California Teen Cell Phone Use Ban While Driving

[kandrathe]

Nicole Richie drove down a high way the wrong way while high on drugs and intoxicated. Then she got caught driving on a suspended license again. She got sentenced to 4 days in jail. Last year a man from MA hit the headlines for being caught Driving Under the Influence for some unreal number of times (~20 I believe). Luckily he didn't kill anyone over the years.

I'm not sure you'll convince me that we're in a tyrannical age of outlawing common sense.

I'm not espousing a police state; I do believe there needs to be an eye to maintaining that fine line. And I know there's some nonsense laws out there that cause a real hassle from time to time (like giving bad cops an excuse to pull over people like Maitre on dubious charges). But I do have a very hard time saying 'don't ban cell phone usage for teenagers' when they are operating a 2 ton slab of metal at high speeds. Those are hard words to eat when someone you know gets hit.

Cheers,

Munk

PS. With that said, I should say I'm a fan of going very lightly on first time offenders, and going harsh on multiple repeat offenders for breaking laws that endanger other people. Everyone makes mistakes, and no amount of laws can stop harsh tragedies from happening. But targeting a group which has a high record of causing these kinds of incidents doesn't seem that terrible to me.

Like how effectively underage smoking or drinking is enforced, which is also illegal. I agree it is unreal how DWI/DUI/Driving on suspended license cases are adjudicated, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Nicole Ritchie, OJ, Paris, Brittany, etc are seemingly above the law and can afford to buy a different form of justice than the common person.

I'm not advocating using cell phones while driving. I'm saying that we don't need to create 100 laws to ban various forms of bad driving, just make bad driving an offense. Wait, it is. It is called a] inattentive driving, or worse b] careless driving, or worse yet c] reckless driving.

So, eating while driving, putting on makeup while driving, making out with your girlfriend, talking on a cell phone, text messaging, watching a DVD player, fiddling with the radio, taking off your sweater, digging a pack of gum out of your pocket, reading a book, and folding origami are all covered by my interpretation of the existing laws. What we are seeing in these cell phone laws is politicians pandering to voters, rather pressuring the department of public safety better enforcing the existing laws.

Maybe if we spent some money and effort into hiring more cops, we could better police the roads.

[Munkay]

Like how effectively underage smoking or drinking is enforced, which is also illegal. I agree it is unreal how DWI/DUI/Driving on suspended license cases are adjudicated, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Nicole Ritchie, OJ, Paris, Brittany, etc are seemingly above the law and can afford to buy a different form of justice than the common person.

And the degenerate from MA with ~20 DUI's? Does he have the same fame and money?

To (re)quote your first post:

I just fear that soon you will know people with a "rap sheet" a mile long... Filled with such things as staring at a women for more than 10 seconds, using a cell phone while driving, and watering your lawn on the wrong day of the week.

Your fear of a police state where every little thing is written as right or wrong is hyperbolic Kandrathe. We're talking about a law that is preventing risky behavior while operating a piece of 2 ton machinery. As ideal as it would be to just outlaw reckless driving, it isn't enough to leave it ambiguous. A couple weeks ago I read a poll online that said 80% of drivers polled considered themselves to be in the top 30% of drivers; Whether or not that poll is correct in its percentages, it's pretty obvious most people think they're better at driving than they are in reality. Without some explicit rules, there are plenty of people out there who think they are 'just as good' driving with a cell phone in their ear.

Maybe if we spent some money and effort into hiring more cops, we could better police the roads.

And this solution doesn't even begin to solve the problem. You can't police everywhere, and if you tried, you'd be much closer to that police state you were worried about in your last post. The idea of making explicit what should be implicit is to tell people - specifically young adults learning to drive for the first time - there are some things that no matter how you *think* you're driving, they cause you to be less alert and make you reckless whether you're swerving or not.

And let's be honest, the problem with doing things in the car isn't just about swerving. The problem is in big part reaction time. And that isn't something police are going to pick up on when you're driving by at 60mph. When a kid's on a cell phone and an animal, or god forbid another kid, jumps in front of the car their reaction time is going to be diminished.

Look, we all know people are going to drive recklessly despite our best efforts. But to make explicit what is implicit in the law sends a clear message to young drivers. No, you can't talk with a cell phone in your ear and still operate a motor vehicle safely. And if you do it, you're going to be punished by law. It's not going to stop everyone, but it is going to prevent more kids from doing it than if you leave it to be implied.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

And the degenerate from MA with ~20 DUI's? Does he have the same fame and money?

