An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, way back when it was like driving around in fast tanks.

That aspect certainly made it safer than today's fuel efficient cars...well, except for the lack of seat belts that caused numerous deaths from bouncing around inside the mini-tank like a rag-doll. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader forcing the government to do something about it.

Are you and KG the same person? You both share what seems to be at least a few opinions, along with that unwavering sense of correctness despite nearly the entire board telling you why you're wrong.

I"m not expecting a reasonable response.

You aren't expecting a reasonable response because you think the only reasonable response is to agree with you. The strange thing is that law is supposed to make people safer, yet even you admit that the regulations about fuel efficiency actually make people less safe. Somebody is making money off of the laws that require cars to get better gas mileage, and they have blood on their hands.

Yet, somehow, I am unreasonable because I think that is wrong.

You can't prove me wrong so why wouldn't you agree?

Don't get too hopeful, one of the more dangerous things about small fuel-efficient cars are the road beasts that still prowl the roads and could flatten one like a pancake.

Do you think there's enough public backlash about fuel-efficient cars to warrant such a ridiculous argument?

So I notice you didn't mention the regulations passed that required the major car makers to install seatbelts as standard equipment.

Are you willing to argue that it never saved any lives? Of course as I said before I can't prove it, people aren't part of a statistic when you're uninjured in a car accident.

But then of course you can't prove anything either, one would hope we can be honest about the probability of it.

You are not making sense.

I didn't mention seat belt laws because we were discussion CAFE standards and how they make cars more dangerous. Does the use of seat belts increase a person's chance of surviving an accident? Yes. Did seat belts exist before there was a regulation? Yes. Did people buy cars with people made laws that forced car manufacturers to take away people's choices by forcing them to buy them?

I will let you answer that one.

 

[bobcollum]

You aren't expecting a reasonable response because you think the only reasonable response is to agree with you. The strange thing is that law is supposed to make people safer, yet even you admit that the regulations about fuel efficiency actually make people less safe. Somebody is making money off of the laws that require cars to get better gas mileage, and they have blood on their hands.

Yet, somehow, I am unreasonable because I think that is wrong.

You can't prove me wrong so why wouldn't you agree?

Don't get too hopeful, one of the more dangerous things about small fuel-efficient cars are the road beasts that still prowl the roads and could flatten one like a pancake.

Do you think there's enough public backlash about fuel-efficient cars to warrant such a ridiculous argument?

So I notice you didn't mention the regulations passed that required the major car makers to install seatbelts as standard equipment.

Are you willing to argue that it never saved any lives? Of course as I said before I can't prove it, people aren't part of a statistic when you're uninjured in a car accident.

But then of course you can't prove anything either, one would hope we can be honest about the probability of it.

You are not making sense.

I didn't mention seat belt laws because we were discussion CAFE standards and how they make cars more dangerous. Does the use of seat belts increase a person's chance of surviving an accident? Yes. Did seat belts exist before there was a regulation? Yes. Did people buy cars with people made laws that forced car manufacturers to take away people's choices by forcing them to buy them?

I will let you answer that one.

Initially your challenge was to name one regulation that has saved any lives, I'm offering up that one...I'm just waiting for you to challenge the idea, which I'm sure you will in one way or another.

 

[Flopper]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

And what are we to conclude from this thread? Unless a regulation can be proved to save lives it should not exist? We should not regulate nuclear power plants until one blows and wipes out a city? We should abolish health department regulations to see to if we have an increase in deaths and illness from improper preparation and storage of food?

It may come as a surprise to you but most businesses actively support government regulations. From the restaurant that displays a health dept. inspection with a AAA grade on it's wall to the nuclear power plant that has documented independent inspections verifying their safety procedures. In a lawsuit, one the best defenses a business has is often government inspections and certifications that safety and health standards have been met.

In China, they have extremely poor regulations, and some companies, ship us bad food. Then we buy less food from all Chinese companies. So the good ones all suffer because of the bad ones. So high-quality companies tend to want the industry regulated to punish the bad ones, and prevent them from harming the reputation of the industry. And that's good for consumers as well.

I'm not saying all regulation is good, but by and large it protects us and rewards the good companies. We need to make it better, not get rid of it.

 

[g5000]

Given that DUI standards actually increase alcohol related traffic fatalities any discussion of drunken driving regulations automatically fail.

