news.com.au found this,

Click here

krudd is for it, so it must be a good idea.

Australia's culture of getting s***faced is more the problem here. Change that first, then maybe look at drinking age.

like they said on the j's this morning, it'd be f***ing difficult to police
they already can't control <18 year olds getting it

f*** knows they would have had no chance of getting my generation to not drink for another 3 years

Tell us how ya really feel spook...

Australia's culture of getting s***faced is more the problem here. Change that first, then maybe look at drinking age.

won't changing the age help change the culture? i know it's not a direct relationship, but it'll help won't it?

around melbourne they have lots of ads about drinking and how it affects your kids... i don't know how effective that is.

yer, in all honesty, its not going to work. i did find it interseting that apparently we used to be 21 as well, but they lowered the drinking age when they bought in conscription.

id be more inclined to go with bigger fines/harsher jail terms to stop all the tards who are getting blind and punching on or crashing their cars.

yeah definitely, mandatory 3-6 month jail sentence for drink driving or alcohol related violence would pretty quickly stop d*******s from doing it

It's 18 for a reason, that's the age of majority, pure and simple. at that age you gain a whole bunch of rights and responsibilities.
the right to fight for your country, the right to enter a legally binding contract, to buy a packet of smokes.
the responsibility of voting and jury duty.
Raising the drinking age to 21 creates a two tier system, where one can freely go and fight and die in a war, but also where one is not able to buy a f***ing beer. It's ridiculous.

won't changing the age help change the culture? i know it's not a direct relationship, but it'll help won't it?

its 21 in the US and they have similar binge drinking problems

id be more inclined to go with bigger fines/harsher jail terms to stop all the tards who are getting blind and punching on or crashing their cars.

Yeh I think this would be much more useful. Fine the living f*** out of these people that are causing problems and enforce it ruthlessly.

I don't get people that can't control themselves on alcohol. Maybe I am just a pussy and don't drink enough or something, but I've never been so drunk that something that sober-trog would have thought was utterly retarded suddenly seemed like a great idea

Fine the living f*** out of these people that are causing problems and enforce it ruthlessly.

/thread

I've never been so drunk that something that sober-trog would have thought was utterly retarded suddenly seemed like a great idea

Haha well, I can't agree with you there. Drunk hog has done some dumb things, but only at his own expense / danger.

i often drink way too much, but resist the urge to punch people or go for a high speed drive.

i think if you are an idiot to begin with, alcohol just helps things along

yeah definitely, mandatory 3-6 month jail sentence for drink driving

Does the dude that blows 0.06 the morning after a big party deserve 3 months in the big house on his record? Maybe a hefty fine, but jail time?
Mandatory sentencing is stupid.

sure trog, you never wokeup next to a fatty you didnt want to cook breakfast for

The dude who blows 0.1 does though, especially if he's ben done for DUI before. I don't really see how you can be 0.1 or higher and not know that you are too pissed to drive, or too stupid to f***ing add up the drinks you've had and divide by the time.

Fact is that people who get done for mid to high-range DUI do it because the risk of getting busted is still slim (RBT doesn't catch anywhere near most drink drivers) and if you DO get caught its time to get yelled at by a magistrate, a fine and the missus has to drive you to work. Big f***ing deal.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:12:14 09/Feb/10

boys should be 21, but maybe girls can be 18
giggity

Does the dude that blows 0.06 the morning after a big party deserve 3 months in the big house on his record? Maybe a hefty fine, but jail time? Mandatory sentencing is stupid.

I guess if you're still over the next morning you've obviously drunk enough that you should know better than to get behind the wheel so soon. There has always been plenty of warning that driving the next day is still risky if you've had a big night. There really isn't an excuse for it.

I don't mind 18 year olds drinking so much, but liquor stores need to step selling alcohol to minors. They seriously don't give a s*** as long as they make a profit.

The day my friend turned 18 he walked in expecting to need to show ID. The guy didn't even bother asking, just sold him the s***. Same thing often happens for smoking as well.

i got serious issues with 0.05 anyway.

driving tired can be worse, but thats legal
driving on prescription medicine can be worse, but thats legal too.

field sobriety testing surely should be the go, as its an actual test of impedement, not some arbritary number that could affect people differently.

