TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
trinitachi wrote:This sheit real serious. Somebody i know got caught last night for excessive drinking.. All yuh think is jes alcohol abuse yuh getting charged for, they charging yuh one time for dangerous driving and endangering the public. Not only that when he was put in holding cell, he had to pay a jp then he has a courtcase on monday and has to pay for representation. All this will amount close to 14-15000 not 8000. Jes some food for thought ppl. I think he's the first to get caught and legallly charged
trinitachi wrote:he was caught by a road block by maritime early this morning...he was actuallly so drunk he didnt know where he was headed and stumbled into a road block..lol.
trinitachi wrote:this is a mere example to show emphasis on how serious the situation is so ppl can take heed. Thank you critic, but your comments aren't necessary.
EVA Unit-01 wrote:hoss, y alyuh fitin dong d breathalyzers? it doh matta if dey trained or not, it easy 2 use! i learn in 5 mins...
wheda is polixe or vagrant who stop yuh, man shudnt be drinkin dat much & drivin drunk IMO. i doh wuh me or my car hit by som drunkunt, i'm sure evry1 else wud agree...
noobie wrote:What's interesting is that this is a first world legislation, but implemented in a third world country.
What it basically says is that Trinidadians should absolutely STOP liming and living their lives as they are accustomed to.
On a Friday and on a Weekend they should all stay at home.
It's a fact that going out and liming, and drinking is what most Trinidadians do. Whether it is by the beach, at a friend's house or patronising one of the numerous bars,restaurants,resorts,parties etc. in the country. And that's not even getting into Carnival.
With this new legislation, what we're saying is all that needs to absolutely stop.
This is neither reasonable, nor in anyone's interest (except whomever is providing breathalyser equipment and training to the government).
Most people do not drink for drinking's sake, they are what we would term social drinkers.
If people actually did as the legislation demands, then you will see many businesses begin to close, and the workers in those businesses will be on the breadline. Bars etc. make money off their drinks, not the price at the door.
Our transport system is a total and utter shambles. Unreliable, unsafe and completely retrograde. You cannot call a taxi after 8pm in this country. You cannot stop your car anywhere to take a nap, even in a carpark if you there for more than ten minutes sleeping you are likely to be robbed or worse. Not everyone goes to lime at Trotters with its secure parking and 'Arrive Alive' crew to drive you home and deal with your car (Anyone know the COST of this service btw?).
So once again, we have a third world johnny-come-lately without any of the infrastructure of it's larger neighbours wanting to enact legislation in such a way that doesn't fit with the local realities and culture, and then proclaiming it has done something great for the people.
As usual, there was no feasibility study or analysis of the realities facing citizens done. There was just a bunch of lobbying and sensationalism, and a few stand to benefit from all this. As has already been posted in this thread, you have the rumor of policemen taking bribes, so the legislation has also furthered our local corruption giving another avenue for unscrupulous civil servants.
And in the midst of it all :http://newsday.co.tt/news/0,113893.html was that drunk driving? Does anyone know? Have any autopsies been done?
Anything empirical to start tracking trends and results of this expensive legislation that has been passed? Because we know nothing was done prior to the legislation being passed...is anything being done after? At the end of 2010 is success going to be claimed if we have 40 less road fatalities than the year before?
hustla_ambition101 wrote:
I hope when some drunking kant speeding down the highway crashes into you or a member of your family you do not come here and whine like a beyotch, the "Trini culture" of which you speak needs to change, people do not need to "take a drink" every facking where they go. It's morons like you who complain about kidnappers, robbers and murderers but see no problem with driving under the influence. Change your third world mentality my friend as it is only when the mentality of the people change then the country will reach first world status.
hustla_ambition101 wrote:noobie wrote:What's interesting is that this is a first world legislation, but implemented in a third world country.
What it basically says is that Trinidadians should absolutely STOP liming and living their lives as they are accustomed to.
On a Friday and on a Weekend they should all stay at home.
It's a fact that going out and liming, and drinking is what most Trinidadians do. Whether it is by the beach, at a friend's house or patronising one of the numerous bars,restaurants,resorts,parties etc. in the country. And that's not even getting into Carnival.
With this new legislation, what we're saying is all that needs to absolutely stop.
This is neither reasonable, nor in anyone's interest (except whomever is providing breathalyser equipment and training to the government).