To (re)quote your first post:
Your fear of a police state where every little thing is written as right or wrong is hyperbolic Kandrathe. We're talking about a law that is preventing risky behavior while operating a piece of 2 ton machinery. As ideal as it would be to just outlaw reckless driving, it isn't enough to leave it ambiguous. A couple weeks ago I read a poll online that said 80% of drivers polled considered themselves to be in the top 30% of drivers; Whether or not that poll is correct in its percentages, it's pretty obvious most people think they're better at driving than they are in reality. Without some explicit rules, there are plenty of people out there who think they are 'just as good' driving with a cell phone in their ear.
And this solution doesn't even begin to solve the problem. You can't police everywhere, and if you tried, you'd be much closer to that police state you were worried about in your last post. The idea of making explicit what should be implicit is to tell people - specifically young adults learning to drive for the first time - there are some things that no matter how you *think* you're driving, they cause you to be less alert and make you reckless whether you're swerving or not.

And let's be honest, the problem with doing things in the car isn't just about swerving. The problem is in big part reaction time. And that isn't something police are going to pick up on when you're driving by at 60mph. When a kid's on a cell phone and an animal, or god forbid another kid, jumps in front of the car their reaction time is going to be diminished.

Look, we all know people are going to drive recklessly despite our best efforts. But to make explicit what is implicit in the law sends a clear message to young drivers. No, you can't talk with a cell phone in your ear and still operate a motor vehicle safely. And if you do it, you're going to be punished by law. It's not going to stop everyone, but it is going to prevent more kids from doing it than if you leave it to be implied.

Cheers,

Munk

I'm sorry, I don't understand how more laws without the threat of enforcement help make anyone safer. "What we need are more laws, and less cops!" does not make any sense to me. Around here every spring and fall we get icy roads. They kill many more people than cell phone use, but still not as many as drunks. Should we ban driving in icy conditions? We also have lots and lots of deer. They run at high speeds at dusk and dawn all the time and get people killed.

Life is unsafe. What we need are more rubber rooms to keep everyone perfectly safe.

[TheDragoon]

Around here every spring and fall we get icy roads. They kill many more people than cell phone use, but still not as many as drunks. Should we ban driving in icy conditions? We also have lots and lots of deer. They run at high speeds at dusk and dawn all the time and get people killed.

This is a poor analogy. Using a cell phone is an entirely controllable personal choice. The weather and actions of deer are environmental problems that are out of our realm of control.

Here's a similar analogy to put things in prospective:
In 2002 there were over 500,000 deaths due to cancer. In 2004 there were around 30,000 deaths due to guns. Clearly, gun control is not nearly the problem that cancer is yet there are no laws against cancer, so why are we bothering to have laws against gun violence?

Or how about old age, maybe we should ban that as well.

[Munkay]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how more laws without the threat of enforcement help make anyone safer. "What we need are more laws, and less cops!" does not make any sense to me.

I'm sorry you missed my point and are putting words in my mouth. No where did I say we should have less law enforcement. You are the one arguing for more enforcement. I'm trying to tell you that for the goal you want, more enforcement isn't the solution. That is, unless you wish to rescind this quote:

I just fear that soon you will know people with a "rap sheet" a mile long... Filled with such things as staring at a women for more than 10 seconds, using a cell phone while driving, and watering your lawn on the wrong day of the week.

Like you say, Life is unsafe. Another platitude of life is that human beings make bad choices. Often times its a lack of judgment on our parts that leads to it. Laws like Drivers Licenses are there to tell you 'unless you can preform this standard of skills, you are not allowed, nor safe, to drive a motor vehicle'. Laws like banning cell phones have an effect you're neglecting, it tells people "no, despite what you may think, under no circumstances are you a 'safe' driver while you have a cell phone in your ear". Leaving the law simply as 'don't be wreckless' doesn't have the same effect. If you don't set some guidelines for people's judgment, you're going to get people convinced that they are safe drivers while doing just about anything in the car. And like it or not, the effects of these activities are not always visible to an outsider. Often times its decreased reaction time, not visibly wreckless swerving. Adding more law enforcement isn't going to do diddly to prevent poor reaction time.