0.06 shouldn't ever be a jail term while 0.05 is perfectly legal, that's just plain silly.

It needs to be graded but the accretion rate for penalties is way off.

It has to be an objective measure Spook, regardless of how much it affects individuals. The law as it is is clear and enforceable by a simple test without prejudice or bias.

Personally I'd have no real issue with a 0.02 limit (or 0.00 for that matter) but I know a lot of people would /rage so 0.05 is fine.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:19:02 09/Feb/10

0.06 shouldn't ever be a jail term while 0.05 is perfectly legal, that's just plain silly.

Ah yea, I should say I don't agree with the jail term suggestion. But I definitely agree with suggestions of making penalties much heftier as opposed to raising the drinking age. I have no problem with increasing the age to 21, but I don't think it would work.

Does the dude that blows 0.06 the morning after a big party deserve 3 months in the big house on his record? Maybe a hefty fine, but jail time?

he does, because he's legally drunk
if there was the slightest chance he would go to gaol, he wouldn't have gotten behind the wheel and endangered others lives
if you're sitting around after the party considering the drive home but feel you might still be over the limit, the difference between you getting in the car and not getting in the car could be the fear of being penetrated in your anus (whilst in gaol)

edit: I'll just add, there is already lee-way
.05 is the cut off point, anything between 0 and .05 is the "Grey area" where they wont fine you because they can't and because you aren't drunk
but beyond .05, you deserve what you get

last edited by tequila at 11:20:18 09/Feb/10

Spook, driving under the influence of prescription meds, is NOT legal, just much harder to detect. It's the same penalty.

huh? what law is it you are breaking driving after taking cough syrup or polaramine (for hayfever) that makes you drowsy? (but doesnt give you a bac over 0.05)

you're still endangering other peoples lives

teq - it doesn't work like that. You may as well have jail terms for speeding at +1 kph, or for possession of a couple grams of smoko! BREAK THE LAW MAN YOU DO THE f***EN TIME, right?

It needs to be a graded response to the level of violation, that's the way our legal system works. The penalties beyond 0.075 are (imo) far too soft, but jail time for 0.06 while 0.05 is perfectly fine is a 100% silly idea.

ok then, just to make my point, imagine if you will a "warning at .03", an "official warning" at .04 and a ride home in the back of a cop car at .049
then does it make it ok to put them in a minimum security facility for 3 months because they chose to endanger other peoples lives by making a really poor decision?

I don't mind 18 year olds drinking so much, but liquor stores need to step selling alcohol to minors. They seriously don't give a s*** as long as they make a profit.

i couldnt buy grog for myself because my little cousin was under 18 and was with me when i was buying the stuff. the clerk thought i was buying it for her.

sufficed to say i cracked the s***s. why the f*** would i buy liquor for my 13 year old cousin!?

EDIT: it still stings me to this day. :(

I thought the tax on alcopops solved this problem?

Spook, S. 79 of the Transport Operations: Road Use Management Act 1995. it says any person who drives under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Prescription Meds are completely covered under the term drugs.

however, the keywords are under the influence.

also:

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Legal+Information/Cars+and+driving/Driving+under+the+influence+of+drugs.htm

ok then, just to make my point, imagine if you will a "warning at .03", an "official warning" at .04 and a ride home in the back of a cop car at .049
then does it make it ok to put them in a minimum security facility for 3 months because they chose to endanger other peoples lives by making a really poor decision?

But that's a different structure to the law we have now - its 100% legal to drive at 0.05. Going beyond 0.05 attracts penalties.

You're basically advocating what I said a few posts back - introduce stiffer penalties at 0.05 and shift the legal limit to 0.02 with graded levels of enforcement from 0.02 up.

It wont solve anything, better off taxing alcohol a s*** more then using all of the funds to promote a safer drinking lifestyle.

Instead of taxing it a little bit and spreading the funds thin and creating half ass lame anti binge drinking campaigns that provide zero results.

I believe the same logic should be applied to smoking.

Will never happen though cause the government would never allow funds to be wasted marketing an effective campaign to reduce the flow of an easy income source for them... Which is why smoking is still legal and always will be.

Heavens forbid we actually educate kids and raise them in such a way they don't go about these kinds of stupid actions rather than just labeling them criminals. That's really Rudd's solution?