Please provide evidence DUI standards increase alcohol related traffic fatalities.

 

[g5000]

Researchers conclude all sorts of things.

This is the most asinine statement of this entire topic, and that is really saying something.

 

[g5000]

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths.

A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;

A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;

A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;

A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;

And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.

As early as 1705, doctors knew
that inhaling cotton dust caused breathing problems in mill workers.5

For more than two and a half centuries, they knew.

Scientists now
understand that cotton dust contains toxin-producing bacteria and that long-term exposure
often results in chronic wheezing and other breathing difficulties.6 The resulting disease—
referred to as byssinosis or brown lung disease—impairs lung function and debilitates
affected workers, often forcing them to retire early. Complications arising from the
condition can sometimes be fatal.

Byssinosis was a major problem among textile workers in the United States until OSHA
took action to reduce cotton dust exposure. During the early 1970s, more than 50,000
textile workers suffered from the disease at any given time.7 Depending on the type of
factory they worked in, between 7 and 26 percent of workers were affected.8 In 1978,
OSHA issued its first cotton dust regulation, limiting the concentration of the dust allowed
in textile factory air.

The rule to combat ambient cotton dust proved remarkably effective in improving worker
health. A 1978 Department of Labor report to Congress estimated that there were 51,290
cases of byssinosis in the industry at any given time and estimated that prevalence would
decline to 29,245 after the rule was implemented. But the rule was far more effective than
predicted. A study conducted in 1983 found that there were only 1,710 cases, a 97 percent
decline from just a few years earlier.9

The textile industry had long opposed cotton dust regulation. As government attention to
byssinosis grew during the 1960s and 1970s, industry groups denied the existence of the
disease altogether. During the cotton dust rulemaking process, a spokesman for the
American Textile Manufacturers Institute insisted that cotton dust-related health problems
affected only 1 percent of textile workers, stating “The problem is grossly exaggerated.” He
also claimed that “[t]here has not been a known death from byssinosis,”10 although studies
conducted as early as 1910 conclusively demonstrated that the disease was fatal for some
workers.11 In 1981, shortly after the standard took effect, the American Textile
Manufacturers Institute unsuccessfully sued OSHA, claiming that the costs of the regulation
did not outweigh the benefits.12

Complying with the cotton dust regulation ended up costing much less than expected, and
offered the added benefit of increasing productivity.

Before government action, an average of 90 fatalities related to
trench cave-ins occurred each year.24
In 1989, OSHA issued the excavation standard, requiring construction sites to use
protective methods in order to stop trenches from caving in. The simplest method of
protection involves digging trenches with sloped walls, which prevents falling earth from
enveloping the workers. Other methods involve creating temporary walls on the trench to
prevent a cave-in or placing steel plates inside the trench to create a protected space for
workers should a cave-in occur.
Since the excavation standard took effect, fatalities related to trench cave-ins have dropped
significantly. An analysis conducted a decade after the rule was enacted found that the
average annual number of deaths from cave-ins had fallen from 90 to 70. Adjusting for a 20
percent increase in construction activity during the time period, this represents a 40
percent decrease in the fatality rate.25 Trenching protection is now standard practice on
construction sites that involve excavation. In comments solicited more than a decade after
the regulation was enacted, industry groups expressed general support for the regulation.26

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

Link.

 

[Old Rocks]

You really want to shift to something besides cars if you want to prove your point because I can easily prove regulations actually kill people when we are talking about cars.

Auto Deaths a Side Effect of Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards

Crumple zones are smaller than they used to be because government regulations require cars to be of lower weight to meet gas mileage standards.

So crash test standards have never saved one life, then?

Let me hear you say it.

Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.

Q, my father had a wrecker service for years. Yes, the regulations have made the present cars much safer. From personal real time observations of wrecked cars and people from the 60's through 2000. You flap yappers are just about as ******* dumb as they come when you make statements like this.

 

[ladyliberal]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

A few questions:

1) Will you withdraw your suggestion that people who take you up on your challenge are "idiots"? One can hardly claim to fairly weigh an argument that one has previously deemed idiotic.

2) What sources of authority will you accept? Peer-reviewed academic studies? Government studies? Foreign studies? One must rely on some external authority, unless you expect one of us forum-dwellers to collect, document and analyze a large set of data ourselves in reply to your challenge.

