robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) (07/21/86)
In article <262@desoto.UUCP>, jah@desoto.UUCP (JA Harrison) writes: > >if it's OK to prohibit sodomy.. then why can't we have .. a > >seatbelt law... > > The point is IT'S NOT OK TO PROHIBIT SODOMY!! > > I'm continuously amazed at how quickly people are willing to > give up rights as long as some asshole in government says > it's for your own good! > > We as americans have (or I should say, have in the past) had the > freedom to do whatever idiotic thing we felt like as long as it > didn't infringe upon the rights of another. > > Recently, however, those in our society who would rather exert > more control have found that all they have to do to assert that > control is say "it's for your own good" and everybody just > rolls over and agrees!! > > The seatbelt law may be a trivial example of what's going on, > but if the seatbelt law got struck down, the sodomy issue > would probably not have been decided as it was. > > Couldn't help myself, > JAH 110% correct. And lest someone claim this has no place in net.auto... Seatbelt laws for cars, mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, and drunk testing checkpoints are complete bullshit. They are elements of fascism (or communism, both restrict personal freedom) which are being injected into our society by do-gooders who won't realize what a mistake it is until it is too late. Write your congress-person now to strike a blow for personal freedom. The problem isn't that the government is getting restrictive, but that people haven't got the guts to accept personal responsibility, and vote people and laws into power to accept responsibility for them. Geeze people, grow up and show some backbone. And yes, I wear a seatbelt when I drive a car and a helmet and leathers when I drive a motorcycle, and I think everyone else should too. But it shouldn't be THE LAW goddamnit! Robert Allen, robert@sri-spam.arpa
dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Bloom) (07/22/86)
In article <6117@sri-spam.ARPA>, robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > Seatbelt laws for cars, mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, and > drunk testing checkpoints are complete bullshit. They are elements > of fascism (or communism, both restrict personal freedom) which are > being injected into our society by do-gooders who won't realize what > a mistake it is until it is too late. Truthfully, I couldn't care less whether or not someone else has their belt or helmet on... But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test points are a bad idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a guard rail a number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at all) I stayed behind him the whole way, since passing him would've been like playing Russian Roulette with all the barrels full. Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of his life. Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT to live by getting that idiot off the road. You're as bad as the com- munists and facists if you think that ALL laws that restrict personal 'rights' are wrong. If I gave up some kind of 'right' by being delayed 2 minutes that night, then I did so gladly. > Write your congress-person > now to strike a blow for personal freedom. The problem isn't that the > government is getting restrictive, but that people haven't got the > guts to accept personal responsibility, and vote people and laws into > power to accept responsibility for them. Geeze people, grow up and > show some backbone. If you're truly worried about losing your freedoms, Reagan has given you a thousand other reasons to be alarmed... instead of worrying about seat- belts and drunk-driving checks, try worrying about the important issues. The sodomy issue you brought up, as are the issues of prayer in schools, the distribution of pornography, etc. are of far greater impact. > Geeze people, grow up and show some backbone. A fine idea. Try it. -- harvard\ pyramid\ Dave Bloom seismo \ pyrnj \ ut-sally >!topaz >!andromeda!dave Office: (201) 648-5083 allegra / caip / ihnp4!packard/ yogi/ "You're never alone with a schizophrenic...."
robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) (07/22/86)
In article <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU>, dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Bloom) writes: > In article <6117@sri-spam.ARPA>, robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes: > > > > Seatbelt laws for cars, mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, and > > drunk testing checkpoints are complete bullshit. They are elements > > of fascism (or communism, both restrict personal freedom) which are > > being injected into our society by do-gooders who won't realize what > > a mistake it is until it is too late. > > Truthfully, I couldn't care less whether or not someone else has their > belt or helmet on... But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test > points are a bad idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a > guard rail a number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at > all) I stayed behind him the whole way, since passing him would've been > like playing Russian Roulette with all the barrels full. > > Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to > say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of > his life. So do I, but under that circumstance, even if I was on my motorcycle which offers ZERO impact protection, I would still vote against the checkpoint. If those cops had been out DRIVING the road looking for trouble instead of waiting for it, the drunk might have been intercepted sooner. > > Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few > inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT > to live by getting that idiot off the road. You're as bad as the com- > munists and facists if you think that ALL laws that restrict personal > 'rights' are wrong. If I gave up some kind of 'right' by being delayed > 2 minutes that night, then I did so gladly. Yes, absolutes are idiotic. That's why absolutely searching anyone who happens to come down a particular stretch of road, irregarless of how good they are driving, is idiotic. If I felt that unsafe then I would have pulled to the roadside, or fallen back, or pulled off and called the CHP. I don't think that all laws which restrict or regulate dangerous situations or substances are bad. But I think that such regulations are poor excuses for lukewarm enforce- ment of penalties once one is caught. I'm willing to suffer for doing something wrong, and I demand that others be punished for endangering my- self or others, but I'm not willing to give up my rights just because some jerk couldn't accept some personal responsibility, or a judge released him because it was 'only' a minor violation, or because the guy "promised" to rehabilitate himself. > > > Write your congress-person > > now to strike a blow for personal freedom. The problem isn't that the > > government is getting restrictive, but that people haven't got the > > guts to accept personal responsibility, and vote people and laws into > > power to accept responsibility for them. Geeze people, grow up and > > show some backbone. > > If you're truly worried about losing your freedoms, Reagan has given you > a thousand other reasons to be alarmed... instead of worrying about seat- > belts and drunk-driving checks, try worrying about the important issues. > The sodomy issue you brought up, as are the issues of prayer in schools, > the distribution of pornography, etc. are of far greater impact. Yes, Reagan the big bad fascist. I've heard this a million times. Since this is net.auto, I shall restrict my comments to auto-related stuff. I see the Democrats pushing for seatbelt and helmet laws, as well as lower national speed limits, not Republicans. True, the DOT has threatened states with loss of highway funds for failing to support the 55 mph speed limit, but that isn't Reagan. If anything Reagan has reduced the amount of legislation regarding cars and motorcycles. As far as drunk driving checkpoints... Let's say you're driving along one night and you hit such a checkpoint. Let's also say that you are heading somewhere in earnest, e.g. to see your wife give birth, to attend to a family disaster, to get to a job interview, or to go the bathroom. Now you are stranded in line behind several other cars, it will be slow-going, and no amount of pleading with the CHP is going to convince them that you really do have a viable reason to bypass the checkpoint. Is that a good enough reason for not having checkpoints? No? Well, let's say your physical appearance doesn't meet that of an upstanding citizen. Are you telling me that the CHP might not provide just a bit more scrutiny to your vehicle? If they 'have' probable cause they could detain you for various reasons and search your car. This might just be an inconvenience. Or, if you happened to have any kind of contraband in the car (even if it was concealed, or at least covered), it could be very unfortunate. Of course all of these points are irrelevant. The CHP could just as easily be asking "Are you of Jewish descent?", or "Do you now or have you ever supported or believed in the aims of the Communist party?", or whatever they please, because all are equal invasions of your Civil Rights. Innocent until proven guilty remember? It's true that under California State Law you give implicit consent to a blood, breath or urine test for alcohol, but that rule should be used with restraint. Who's to know whether a checkpoint is looking for alcohol abusers or a particular person who the police want to talk to. How is this different from a checkpoint on a streetcorner asking for "Your papers old man"? In a mobile society the highway checkpoint is the moral equivalent to a booth on your street, and it is wrong. Now, can anyone provide a legal definition of your rights to privacy while driving a car, or the legal implications of implicit consent as regards random spot checks or searches? Robert Allen, robert@sri-spam.ARPA
jwl@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (07/22/86)
In article <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> dave@andromeda.UUCP writes: >Truthfully, I couldn't care less whether or not someone else has their >belt or helmet on... But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test >points are a bad idea. >[story about (presumably) drunk driver getting nailed at a >drunk-driving checkpoint] Careful with the ad hominem attacks, Dave. I think checkpoints are a bad idea. They set a precedent of allowing the police to detain people without probable cause. You might think it's a justifiable tactic to catch drunk drivers, but suppose the police decided to start setting up checkpoints on public sidewalks, and, say, running a check for outstanding warrants on everyone who passed through? Would you be as enthusiastic then? And if we're going to forget about probable cause, why bother with search warrants? Surely you don't mind if the cops pay you a visit, to make sure you don't have any stolen goods or contraband in your house? Back to drunk drivers. Yeah, they're a problem, and we need to find a way to deal with them. My point is that whatever method used must