At least I guess then we can say the crime rate skyrocketed under his watch ;)

the system is fine as it is imo.

Heavens forbid we actually educate kids and raise them in such a way they don't go about these kinds of stupid actions rather than just labeling them criminals.

Kids are f***ing bombarded with educational material on sex, drugs and alcomohol. Its doesn't always work and its not a complete solution because they are humans and humans don't always behave appropriately regardless of the amount of education.

Humans are animals and (at least for now) need stick as well as carrot.

Presumably raising the drinking age to 21 would stop people aged 18 - 20 from a) (legally) buying alcohol and b) drinking in pubs/clubs.

How is that not a good thing? And why wouldn't it prevent at least some binge drinking?

f*** this is the most f***ing pathetic thread I have seen in a while

More taxes, more jail are you f***ing insane?

I think you all need to get your heads checked.

I'm all for it. Nothing more annoying than little turds in clubs/pubs who can't handle their booze.

I turned 18 two days ago. Walked into a BWS and told the guy I hadn't been drinking for the last few years.

You should have seen the look of disbelief on his face.

he does, because he's legally drunk
if there was the slightest chance he would go to gaol, he wouldn't have gotten behind the wheel and endangered others live

Oh come on teq, laws are broken all the time. If every response to breaking the law was to throw people in jail the system would be completely screwed up.

You're saying 0.05 is legal and therefore fine, yet 0.06 we as a society should be throwing people in jail 100% of the time without allowing a magistrate any room to consider the circumstances (first offense, driving wrecklessly vs normally, etc)? Mandatory sentencing can cause greater harm than good.

rudd's a moron, the 18-25 age group went pretty strongly for labor in the last election iirc.

teq: while i understand where you're coming from i can't help but find it funny. you're 25 or so yeah? you come across like a 60 year old grumpy old man who writes letter to the editor of the courier fail. how long ago was it that you were the one making stupid decisions? do you think one of your stupid decisions could have ruined your life if people like you had their way with the justice system? e.g. from the other thread:

most I ever had was about $5k in fines though, that was some 8 license suspensions during my miss spent youth though, so yeah $7k seems a bit steep for basic traffic s***

what did you do to earn that and how many lives did it possibly endanger? i know i've done some stupid s*** in my time and i was lucky not to get any serious, life-affecting consequences from it. i'm not quite sure where i'm going with this, i suppose i'd just hate to see people who would otherwise grow up into normal, tax-paying citizens end up with black marks on their records and their lives irrevocably affected because of a stupid decision combined with a draconian legal system. i'd be super keen for mandatory sentancing for repeat offenders though.

i sympathise with your argument academically - raise the cost of doing crime and the supply should fall, simple economics. but i'm not sure that the market for drink-driving is perfectly rational, with the majority of its participants having their judgement impaired and all that :)

Hah I love it. Less c***s in ma club breh

changing the limit from 18 to 21 won't work, hell 18 doesn't even work.. the only thing it drops is young douchebags getting into clubs who walk around asking to get hit by their behavior. I first started drinking in year 9.. so that's what... when i was like 12, never had a drinking problem, never had a dui, never had any dramas with alcohol.

I agree with trog there needs to be huge fkn fines and rule sets. Also the difference between 0.06 and .1 really shouldn't matter when you drive, you have impaired decision making which could cause the loss of someone elses life, i could give a s*** if you kill yourself.. so much the better..

The amount of times i've caught a cab / train / bus instead of driving home when my car was right there is uncountable simply because i didn't feel confident that i wasn't under the limit (this could be like 4hrs after i've stopped drinking). People need to get some common sense and if they can't get that they need to get f***ed by the long arm of a huge fine.

last edited by Raider at 12:00:06 09/Feb/10

How is that not a good thing? And why wouldn't it prevent at least some binge drinking?

Imagine being 20 years old again and being told you couldn't enter a pub because you're "too young to drink" ?
wouldn't you be righteously pissed off?

besides, if anything it could be argued that it would increase binge drinking because they'd have to once again hide it from the authorities, so they'd be more likely doing it in their back yards or parks / etc
getting f***ing wasted because there is no one around to control them (pub security etc)

I don't think a general blanket tax would help to stop drunk driving. Night clubs already charge an arm and a leg for a drink and lets be honest, in order to drink and drive you have to be out at a club or pub in the first place in the majority of cases as most people would only attend a house party a few times a year.