And as for your analogy, TheDragoon put it better than I could.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

I'm sorry you missed my point and are putting words in my mouth. No where did I say we should have less law enforcement. You are the one arguing for more enforcement. I'm trying to tell you that for the goal you want, more enforcement isn't the solution. That is, unless you wish to rescind this quote:

They are not part in parcel contradictory. Having good enforcement of existing laws that have meaning makes some sense to me. You do this by having adequate cops around to stop the senseless behaviors. Having thousands of picky petty laws because some amount of people who have large arachnids sideways in their bungs and who could care less about preserving freedom unless it affects them personally, galls me to no end.

Like you say, Life is unsafe. Another platitude of life is that human beings make bad choices. Often times its a lack of judgment on our parts that leads to it. Laws like Drivers Licenses are there to tell you 'unless you can preform this standard of skills, you are not allowed, nor safe, to drive a motor vehicle'. Laws like banning cell phones have an effect you're neglecting, it tells people "no, despite what you may think, under no circumstances are you a 'safe' driver while you have a cell phone in your ear". Leaving the law simply as 'don't be wreckless' doesn't have the same effect. If you don't set some guidelines for people's judgment, you're going to get people convinced that they are safe drivers while doing just about anything in the car. And like it or not, the effects of these activities are not always visible to an outsider. Often times its decreased reaction time, not visibly wreckless swerving. Adding more law enforcement isn't going to do diddly to prevent poor reaction time.

Ok, so like I said earlier, we are legislating common sense. It will never end as long as their are senseless people who are allowed to roam around in our society. What you are describing is making laws to keep the honest sensible law abiding people honest. The senseless and the heedless will not follow them, and they may or may not get caught depending on whether a cop see's them, whether he has time to waste educating another idiot and whether he remembers that that specific stupid behavior has a special law.

[Munkay]

Ok, so like I said earlier, we are legislating common sense. It will never end as long as their are senseless people who are allowed to roam around in our society. What you are describing is making laws to keep the honest sensible law abiding people honest. The senseless and the heedless will not follow them, and they may or may not get caught depending on whether a cop see's them, whether he has time to waste educating another idiot and whether he remembers that that specific stupid behavior has a special law.

Why is this such a black and white issue? There are a few places where legislating common sense would have a positive effect. Especially if it succeeds in keeping a few bozo's from killing someone else with their car. But why must this be a slippery slope? You keep speaking of it like no matter what, if we let one by, we're doomed to a thousand nit picky laws.

The root of our disagreement may be that I don't see this one law (in a vacuum, slippery slope future aside) as a bad law. That doesn't mean I'm for legislating common sense everywhere, but I do think people's judgment on a whole can benefit from some firm direction here and there.

Cheers,

Munk

[TheDragoon]

Ok, so like I said earlier, we are legislating common sense. It will never end as long as their are senseless people who are allowed to roam around in our society. What you are describing is making laws to keep the honest sensible law abiding people honest. The senseless and the heedless will not follow them, and they may or may not get caught depending on whether a cop see's them, whether he has time to waste educating another idiot and whether he remembers that that specific stupid behavior has a special law.

Bringing this back on topic, I would note that cell phone use while driving is not currently restricted to "the senseless and heedless." Plenty of "honest sensible law abiding people" still drive while talking on a cell phone, reducing their ability to focus on the potentially dangerous task of driving. From personal experience I would say that the frequency of seeing drivers chatting on their cell has been growing at a considerable pace in recent years. Since this is such a prevalent problem, it seems that it makes sense that a law is put in place to convince those "honest sensible law abiding people" to put down the phone and concentrate on their driving. :)

[kandrathe]

Why is this such a black and white issue? There are a few places where legislating common sense would have a positive effect. Especially if it succeeds in keeping a few bozo's from killing someone else with their car. But why must this be a slippery slope? You keep speaking of it like no matter what, if we let one by, we're doomed to a thousand nit picky laws.

The root of our disagreement may be that I don't see this one law (in a vacuum, slippery slope future aside) as a bad law. That doesn't mean I'm for legislating common sense everywhere, but I do think people's judgment on a whole can benefit from some firm direction here and there.