Most people do not drink for drinking's sake, they are what we would term social drinkers.
If people actually did as the legislation demands, then you will see many businesses begin to close, and the workers in those businesses will be on the breadline. Bars etc. make money off their drinks, not the price at the door.
Our transport system is a total and utter shambles. Unreliable, unsafe and completely retrograde. You cannot call a taxi after 8pm in this country. You cannot stop your car anywhere to take a nap, even in a carpark if you there for more than ten minutes sleeping you are likely to be robbed or worse. Not everyone goes to lime at Trotters with its secure parking and 'Arrive Alive' crew to drive you home and deal with your car (Anyone know the COST of this service btw?).
So once again, we have a third world johnny-come-lately without any of the infrastructure of it's larger neighbours wanting to enact legislation in such a way that doesn't fit with the local realities and culture, and then proclaiming it has done something great for the people.
As usual, there was no feasibility study or analysis of the realities facing citizens done. There was just a bunch of lobbying and sensationalism, and a few stand to benefit from all this. As has already been posted in this thread, you have the rumor of policemen taking bribes, so the legislation has also furthered our local corruption giving another avenue for unscrupulous civil servants.
And in the midst of it all :http://newsday.co.tt/news/0,113893.html was that drunk driving? Does anyone know? Have any autopsies been done?
Anything empirical to start tracking trends and results of this expensive legislation that has been passed? Because we know nothing was done prior to the legislation being passed...is anything being done after? At the end of 2010 is success going to be claimed if we have 40 less road fatalities than the year before?
I hope when some drunking kant speeding down the highway crashes into you or a member of your family you do not come here and whine like a beyotch, the "Trini culture" of which you speak needs to change, people do not need to "take a drink" every facking where they go. It's morons like you who complain about kidnappers, robbers and murderers but see no problem with driving under the influence. Change your third world mentality my friend as it is only when the mentality of the people change then the country will reach first world status.
d spike wrote:While I agree with Hustla, I won't be as harsh in my response.
Noobie, can you honestly say that you are comfortable the way things are? If not, then you would agree that changes must be made. Drunk driving kills (unless you want to argue this point), so a stop to this must be made. Hopefully, the same impetus to bring in equipment, train officers and renew legislation that we see here will be applied in other areas, such as murder, kidnappings and burglary.
noobie wrote:d spike wrote:While I agree with Hustla, I won't be as harsh in my response.
Noobie, can you honestly say that you are comfortable the way things are? If not, then you would agree that changes must be made. Drunk driving kills (unless you want to argue this point), so a stop to this must be made. Hopefully, the same impetus to bring in equipment, train officers and renew legislation that we see here will be applied in other areas, such as murder, kidnappings and burglary.
I'll leave off responding to both of these posts directly for now, because I think there needs to be some level of rational thinking about the issue.
My question still stands...
We're talking about legislation that affects everyone in a country.
Alcohol kills. Why not ban it outright?
(same with smoking incidentally, but the topic is about the breathalyser)
And again I say it is a serious question, and it would be good of you to answer.
d spike wrote:noobie wrote:d spike wrote:While I agree with Hustla, I won't be as harsh in my response.
Noobie, can you honestly say that you are comfortable the way things are? If not, then you would agree that changes must be made. Drunk driving kills (unless you want to argue this point), so a stop to this must be made. Hopefully, the same impetus to bring in equipment, train officers and renew legislation that we see here will be applied in other areas, such as murder, kidnappings and burglary.
I'll leave off responding to both of these posts directly for now, because I think there needs to be some level of rational thinking about the issue.
My question still stands...
We're talking about legislation that affects everyone in a country.
Alcohol kills. Why not ban it outright?
(same with smoking incidentally, but the topic is about the breathalyser)
And again I say it is a serious question, and it would be good of you to answer.
Banning alcohol outright isn't the answer. That is similar to the call for banning Gramoxzone/Paraquat because many suicides were committed with it.
The problem at hand is "drinking and driving", two separate actions that can be divorced from one another - hence the topic.
"Alcohol kills. Why not ban it outright?" Yes, alcohol can cause health problems, but this is due to the abuse rather than the use of alcohol. A glass of wine a day is actually beneficial. (Depending on how ugly your wife is, you might even argue that a bottle of puncheon before bedtime is actually beneficial to your marriage.)