I say be harsher on the responsible service of alcohol, if someone gets pulled over and blows over the limit then they are required to give details of where they drank and fine the club/pub as well as the driver. Perhaps even if they drank at a private residence, fining the property owners.

But I don't actually think that the argument to raise the drinking age to 21 has anything to do with drunk driving. Most people at that age are on their P's still aren't they? Which would mean an automatic loss of license if you get caught over the limit which is a suitably harsh punishment. I think it's more about the idea of young people drinking to much that offends older people because they like to pretend that they never acted that way. It was interesting when they talked about it on Sunrise they all pretty much admitted that at that age there was a heavy drinking culture for them as well.

Young people will get s*** faced and run a little wild, like they always have. Criminalising them for doing what is literally a social norm is irresponsible.

last edited by deadlyf at 12:02:49 09/Feb/10

oh and if you can fight and possibly die for your country you can have a f***ing beer. full f***ing stop.

I can see you've never worked in a pub deadly, do you know how fast and how many people you have to continuously serve? Do you know how much pushing etc there is in a queue, someone who look like they stumbled might have just caught a leg on someone etc. You can spot the badly drunk, but the rest of the time you're to busy to worry about.. oh how far along is this guy?

Would be impossible to enforce

I say be harsher on the responsible service of alcohol, if someone gets pulled over and blows over the limit then they are required to give details of where they drank and fine the club/pub as well as the driver. Perhaps even if they drank at a private residence, fining the property owners.

worst post in this whole thread (and 4 serials, im including corrupts!)

the last thing we need is people taking less responsibility for their actions than they do already.

this isnt f***ing america

blows over the limit then they are required to give details of where they drank and fine the club/pub as well as the driver.

That's a really s*** suggestion. How is it in any way the responsibility of the club/pub owner to ensure they're under the limit before driving? Sure, they're not supposed to serve people they know are intoxicated. But being over the legal limit doesn't mean a person is going to have any visible signs of being drunk. Not to mention they will be served by multiple people during the night, how then are they supposed to know how many drinks a person has had? And what about people who have pre-drinks at home before going out? And how are the people working in the bar going to know what exact time the person is going to be getting into a car as to whether they are allowing time for their body to process the drinks??

Imagine being 20 years old again and being told you couldn't enter a pub because you're "too young to drink" ?
wouldn't you be righteously pissed off?

I would be pissed off if that happened under the current drinking laws, but if you had to be 21 to get into a pub, and you showed up with an ID that said you're only 20, then you're a douche. It would be no different from a 17 year old showing up to a pub now. And they're not being let in because "they're too young to drink", they're not being let in because the legal drinking age is 21.

besides, if anything it could be argued that it would increase binge drinking because they'd have to once again hide it from the authorities, so they'd be more likely doing it in their back yards or parks / etc
getting f***ing wasted because there is no one around to control them (pub security etc)

So because 15 - 17 year olds can't drink in public, there is a greater incidence of binge drinking? I highly doubt it. I don't think that's a strong argument at all.

rudd's a moron, the 18-25 age group went pretty strongly for labor in the last election iirc.

At the next election, the same group of people from the last election will be 21-28 years old.
I'm not refuting your claim regarding Rudd though.

i'd be super keen for mandatory sentancing for repeat offenders though.

You don't need mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. Magistrates are able to identify repeat offenders and hand down a stronger sentence.
All mandatory sentencing does it tie the hands of court officals to use their judgement in dispensing justice.

If drinking age is 21, then the defence force age should be 21.

What a f***ing joke, lets become like the US where they send you to war and you get your legs blown off but you can't have a beer... get f***ed.

At the next election, the same group of people from the last election will be 21-28 years old.
I'm not refuting your claim regarding Rudd though.

you're 100% correct, but there's going to be a new batch of 18-25 year olds aren't there :)

You don't need mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. Magistrates are able to identify repeat offenders and hand down a stronger sentence.
All mandatory sentencing does it tie the hands of court officals to use their judgement in dispensing justice.

i suppose my confidence in the handling of these matters by magistrates is not super high. e.g. i have an (extremely retarded) mate from school who's been done for drink driving probably 5-8 times in the last 3 years or so. he's lost his licence for a few months here and there but really hasn't seen any serious consequences from it. so he still does it :(

for simple, repeat offences like drink driving i think mandatory sentancing would be the ideal solution. let the system deal with the perpetually retarded and free up magistrates' time for serious matters.

