that came to mind. Besides, you're not allowed to walk down the street with an open container of alcohol--that doesn't mean that alcohol isn't legal.
You're right though--the whole point of this post is parsing out language. But like 90% of my job is being nitpicky about language choices.
Like all of the girls who've been poked by Tiger's wood, Andy Warhol did not intend to confer 15 minutes of fame on people merely for being sluts, gold-diggers and home-wreckers.
All I'm saying is, when one is NOT operating a motor vehicle or other dangerous devices, one should have the freedom to partake of any intoxicants/poisons one chooses.