respect the rights of the other people on the road. Why not just put more police on the roads so they can spot dangerous drivers? (Advantage: that way we can deal with drivers who are just plain incompetent, as well as the drunks.) Or maybe something like what's being done in the Bay Area....setting up a 911 service that's accessable to people with cellular phones, so that anyone who spots something dangerous or illegal can report it to the police. These methods don't bother me, because they don't give the police extra, unnecessary powers which could easily be abused. > >Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few >inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT >to live by getting that idiot off the road. You're as bad as the com- >munists and facists if you think that ALL laws that restrict personal >'rights' are wrong. If I gave up some kind of 'right' by being delayed >2 minutes that night, then I did so gladly. Seems like something *you* value is a RIGHT, while something someone else values is only a 'right'. What's the difference? > >If you're truly worried about losing your freedoms, Reagan has given you >a thousand other reasons to be alarmed... instead of worrying about seat- >belts and drunk-driving checks, try worrying about the important issues. >The sodomy issue you brought up, as are the issues of prayer in schools, >the distribution of pornography, etc. are of far greater impact. These issues are all facets of the same conflict: the right to privacy versus the responsibility of the government to protect the populace. In my opinion, these issues are all equally important. >Dave Bloom -- Jim Lewis U.C. Berkeley "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
mwicks@sun.uucp (Michael Wicks) (07/23/86)
> > > > Recently, however, those in our society who would rather exert > > more control have found that all they have to do to assert that > > control is say "it's for your own good" and everybody just > > rolls over and agrees!! > > > > Seatbelt laws for cars, mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, and > drunk testing checkpoints are complete bullshit. They are elements > of fascism (or communism, both restrict personal freedom) which are > being injected into our society by do-gooders who won't realize what > a mistake it is until it is too late. Write your congress-person > now to strike a blow for personal freedom. The problem isn't that the > government is getting restrictive, but that people haven't got the > guts to accept personal responsibility, and vote people and laws into > power to accept responsibility for them. Geeze people, grow up and > show some backbone. > > And yes, I wear a seatbelt when I drive a car and a helmet and leathers > when I drive a motorcycle, and I think everyone else should too. But > it shouldn't be THE LAW goddamnit! > > Robert Allen, > robert@sri-spam.arpa I think it was best said by Spock in Star Trek II--" The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--or the one." Rules are made and laws are enacted because of worst-case scenarios. Some people ABUSE the privileges they have when they're driving or riding their bike or when they're drinking and accidents happen and EVERYONE ELSE has to pay for it! This is a fact of life and it has to be accepted. The more mistakes that are made, the more rules and laws that are going to be made to CONTROL behavior. No way around it. MICHAEL L. WICKS Sun Microsystems ***************************************** * ....It was a NEW DAY yesterday * * but it's an OLD DAY now!.... * *****************************************
cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (07/23/86)
> But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test points are a bad > idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a guard rail a > number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at all) > > Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to > say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of > his life. > > Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few > inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT > to live by getting that idiot off the road. > Dave Bloom What SHOULD have happened in this situation is one of the (should be) many cops PATROLING the road should have pulled this drunk over, probably long before you ever saw him. (With probable cause, having seen the drunk weave.) Instead, the police caught him at a random check point, where you are required to prove you inocence! This is the problem. Few check points are not random. However in some states they park a car up the road a mile or so, and call in the cars to be checked. This includes what I require in the way of probable cause, and I think this version (non-random) is fair. Random testing, thought, assumes guilt on a ramdom basis, then requires you to prove your inocence. (If you say that it doesn't really assume your guilt, than how come many states will "give you a ride downtown" for refusing to take the test, even if you don't appear drunk!) Who are these strangers that come in the door, cover your action, and go you one more? ...ihnp4!ltuxa!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones
joe@cbdkc1.UUCP (Joseph T. Judge CB 1K336 xXXXX RAA) (07/23/86)
In article <457@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU> dave@andromeda.RUTGERS.EDU (Dave Bloom) writes: > >Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is this, then ????? > > >If you're truly worried about losing your freedoms, Reagan has given you >a thousand other reasons to be alarmed... instead of worrying about seat- >belts and drunk-driving checks, try worrying about the important issues. >The sodomy issue you brought up, as are the issues of prayer in schools, >the distribution of pornography, etc. are of far greater impact. Reagan has given us 1,000's of reasons. - No comment. This one is too easy. BUT!! Worrying about personal freedoms is not important? What is the sodomy issue all about anyway? prayer in the schools? pornography? If this didn't have a smiley, I'd thought that you were kidding. Sure, who am I to know what is best for me? Other people, especially those in higher (governmental) positions than I, would know better. As for that "minor" issue of seatbelts: OK, the laws say that I HAVE to wear seatbelts in MY car, when I drive. OK, Fine. Tomorrow they say I can only have 4 people in my car at a time, for safety. The day after they say I can only buy cars in subdued colors, for safety from glare. Next day, I can only buy cars, from them, in army green, with fuzzy dice (for that homey touch!) >> Geeze people, grow up and show some backbone. You'd be the perfect communist citizen. "They are doing this for my safety, Tovarisch." "Da, dorug" Ever read? There are some good books about things like this. Try a little Ayn Rand. People have to be responsible for people. Get a little backbone & be responsible for yourself. -- Joseph Judge cbdkc1!joe AT&T Bell Labs Every decision you make is of equal importance. There are no unimportant decisions, for they are all made in the face of an uninevitable Death.