@billyh;
^ missed my point, I just meant imagine being told you were too young to drink when you were 20 years old
you can own a fire arm, own a house/car, solicit sex, die for your country and donate organs, but can't be trusted to have a beer without punching strangers in the face?

the whole thing falls under the blanket policies that the government seems determined to introduce in order to protect us from ourselves
the list of things we can't do these days vs. what we were able to do when I was a kid grows longer each day

the top of that list which really pisses me off is the government feeling they know how to raise my own kids better than I do
banning things such as red rover at school etc, f*** that s***s me
let kids be kids for f*** SAKE


@taggs, your mate is a deads*** and belongs in gaol
I had a neighbour who repeatidly got caught, eventually spent some time in gaol and never did it again
still has no license 12-15 years later and rides his pushy everywhere

last edited by tequila at 12:17:37 09/Feb/10

banning things such as red rover at school etc, f*** that s***s me

wtf?

you're 100% correct, but there's going to be a new batch of 18-25 year olds aren't there :)

There will be a new batch of 18-20 year olds sure. The 21-25 year olds will be in the old batch! :)

@taggs, your mate is a deads*** and belongs in gaol

says the guy who got his licence suspended 8 times?

edit: you know what i mean dahzel :P

last edited by taggs at 12:41:51 09/Feb/10

red rover is banned?!@ how can they ban a game? i'm sure i watched my nephews playing red rover at their school a few years back... maybe it was british bulldog~! ;p

teq is almost two completely different people between these two threads! though he is consistently retarded.

BE WARNED: less fat chicks will get laid.

I'm over 21 so I don't really care :/ If I was say 17 and the law came into effect I'd be major f***ing pissed off ay..

I guess at 21+ you are more mature then say at 18.. So I guess it would help a bit?? but for other reasons mentioned in this thread, it's not really practical..

I don't mind 18 year olds drinking so much, but liquor stores need to step selling alcohol to minors. They seriously don't give a s*** as long as they make a profit.

The day my friend turned 18 he walked in expecting to need to show ID. The guy didn't even bother asking, just sold him the s***. Same thing often happens for smoking as well.

Yeah because the person behind the counter at your average bottleshop really gives a s*** about the turnover of the store.

All they care about is not getting fined for serving alocohol to a minor. If found guilty the penalty is something like 12 k? Not money a bottle shoper worker can afford. Please think before you type. Your friends small example of idiocy is in no way a good represenation of the general attitude of people who work in the hospitality industry.

Also my opinion on proposed harsher jail terms and fines. I am not sure if the idea will work.

Consider the logistics involved with putting every first time offender of alcohol related incidents in Jail. I am sure we will get a great new tax to facilitate it.

says the guy who got his licence suspended 8 times?

I got caught drifting in industrial areas where I couldn't hurt anyone at 3am in the morning
your mate drives drunk

if you can't work out the difference, stop sucking cocks for 8 seconds and have a think about it

justifying hypocrisy always works better with a pathetic 'ur gay' insult :)

I fail to see the hypocrisy, your mate endangered lives
I endangered no one

your mate needs to be locked up
I need to be slowed down (which I have already done after yeras of paying fines and thinking I was not going to get caught etc)

Zero Tolerance = Zero intelligence.

I agree with harsher fins for offenders (on a case by case basis) but mandatory jail time is retarded.

As for me, I've copped a few (3) speeding tickets and 1 parking ticket in my driving history (A short 10 years now.) Never knowingly driven over the limit, but i'm sure I would of been close to the limit on 3 differenc occasions. Heaps of other times i've left the car and taken the bus/taxi or crashed at a friends instead of driving.

All of my friends, even if i've had just 1 drink, ask if i'm ok to drive. I do the same to them. I've seen others stumble to their cars and their friends (drunk, but seemingly not as drunk as the driver) all just hop in and go for a drive. The news tells me it's only young people that do this, but I see middle-aged people doing it all the time, if not more then I see young people doing it.