3) How widely are you defining regulation? Historical regulation? Foreign regulation? Economic regulation? Criminal laws (i.e., drug laws that ban deadly drugs)? Excise taxes on deadly products (i.e., on cigarettes)?

4) What standard of proof do you require? Historical proof seems impossible, since you make a counterfactual requirement ("You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die..."). Mathematical proof seems impossible due to the inherent lack of mathematical rigor. Experimental proof seems unlikely, since very few if any life-and-death regulations are imposed as part of a controlled experiment. Would you then accept statistical or econometric analysis, or is there another discipline which you deem appropriate?

5) Are you asking for a single regulation that saves lives, or proof that all regulations in total save lives? Your original post asks for the former, but the latter is implied in your post #8. The latter seems impossible to prove, since one cannot review all regulations in the history of the world.

6) What is your response to existing arguments that quantify the number of lives saved by regulations, as in the works cited in Orden Jurídico Nacional
or
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~arunku/files/CEL899_2011/Value%20of%20life_Graham.pdf
?


Depending on how you respond to those specifics, I would consider offering the following regulations:

1) Bans on deadly illegal drugs.
2) Taxes and other restrictions on cigarettes
3) Speed limits on public roads
4) Various EPA, OSHA

1. Idiots are people that insist government regulations are responsible for saving lives. Regulations do not save lives anymore than laws against murder and theft prevent either of those. Feel free to take up the challenge to prove that rules actually do things they can't if you want.
2. I will accept any source you want to cite, I just reserve the right to cite other sources to disprove whatever your source proves.
3. Anything you want, rules don't save lives.
4. Like I said, site whatever you want. I reserve the right to find counter arguments to anything you cite though.
5. If you find one example, and prove that that regulation saves lives, I will admit I am wrong. We will not have any further need for discussion unless you try to argue that all regulations save lives.
6. Cost benefit analysis is not proof of lives saved, it is a statistical analysis that examines the cost of a regulation over the projected increase in lives. It is, at best, a statistical nightmare to use those to prove actual saved lies though the numbers do weigh in your favor.

I think you are missing my point though. There is no doubt that some regulations are beneficial, and cost benefit analysis are the best way to measure the potential benefit against the cost. Nonetheless, regulations don't actually save lives because Murphy is still running around fracking with everything.


Now to your examples.

1. Illegal drugs are more available, and less expensive, than they were before they were illegal. I think that illegal drugs are actually the best argument against regulation since it is so easy to prove regulations don't actually accomplish anything simply because they exist.
2. Cigarette use has declined the last fey years, but long term trends are a bit harder to pin down. The percentage of change is rather small, despite massive increases in taxes. I think it would be hard to prove a correlation, much less causation.
3. Automobile fatalities have gone down, but it would harder to attribute that to speed limits than most people realize. Feel free to give it a shot.
4. EPA/OSHA regulations are probably your best bet. It is pretty easy to use them to show the difference between the number of deaths before they existed verses the number afterwards.

Nonetheless, I can easily show that, once we understood the actual dangers of industrial pollution, most companies developed their own standards without government regulation. The larger companies then used the drive for government regulation to drive competition out of the business. Rent seeking doesn't benefit the public, it just benefits the companies that receive government support.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions and comments. Unfortunately, some of your responses have left me more confused than ever.

1. How can you insist that people taking the opposite position are idiotic yet seriously contemplate the possibility that they are correct (4). Are you conceding that there is a serious position that your own position is idiotic?

I will not be taking you up on your challenge to prove that something does what it cannot. That which cannot be done is not done.

2. Given that you later dismissed peer-reviewed research with "Researchers conclude all sorts of things", I find it difficult to believe you intend to offer reasoned counterarguments to citations.

3. I think you are being overly generous in your definition here. One of your arguments seems to be that in the absence of government regulation corporations will self-regulate. However, corporate regulations are of course a form of regulation. Presumably you mean to limit yourself at least to government regulations.

4. You seem to be endorsing any standard of proof here, including statistical proof. However, later in your post you seem to dismiss statistical analysis on methodological grounds.

5. How do you square this standard with your earlier counterargument that even if a particular regulation did save lives other regulations cost them? I will certainly not try to argue that all regulations save lives. I would take the opposite position, that not all regulations save lives.