Cheers,

Munk

What slippery slope? I think it's vertical! Seat belt laws? No smoking on private property of resturants/bars? No smoking in your own car if you have children? Motorcycle helmet laws? No trans fats in fried foods? A ban on metel baseball bats? New York even has a law asking people to refrain from using the n-word. Warning labels on video games? Hey, but porn in the public library is a freedom of speech issue! New York City has a ban on bottle feeding babies to promote breast feeding. And, the Feds banned gambling on the internet. 22 States have bans that prevent teens from using tanning salons. Must I continue? I could fill a book! One chapter per state and we haven't even gotten to the intrusive ones yet!

[Munkay]

What slippery slope? I think it's vertical! Seat belt laws? No smoking on private property of resturants/bars? No smoking in your own car if you have children? Motorcycle helmet laws? No trans fats in fried foods? A ban on metel baseball bats? New York even has a law asking people to refrain from using the n-word. Warning labels on video games? Hey, but porn in the public library is a freedom of speech issue! New York City has a ban on bottle feeding babies to promote breast feeding. And, the Feds banned gambling on the internet. 22 States have bans that prevent teens from using tanning salons. Must I continue? I could fill a book! One chapter per state and we haven't even gotten to the intrusive ones yet!

Okay, okay, you've definitely got a point about metal baseball bats.:lol:

Joking aside, I agree the government goes a bit far in legislating common sense. And on that note, I think I'm going to go put on my black loafers with a brown belt before it's made illegal. Take that, gov!

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

Okay, okay, you've definitely got a point about metal baseball bats.:lol:

Joking aside, I agree the government goes a bit far in legislating common sense. And on that note, I think I'm going to go put on my black loafers with a brown belt before it's made illegal. Take that, gov!

Cheers,

Munk

Oh, yeah! I wore a white short sleeved shirt today and it's well after labor day!

[Roland]

What slippery slope? I think it's vertical! Seat belt laws? No smoking on private property of resturants/bars? No smoking in your own car if you have children? Motorcycle helmet laws? No trans fats in fried foods? A ban on metel baseball bats? New York even has a law asking people to refrain from using the n-word. Warning labels on video games? Hey, but porn in the public library is a freedom of speech issue! New York City has a ban on bottle feeding babies to promote breast feeding. And, the Feds banned gambling on the internet. 22 States have bans that prevent teens from using tanning salons. Must I continue? I could fill a book! One chapter per state and we haven't even gotten to the intrusive ones yet!

Disregarding the obvious idiocies that you point out, I have to ask this: you have a problem with seat belt and helmet laws? As for metal baseball bats, I can see that, to a point. They DO pose more of a safety risk than wood bats, and really, what justification is there for REQUIRING a metal bat? I'm not saying they should be banned outright, but restricted from usage in certain venues (such as MLB, schools-sponsored games, etc.) seems fine with me (by policy, though, not necessarily by law). I have no qualms with warning labels (I assume you mean the ESRB ratings labels, and not some other form of warning; if I'm mistaken, disregard my statement), and I can't imagine why you would either. We have them for movies and music, as well. They serve as information, not as restrictions (unless you count Wal-Mart and the like, which has an easy solution: don't shop there. I don't, for that reason any MANY others).

Banning teens from using tanning salons is a knee-jerk reaction to a somewhat significant health risk. I don't agree with banning outright, but I could see SOME legislation in regards to tanning usage among teenagers as being appropriate, i.e. requiring parental consent. Teaching about the risks of over-exposure in tanning salons could be a topic covered in health class, IMHO, to help reinforce whatever legislation they come up with. As for banning gambling, I can see the reasoning behind that, even if I don't necessarily agree with it outright: state-funded lottery. It brings in millions, perhaps billions in some states, in revenues for use by the state, thus helping the state to function. I don't think we'll see a massive drop in lottery sales if gambling were legalized, and I don't necessarily agree with such a ban, but I can at least understand where they are coming from. I think it's another over-blown, knee-jerk reaction, but it's no worse than some of the other laws that get passed (you've made some VERY notable ones).

I'm going to stop now because otherwise I'll get going on gun control in my fine state of Mass., and that will only send me off on a tirade (which will segue very nicely into a further tirade about "Cadillac Deville" Deval Patrick, at which point I will spiral out of control and land somewhere in Wonderland).