mpinkett@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mike Pinkett) (07/23/86)
> >Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to >say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of >his life. > In my opinion, having 5 or more policeman standing in one stationary spot will not be as effective as having them out on the road. Do you think that possibly less damage would have been done if a moving policeman could have spotted the driver before then? They could certainly cover a lot more ground, and would be out for other useful things like helping people whose car has stopped before they get mugged, etc. -- Michael Pinkett mpinkett@sdcrdcf.UUCP Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail.
animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) (07/24/86)
> > But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test points are a bad > > idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a guard rail a > > number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at all) > > > > Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to > > say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of > > his life. > > > > Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few > > inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT > > to live by getting that idiot off the road. > > Dave Bloom > > What SHOULD have happened in this situation is one of the > (should be) many cops PATROLING the road should have pulled this > drunk over, probably long before you ever saw him. (With probable > cause, having seen the drunk weave.) Instead, the police caught > him at a random check point, where you are required to prove you > inocence! This is the problem. > Few check points are not random. However in some states > they park a car up the road a mile or so, and call in the cars to be > checked. This includes what I require in the way of probable cause, > and I think this version (non-random) is fair. > Random testing, thought, assumes guilt on a ramdom basis, > then requires you to prove your inocence. (If you say that it > doesn't really assume your guilt, than how come many states will > "give you a ride downtown" for refusing to take the test, even if > you don't appear drunk!) > > Who are these strangers that come in the door, > cover your action, and go you one more? > > ...ihnp4!ltuxa!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones What REALLY should be happening is that we should be coming up with ways to keep people who have been drinking excessively from driving. Putting a million patrol cars on the road or setting up checkpoints every block will not do that, except in the crudest scare-tactic way. We need to acknowledge some basic realities: (1) people like to drink alcohol on occasion. This human/booze relationship has gone on for at least 5000 years and is unlikely to stop. (2) people like to drink with other people. Only the most confirmed alcoholics get drunk alone. (3) because we are a mobile society, people end up drinking some distance from their homes in order to enjoy other people's company. Given those three postulates, the problem becomes one of giving people some alternative to driving home when they've had too much. That is, arrange some alternate transportation or put them up for the night. Two recent examples of such solutions: over the New Year's Eve weekend this year, a group of Chicago hospitals and radio stations sponsored a "free ride home" service--if you couldn't drive, you called a phone number (prominently displayed in most taverns) and got a cab ride home, free of charge. Just this week, Mike Ditka (the Chicago Bears coach, who also owns a bar) announced that his bar would offer a "sleep it off" program. Customers who were judged unfit to drive would be taken by the valet (in their own cars) to a nearby hotel, tucked into bed and given a continental breakfast come morning (with plenty of coffee and aspirin), and would be charged $25 for the service. I think schemes like this ought to be institutionalized by the state, possibly subsidized from license-renewal liquor or road-tax funds. It would be more cost-effective than massive enforcement (cabbies work cheaper than cops), and would reduce the number of drunk drivers before they got on the road, rather than trying to pinch them before they kill somebody. The question is, would it work? Will people take advantage of such services? The hospital-sponsored cab service reported brisk business over the holiday weekend, and traffic accidents and deaths were lower than expected (even taking into account the new Illinois DUI law). I would expect most reasonable people to take advantage of a ride home, especially if the penalties for being caught on the road drunk were stiffened further. For the unreasonable people, especially the repeaters (who make up about 20% of those pulled in for DUI), genuinely Draconian measures could be taken with the intent of keeing them out of cars for a long time. Disclaimer: My employer doesn't know that I have opinions; and therefore certainly does not agree or disagree with them.