Changing the age isn't going to do anything, You cant cure stupid.

if someone gets done for drink-driving 8 times within a few years i agree that they should face serious consequences. that was the point of my post, but you're not real big on the whole 'getting the point' thing i've noticed.

if someone loses their licence 8 times then they should also face serious consequences. i'm pointing out that it's hilarious that you condemn one particular action that endangers other peoples' lives and property yet in another thread you boast about getting out of fines relating to other actions that endager peoples' lives and property.

*cue post about how awesome you are at driving and how you only ever, ever speed when it's perfectly safe to do as as indicated by your super-human driving abilities.

keep the posts coming matey. entertainment++

exactly, look at the statistics of DUI drivers and you'll find a huge percentage of them are well-to-do middle aged people driving beamers and mercs, how is the govt. punishing/preventing them from doing it?

these are the same ones that end up in court with their flash lawyers and usually dont even lose their license for more than 1-3 months

just this sunday morning I sat in my apartment (where I dont live) for an additional 4 hours (beyond the original 3 I was going to wait) because I felt it would be too risky to drive, so by 10am I figured I was right to drive - a total of 7 hours I waited just to be safe

paveway and our other mate that were there with me all agreed at 6am that I still wasnt good to drive, so I waited.
I had my last drink at 3am, went back to an apartment and laid there till 6am, had that convo, then waited another 4 hours till 10am ..

You cant cure stupid.

QFT

exactly, look at the statistics of DUI drivers and you'll find a huge percentage of them are well-to-do middle aged people driving beamers and mercs, how is the govt. punishing/preventing them from doing it?

haha, you've actually done this have you?

no taggs, I am not going to agree with you here
do you have any idea how easy it is to lose your license these days?

if you get caught doing 20km/hr over the limit more than once in 12 months, your license is GONE
completely gone, for at least 3-6 months, more if you've lost it before

my mother in law who is 52 and drives like a little old lady has managed to lose hers 3 times since the new laws have been introduced, its just too easy these days

even my gf who drives slower than her mum got done because a cop decided to setup in an area that had no signs but was assumed to be 50km/hr (residential area)

she was doing 56km/hr

this brings me back to that point someone made about .05 and .06, why is .05 no fine but .06 $2000 and instant license suspension but 50km/hr is fine and 51km/hr is a few hundred + points?

It's really easy.
Unfortunately it goes against our rehabilitation mantra.
First offence, warning.
Second offence, 2 tattoos, one on each hand (highly visible, maybe even glow in the dark) showing you are not to be served, consume or generally have anything to do with alcohol. That includes serving people who have been banded or aren't of legal age.

Sure people could get around it by cutting off their hands, but its much harder to glass someone with a stump.

if you get caught doing 20km/hr over the limit more than once in 12 months, your license is GONE
completely gone, for at least 3-6 months, more if you've lost it before

wow... harsh! i didn't know about the 2nd penalty in one year dealie. that sux. :/
(edit) although you don't actually have to face a suspension... you can accept a one year/ one point good behaviour license. heh. i went for a ride with some mates not long ago & of the 8 guys there... 7 were on the good behaviour license :P

last edited by demon at 14:29:07 09/Feb/10

How does someone that drives like a little old lady drive over 20kph over the limit and lose their lisence 3 times? I think we know very different little old ladies.

I dont see whats was wrong about your GF's case, She was doing 56 in a 50 zone. While 51 can indeed be a fine, it's unlikely unless the cop is a real douch.

+1 to Obes's idea, but 2nd offence 1 Tattoo, 3rd offence they get both hands. Just to give them a little time to adjust.

Sure people could get around it by cutting off their hands, but its much harder to glass someone with a stump.

I lol'ed

/aisle seat please

ive never lost my license, but i am a super rad++ driver

even my gf who drives slower than her mum got done because a cop decided to setup in an area that had no signs but was assumed to be 50km/hr (residential area)

she was doing 56km/hr

Which is why you do 50 when there's no signs.

I have people tailgating me all day in the post van, but when you're driving 50-60 hours a week, you have to stick to the rules... no signs, assume 50.

but 50km/hr is fine and 51km/hr is a few hundred + points?

It's not that fine is it? I thought the penalties come in at 3km/hr or something?

Even then, you just have to watch out for the speed cameras, I'm quite suprised your GF got done at 6km/hr over... cop must have been having a bad day.

ive never lost my license, but i am a super rad++ driver

Hi-five Spook.