I see your point, Kandrathe, but I also see Munkay's. I always try to see ALL sides of an issue, even if I don't agree with any of them. Again, because I am honestly curious, do you really have a problem with seatbelt and helmet laws? If so, why? Is it simply for the sake of being against authoritarian control, or is it because you believe in a more Darwin-esque approach to life?;)Not trying to bait you in any way, just sparking a conversation. I'm intrigued.:)

Edit:

Oh, yeah! I wore a white short sleeved shirt today and it's well after labor day!

I do that every day. It's called my work "uniform". I use that term loosely, as it's not actually a uniform. I just refuse to pay for an actual shop uniform, preferring to be comfortable. So, I hop on over to Target, grab a couple 5-packs of Fruit of the Loom plain white cotton T-shirts, a pair of Wrangler jeans (1 shorts, 1 pants), and I'm good to go for the rest of the year (a pair of long-sleeve shirts suffice for the winter months). Usually costs me about... $50, total. I'd pay that in 2 months if I had to rent uniforms.;)

Just wanted you to know you're not alone in your "rebellion".;)

[Munkay]

(which will segue very nicely into a further tirade about "Cadillac Deville" Deval Patrick, at which point I will spiral out of control and land somewhere in Wonderland).

Definitely don't want that, Wonderland is a terrible place. That is, unless you actually like dog racing.:P

I see your point, Kandrathe, but I also see Munkay's. I always try to see ALL sides of an issue, even if I don't agree with any of them. Again, because I am honestly curious, do you really have a problem with seatbelt and helmet laws? If so, why? Is it simply for the sake of being against authoritarian control, or is it because you believe in a more Darwin-esque approach to life?;)Not trying to bait you in any way, just sparking a conversation. I'm intrigued.:)

For me, I'm a big fan of personal freedoms. Legislating common sense does little to solve the problem; people are going to continue to do logic defying tomfoolery whether its legal or illegal. But in this case I draw the line at operating a motor vehicle. If it were only an issue of a few trees making friends with their front bumper, I'd be on the fence. But since one persons misjudgment can result in severe consequences in other peoples lives, I'm for a law like this (arguments about fairness of age-specific laws aside).

In fairness, I see Kandrathe's rebuttal, a law isn't going to stop boneheads from being boneheads. But I agree with TheDragoon's acute point, there are more than a handful of law abiding citizens yakking away on their cell phones. And I do believe a law would discourage, and prevent more than a handful of people from operating a vehicle while on a cellphone.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

I see your point, Kandrathe, but I also see Munkay's. I always try to see ALL sides of an issue, even if I don't agree with any of them. Again, because I am honestly curious, do you really have a problem with seatbelt and helmet laws? If so, why? Is it simply for the sake of being against authoritarian control, or is it because you believe in a more Darwin-esque approach to life? Not trying to bait you in any way, just sparking a conversation. I'm intrigued.

I'm horrified by what happens to people who are chewed up on the highway. I personally will never own a motorcycle, however I do risk it once in awhile and ride one. Whenever you accelerate the human body beyond 20 mph you have to accept the risk that a lethal accident might happen. Helmets, seat belts, air bags, 5 point crash harnesses, roll bars are all good ideas, but mandating them steps in the realm of nanny law. It is the state saying "I'm making this law to protect you from your own stupidity." There are sooooo many dangerous things in our lives, that making "common sense" laws to protect us from our own stupidity only serves to make most of us into criminals.

When I see a motorcyclist without a helmet I think "Organ donor", and when I see drivers distracted I avoid them and get extra satisfaction from laying on my horn when they drift into my lane. I've driven in almost every major metropolitan area in the world, and the roads and drivers in the USA are some of the best in the world. I think Athens was the worst place to drive (it seems that no one follows the road laws in Greece) and Rome/Tokyo tie for 2nd just due to the congestion. So, laws are useless unless you have enforcement and at some point the congestion will far exceed the ability of the state to "police" them.

There was a motorcyclist decapitated here a couple of years ago by piece of plywood that was shed from the truck he was following. I just find that anecdotes don't make for good law making.

[eppie]

I've driven in almost every major metropolitan area in the world, and the roads and drivers in the USA are some of the best in the world. I think Athens was the worst place to drive (it seems that no one follows the road laws in Greece) and Rome/Tokyo tie for 2nd just due to the congestion. So, laws are useless unless you have enforcement and at some point the congestion will far exceed the ability of the state to "police" them.