6. In this section and later in the thread, you seem open to the notion that regulations save lives. As such (and given the overwhelming support for my side's position, that some regulations save lives) I'm not particularly interested in introducing additional evidence, beyond the studies I already cited, that regulations save lives.

I may indeed be missing your point. You are after all the ultimate authority on what your point is.

Murphy's law does not really have any predictive power. For example, it would predict that my computer would crash before I finished typing this sentence (as it could, after all) but... it didn't. Similarly, Murphy's law might predict that any regulation will fail 100% of the time but... they don't.

Regarding your response to my examples:

1. Even if it were true that drugs become more available after they are outlawed, it does not follow that the law makes them more available (as you yourself noted, "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" is a logical fallacy). In any event, this is not true in general. For instance, during Prohibition, when alcohol was an illegal drug, alcohol use decreased dramatically (though of course it did not drop to zero). I'm not endorsing drug criminalization, but I do think it tends to decrease drug use pretty consistently.

2. As far as I know long-term trends in cigarette use are pretty easy to examine statistically. See, eg, Bulletin on Narcotics - Volume LIII, Nos. 1 and 2, 2001 - Page 0

3. I don't intend to suggest that this is easily demonstrated, or to claim that I can demonstrate it independently in a forum post (indeed, I said I couldn't). There are a number of academic and government studies that purport to do exactly that, and I would refer you to them.

4. Were studies merely to examine mortality following regulation, we would again find ourselves with the problem of establishing causation from correlation. Good studies go beyond this with statistical and other controls. For example, some studies use animal models to examine (animal) mortality associated with environmental factors in a controlled setting (http://regulation2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/04/phpFy.pdf).

Unfortunately, I find it difficult to navigate threads that are as lengthy as this one has become, so I can't promise that I will see any reply you might offer. Thank you.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

"An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations."

I guess you could say the TSA is a Government Regulation

Have they ever stopped any actual Terrorists from getting on a Plane ?

Oh, wait ... they stopped this one

Another Terrorist Stopped by Vigilant TSA Officer: 4-Year-Old Boy in Leg Braces - Crimesider - CBS News

or maybe this one

Kirkland 6-year-old patted down by TSA agents | KING5.com Seattle

or was it this one

Overhead Bin - TSA asks 95-year-old woman to remove diaper for pat-down

or maybe this one

TSA Gropes 8-Year Old Boy As Possible Terrorist/Security Threat, Mother Outraged :

Yes, the Government goes way too far in many things..................


.

 

[sealybobo]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

Who would support deregulation of the mining industry?
The companies who own mines.

Did you know that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada? Do you know why they aren't allowed? Because in Canada, it is illegal to knowingly lie on the News. I listen to the Thom Hartmann show or the Randi Rhodes show on AM radio. They aren't called the Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes NEWS, and neither should Fox. Its misleading.

You need to realize why they want to deregulate. Not to pass on the savings to you, that's for sure.

Deregulation of coal industry behind fatal accidents in US mines

 

[sealybobo]

Fact is, our lakes and rivers would be toxic if it weren't for regulations. And we'd all have cancer or led poisoning or asbestos poisoning.

 

[uscitizen]

[

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Do laws against murder prevent murders? Do people honestly think that, without building codes, companies would not build safe houses?

.

Yes and yes.

I'd like to live in his head for about an hour just to see what it feels like.

No you wouldn't.

 

[sealybobo]

And notice that Republicans will always point out stupid nonsense regulations but then those aren't the regulations that they are going to remove when they get into power. Instead they will remove important regulations like the ones that prevented the banks from gambling our 401K's on the stock market. Or the regulation that said banks had to keep so much money on reserve in case of a crash. But removed that regulation and then we had a crash and those banks didn't have enough money on hand and so we had to bail them out.

Republicans are sinister. They will show you some bullshit regulations but then go after important ones. Remember that.

 

[uscitizen]

Fact is, our lakes and rivers would be toxic if it weren't for regulations. And we'd all have cancer or led poisoning or asbestos poisoning.

Water quality in most US waters have improved since the damned EPA and clean water acts and such worked on them.

Anyone who actually believes that industries will self regulate to the benefit of the USA are delusional. Very delusional.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

snip..