Attempting to curtail people's activities in public to ensure the safety of others can be argued to be one of the responsibilities of government, however, saying what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your home is a totally different thing - and much harder to oversee.
"If you drink, don't drive" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking, and leaves you free to perform your acts of insobriety - as long as it doesn't involve motor-cars - and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms that they are so fussy about, while making them well aware of their responsibilities that accompany such rights.
d spike wrote:
Attempting to curtail people's activities in public to ensure the safety of others can be argued to be one of the responsibilities of government, however, saying what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your home is a totally different thing - and much harder to oversee.
"If you drink, don't drive" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking, and leaves you free to perform your acts of insobriety - as long as it doesn't involve motor-cars - and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms that they are so fussy about, while making them well aware of their responsibilities that accompany such rights.
noobie wrote:d spike wrote:
Attempting to curtail people's activities in public to ensure the safety of others can be argued to be one of the responsibilities of government, however, saying what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your home is a totally different thing - and much harder to oversee.
"If you drink, don't drive" is a perfectly acceptable way of thinking, and leaves you free to perform your acts of insobriety - as long as it doesn't involve motor-cars - and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedoms that they are so fussy about, while making them well aware of their responsibilities that accompany such rights.
Let's say first that I don't drink, and I don't smoke. So take that emotion and misplaced self righteousness out of the scene as well.
It is one of the responsibilities of Government, but laws and legislation also have to serve the wider public interest, as well as protect the rights and the safety of citizens.Especially if they are to be effective.
You don't have legislation in a vacuum.
The current legislation really isn't suitable to our environment. If the idea was to stop Drunk Driving and to protect the lives of people on the road, as you say...then it would have been better to put moderate penalites in place,have an extended period of public awareness and education (By government, not some private entity) and consequently increase police patrols along the highways and major thoroughfares.
It baffles me how we all accept the fact that most of us have never used a breathalyser, many don't even know what it looks like. Yet this legislation can cost you 15,000 and JAIL! If we were not talking about something as emotionally and morally charged as a Breathalyser...if this was about some other new device would we be so complacent?
Another thing that would save MANY more lives than any breathalyser legislation is to fix the country's roads and highways. The uneven road around NP, the bailey bridge that's been there for months..and various other junctions and known accident areas in the country have claimed countless lives and contributed to many accidents. Yet they remain.
SPEED is known to be the greatest killer on our roads, especially when coupled with the horrid road surface. Yet we did not implement radar guns did we? We still have street racing regularly in various parts of the country. Is it that no one was lobbying government for radar gun legislation??
Instead we have 'breathalyser' legislation passed, and we all hail it as some sort of silver bullet that is going to stop road deaths.
Yet we never had any evidence to show that the majority of road fatalities were caused by drunk driving in the first place. In fact the acting supt. of Police said that less than half of road fatalities could be attributed to drunk driving.How much money did we spend proclaiming this law?
With a runaway murder rate and the state of lawlessness do you feel safe hopping into a taxi to go home?
Can you call up a Taxi from some reputable service to pick you up from a club at 3 in the morning after a carnival fete?
No...you can do none of these things.I would say that the majority of people don't car pool in Trinidad, and don't have any 'designated driver'.
In one fell swoop, and without any holistic system in place, you are trying to change over 60 years of culture, and at a point where crime is at an all time high. Foolishness.
When the little man in barrackpore go out to take a nip at the corner bar and get held for drunk driving and cannot pay 8000 and ends up in jail with murderers, men there for armed robbery..in the same Remand yard as a man who shot and raped a teenager...how is that helping us on the roads? Do we have seperate detention buildings for varying degrees of crimes such as this: http://www.clark.wa.gov/corrections/offenders/dui.html
No. We don't have jack sh**. But we have breathalyser.
Let's not even get into a blood test, which is another possibility under first world country's DUI laws. You trust a cop in a local station to stick you with a needle to take your blood? (I don't even know if that is part of the legislation locally...Do you?).
It is unrealistic, and it simply will not work. It is doing things all backwards. You trying to build a roof without any walls or foundation. And because of what seems to be a very unsophisticated electorate, it isn't possible to have reasoned debate on the topic. Because if you not for the breathalyser legislation, then you for drunk driving.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests
" tone concreted in this thread