Exactly. Enforcement is the only way of changing people's driving attitude. In Europe most laws are the same in all countries, only in some countries people just don't care.
Why? Because people from the south of europe are generally more evil?? No of course not. In the south of europe the police is usually only interested in drinking coffee, while in the north, they actually do something.

In Holland this leads to a lot of whining car drivers that feel that some great wrong was done to them because they got a speeding ticket for going 56 in a 50 zone, but for me it is better more victims.
In Italy children are never playing on the streets, like I did when I was young, because everywhere all the time somebody can drive by doing 80km an hour. The chance getting caught is around 0 so why wouldn't they.....

[Roland]

Helmets, seat belts, air bags, 5 point crash harnesses, roll bars are all good ideas, but mandating them steps in the realm of nanny law. It is the state saying "I'm making this law to protect you from your own stupidity."

I know you're not ignorant enough to think that's the ONLY reason why they do it. It also serves to protect us from everyone else's stupidity, as well as nature. It may be common sense, but so is not touching a hot stove. How would a parent be seen if they knowingly let their child touch a hot stove to teach them common sense, instead of "laying down the law"? Social Services might disagree with your views.;)It's the same case here.

Believe me, I am not bigger fan of legislation than you are, but I do truly think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, in this particular case. Now, if you want to talk about targeting teens, rather than a blanket ban, that's something else entirely. Although, unless I read it wrong, I believe this was the "first step" in a blanket banning on cell phone usage while driving. I suppose it seems "unfair" to "target" teens, but trying to pass a blanket no-cell law is tedious, at best (they've tried in my state, several times, and it always gets shot down one way or another). Using a partial ban, directed at a more at-risk demographic, seems perfectly logical to me, especially since it could very well get the ball rolling and open the door for a blanket ban (which, for the record, I am in favor of).

[kandrathe]

How would a parent be seen ...

Your example even leans toward the attitude I'm talking about. Who elected you to watch out for me? When did it become the job of government to remove all possible harms from our world? In the first place, I don't want them to step all over our freedoms trying to save us from ourselves, and secondly, I don't want to continue to jack up the price of government to accommodate all the laws, and all the inspectors, and all the extra staffing, and all the re-education camps it will take to create the perfect nanny state.

Here is another example; Person A, has no car, and rides a bike to work. Person B, has a car. Person C, has two cars. Person B, is a compassionate person and decides that it is unfair that Person A has to ride their bike in the rain all the time while that extra car of Person C sits unused, so they go over and take Person C's extra car and give it to Person A. Person C gets home, and finds his extra car is missing and calls the police who correct the situation. So, Person B, still believing that Person A is unfairly deprived convinces the mayor and the town council that all people with an extra car should give it to the town, and all people with out a car the town will provide a free vehicle. This is what our government is currently doing all the time and thinks nothing of it anymore. Person A should have enough dignity in the first place to say, "No, I'll earn the money to buy my own car." And, the Person B's of this world should realize how unjust it is to take away peoples property to give it to others who have not earned it. Why do I object to EVERY nanny law? Because every one of them erode a freedom however small and will either take MORE money to enforce, or if unenforced, they undermine the framework of justice by making more laws without teeth.

One last thought here. Don't let the social workers know... But, I taught my both children at an early age about electricity, fire, and hot stoves and other dangerous things by letting them get close enough to realize they would get hurt by them, but not so close as to get damaged. This is my job, to educate them about the world so they have common sense and realize what is safe, and what is unsafe. Maybe we're onto something here. Maybe we are not taking the responsibility in our society to teach people common sense.

[Roland]

Clearly our discussion here, however civil, is not going to change anyone's mind. Rather than continue to go back and forth on this, why don't we just agree to disagree, and leave it that that?:)I understand your views, and I respect your opinions, but I cannot come to the same conclusions as you.

Besides, in the same ways laws get created, they can be uncreated, as well.;)Keep that in mind.

I wish you, and your family, the best.

[kandrathe]

Besides, in the same ways laws get created, they can be uncreated, as well.;)Keep that in mind.

True. I don't remember it happening, but that doesn't mean it never does.

I wish you, and your family, the best.

Ditto. No drama here. I feel sometimes like I'm out on the fringe here with the least possible government stuff.

[Roland]

I feel sometimes like I'm out on the fringe here with the least possible government stuff.

I agree with your sentiment, just not the degree.;)Moderation in all things.