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (07/24/86)
> Xref: cbmvax net.auto:1993 net.cycle:278 > > Yes, Reagan the big bad fascist. I've heard this a million times. Since > this is net.auto, I shall restrict my comments to auto-related stuff. > I see the Democrats pushing for seatbelt and helmet laws, as well as lower > national speed limits, not Republicans. True, the DOT has threatened > states with loss of highway funds for failing to support the 55 mph > speed limit, but that isn't Reagan. If anything Reagan has reduced > the amount of legislation regarding cars and motorcycles. > > Robert Allen, > robert@sri-spam.ARPA Well, the man did make a campaign PROMISE to remove the 55 mph speed limit, at least to the degree that he had power as President (i.e. the national level). Now, since he's still got two years left :-(, I can't quite call the man a liar on that point just yet (but I am waiting until '88). But he hasn't even made an effort to remove this ignorant govenment policy, which is not really legislation at all, but a legalized form of blackmail (drive 55 or you won't get the money your citizens were forced to pay to US to maintain YOUR roads). Now, there's probably a good chance that this 55 mph thing will blow over in the next two years, and I'm sure Reagan's cronies and the '88 Republican candidate will all claim responsibility for this, but the way things are going, if they do anything it'll be to give into public pressure. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh "I don't feel safe in this world no more, I don't want to die in a nuclear war, I want to sail away to a distant shore And live like an ape man." -The Kinks These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
glenn@c3pe.UUCP (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) (07/25/86)
In article <435@ll1.UUCP>, cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) writes: > cause, having seen the drunk weave.) Instead, the police caught > him at a random check point, where you are required to prove you > inocence! This is the problem. I have encountered police drunk driving checkpoints a few times in Maryland, and in each case the officer stopped me, asked "Excuse me sir, but have you had anything to drink this evening?", accepted my "No, sir, I have not." and waved my on. This is the dreaded police state in which we are required to prove our innocence in order to escape harrassment? C'mon! Maybe in your neighbourhood... I may work for the Army, but my long hair and beard don't make me look like a policeman's ideal citizen. D. Glenn Arthur Jr. ..!seismo!dolqci!hqhomes!glenn
sewilco@mecc.UUCP (Scot E. Wilcoxon) (07/27/86)
In article <2896@sdcrdcf.UUCP> mpinkett@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mike Pinkett) writes: >In my opinion, having 5 or more policeman standing in one stationary >spot will not be as effective as having them out on the road. Do you >think that possibly less damage would have been done if a moving >policeman could have spotted the driver before then? They could certainly >cover a lot more ground, and would be out for other useful things like >helping people whose car has stopped before they get mugged, etc. OK, more of the almost-obvious... A policeman in one place will have cars passing by him at 30-60 MPH. A policeman on the road will be traveling with the cars near him. The stationary policeman will see more cars unless the moving policeman is moving 30-60 MPH faster or slower than traffic is moving. (55 MPH + 30 MPH faster = 85 MPH? 55+60=115 MPH!) Now, again, which policeman will see more cars? Therefore, which is more likely to spot odd behavior of a larger number of drivers? Of course, if they'd rather cover ground looking for stalled cars then they'll have to keep moving. It's a matter of priorities... Are you starting to realize why some police listen to CB 9, and cities like to have people with mobile phones pointing out to them where a problem presently exists? There are stopped and moving police cars every few miles (minutes) in a metropolitan area, they just have to find a problem. I sort of assume a real policeman in each state probably figured all this out sometime in the past decades. If you want to influence police procedures join your Police Auxiliary and learn the existing procedures. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon Minn Ed Comp Corp {quest,dicome,meccts}!mecc!sewilco 45 03 N 93 08 W (612)481-3507 {{caip!meccts},ihnp4,philabs}!mecc!sewilco NASA:"Earth uninhabitable in 500 years." Welcome to tropical Minnesota.
mo@well.UUCP (Maurice Weitman) (08/01/86)
In article <2896@sdcrdcf.UUCP> mpinkett@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mike Pinkett) writes: > >In my opinion, having 5 or more policeman standing in one stationary >spot will not be as effective as having them out on the road. Do you >think that possibly less damage would have been done if a moving >policeman could have spotted the driver before then? They could certainly >cover a lot more ground, and would be out for other useful things like >helping people whose car has stopped before they get mugged, etc. >-- I might be missing something obvious, but it seems to me that the checkpoint, as abhorent as they may be in other respects, has a much better chance of catching a drunk driver than moving patrol cars, in that many more cars will pass the checkpoint than a patrol car will pass in the same interval. As a civil-libertarian, and one whose life was touched by a drunk driver, I'm conflicted about this, and don't have a clear answer on this, but I do generally support the idea of visible vigilance against drunk drivers. I also think that the checkpoints can be done with respect and a minimum of inconvenience to the innocent. -- Quote: "The police aren't here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder." Mayor Richard P. Daly, Chicago, 1968 Disclaimer: Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors. Maurice Weitman 9600 ..!{dual,hplabs,lll-crg,ptsfa,glacier}!well!mo | 57600 (415)549-0280 voice (415)549-0388 modem-2400 this^is not 300 mcimail mweitman a pipe 110 P. O. Box 10019 Berkeley, CA 94709