Did you know that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada? Do you know why they aren't allowed? Because in Canada, it is illegal to knowingly lie on the News. I listen to the Thom Hartmann show or the Randi Rhodes show on AM radio. They aren't called the Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes NEWS, and neither should Fox. Its misleading.

Now that is one regulation I would embrace, all media would be charged with a crime if they lied.....

But then 50% of all Media would in jail.... maybe more....

If CBS, NBC or ABC was not on the Television every night, what would people do with their life?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

And what are we to conclude from this thread? Unless a regulation can be proved to save lives it should not exist? We should not regulate nuclear power plants until one blows and wipes out a city? We should abolish health department regulations to see to if we have an increase in deaths and illness from improper preparation and storage of food?

It may come as a surprise to you but most businesses actively support government regulations. From the restaurant that displays a health dept. inspection with a AAA grade on it's wall to the nuclear power plant that has documented independent inspections verifying their safety procedures. In a lawsuit, one the best defenses a business has is often government inspections and certifications that safety and health standards have been met.

In China, they have extremely poor regulations, and some companies, ship us bad food. Then we buy less food from all Chinese companies. So the good ones all suffer because of the bad ones. So high-quality companies tend to want the industry regulated to punish the bad ones, and prevent them from harming the reputation of the industry. And that's good for consumers as well.

I'm not saying all regulation is good, but by and large it protects us and rewards the good companies. We need to make it better, not get rid of it.

Yep, that is what you can conclude, if you think attacking straw men makes you look smart. Regulations do have a purpose. What I object to is the assertion that they have some sort of mystical power. All they are are words on a piece of paper, they don't save lives, anymore than the Bible makes people better.

What matters are people, not words on a piece of paper.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes and yes.

I'd like to live in his head for about an hour just to see what it feels like.

No you wouldn't.

I would debate politics at lunch with the head of the Michigan for Ron Paul campaign guy. He was a nice guy but would say the same thing as this guy about regulations. And no matter how much he tried, no, I could never understand what he was seeing. It was not logical. But to him it made perfect sense. Ron Paul Libertarians are convinced.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this.

How does the government "support them in this" ? Do they hire lawyers for them? Please explain.

 

[sealybobo]

snip..

Did you know that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada? Do you know why they aren't allowed? Because in Canada, it is illegal to knowingly lie on the News. I listen to the Thom Hartmann show or the Randi Rhodes show on AM radio. They aren't called the Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes NEWS, and neither should Fox. Its misleading.

Now that is one regulation I would embrace, all media would be charged with a crime if they lied.....

But then 50% of all Media would in jail.... maybe more....

If CBS, NBC or ABC was not on the Television every night, what would people do with their life?

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Given that DUI standards actually increase alcohol related traffic fatalities any discussion of drunken driving regulations automatically fail.

Please provide evidence DUI standards increase alcohol related traffic fatalities.

Don't you read the fracking thread?

Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking

Not only did alcohol related fatalities go up after the DUI standard went from .10 to .08 a lack of enforcement and a massive drop in DUI arrests in Nashville due to budget problems did not result in a spike in accidents.

Officers working that Friday on extra-duty DUI enforcement — paid for with a grant through the Governor’s Highway Safety Office — were called off to other duties by Saturday. For the next two weekends, there was no extra-duty DUI enforcement under the grant, which is funded through the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. The Governor’s Highway Safety Office distributes grant monies to jurisdictions throughout the state.
The number of hours officers worked on that grant dropped by about two-thirds — from 1,582 in April to just 560 in May — and didn’t rise above 1,000 hours again until September.
Predictably, there has been a concomitant decline in DUI arrests. So far in 2010, some 1,790 fewer people have been arrested for driving under the influence than at the same time last year. Through Dec. 4, 2009, according to police records, 5,518 DUI arrests were made. This year so far, that number is 3,728.
Incongruously, the number of fatal crashes caused by impaired drivers hasn’t increased. So far this year, 40 percent of the 69 total fatal crashes have involved alcohol, according to police spokesman Don Aaron, with toxicology results in eight of the crashes still pending. In 2009, impaired drivers caused 41 percent of the 64 fatal crashes; in 2008, 36 percent of 67; in 2007, 33 percent of 67; and in 2006, 39 percent of 88.

Flood, funding woes lead to drop in DUI arrests in 2010 | Nashville City Paper

Please, keep telling me that i am the crazy one, it relaxes me.