7 years now, 3 years working in transport, not a single point lost :D

last edited by CHUB at 14:10:46 09/Feb/10

BE WARNED: less fat chicks will get laid.

Doesn't sound like you're too fussy so I'm sure they'll be fine.

its pretty easy to rack up 12 points within 3 years, it's only realistically 3 medium range fines (more than 11 kilometers over the limit)
if you got caught speeding once per year every year, you wouldn't have a license by the 3rd year
if you then lose it again, you cop a worse fine

speed limits have actually decreased over the years while cars have been getting safer
every year you here about how the death toll on the road is rapidly approaching the last years total, sometimes it reaches it and others it doesn't
what they fail to mention is that each years thousands of new drivers are added, so in actual fact the death toll has been rapidly decreasing year on year for the past 30-40 years

meanwhile they make so much money out of fines it just makes no sense for them to raise the speed limit to bring it into line with a modern society filled with modern cars on modern roads

why in the f*** is the 60km+ stretch of the M1 that is almost dead straight limited to 110km/hr ?
you could very easily cruise along there at 140 and be safe, the german autobahn is proof enough of this (I say 140 because the M1 is not an autobahn, I understand the difference but 140 is just a figure I feel is reasonable)

last edited by tequila at 14:14:04 09/Feb/10

cop decided to setup in an area that had no signs but was assumed to be 50km/hr (residential area)

she was doing 56km/hr

Isn't it 50km/h unless sign posted otherwise?

America is hardly the country to emulate for laws. Drinking age of 18 is perfectly fine but it really comes down to what type of person you. I've been allowed to drink and smoke since I was 14. Mum told me "if you ever want to do that stuff, it's fine by me. I'll even buy your smokes for you" and not only do I not drink, but I don't smoke either. I've never seen the point as it has always been a huge waste of money to me not to mention both activities taste f***ing horrible.

how about this

don't speed

yes, im not disputing that no sign means it is assumed to be 50km/hr, thats why i said it
but can you honestly tell the difference between 50 and 56km/hr if you were in a car and couldn't see the speedo?
its 6km/hr for f*** sake, wouldn't you give a warning?
would you even bother writing the fine?

what kind of c*** act is this
the simple fact that cops must meet a minimum quota for fines each month is complete and utter f***ing bulls***

don't speed

Off topic here but this has always bugged me. If our speeding laws say you can't go legally faster than 110, Why do they design cars that can go 220 - 250? Why don't they just build the engine, or modify it so it can't go any faster than 120 or so.

We've had that discussion in another thread ^ (can't remember which one though)

Basically most cars goes around 200km/h so when it's travelling at 110 it's not reving its tits off and is being reasonably efficient.

I don't see wht not to cars being electronically governed to a certain speed but getting manufactures and the bogans on board could cause a few problems.


last edited by mission at 14:24:42 09/Feb/10

yep that's a good point also
in Western Australia trucks must legally be fitted with devics that limit their speed to 110km/hr, if they are found to be in excess of 110km/hr they are assumed to have broken the law (ie the device isnt fitted) and the truck is ordered off the road
costing the transport company potentially tens of thousands of dollars

increase the limits imo
if you car has minimum requirements (ABS, Air bags, ESC etc) you should be able to do faster speeds than people in old clapped out commodores and falcoons

last edited by tequila at 14:23:15 09/Feb/10

yep that's a good point also
in Western Australia trucks must legally be fitted with devics that limit their speed to 110km/hr,

Our B-Doubles at post are fitted with these but they limit to 100 :(

Absolute tripout the first time you hit 100, feels so strange.

Then it's extra fail when you hit a 110 section of a highway and teenage girls in there Getz's are overtaking you.

how about this incentive scheme rather than the punishment scheme...
if you are licensed & don't get any tickets in a year you get a free punch to obes's guts. 5 years with no ticket & you can headbutt him in the face. 10years & you can kill him but he has to be able to be revived so others can also kill him.
it's easy really.

don't get any tickets in a year you get a free punch to obes's guts

I think you're onto something there demon.

Except instead of punching Obes in the guts, how about the guy that cuts you off in the morning peak hour? All the positive feedback into the traffic system will almost certainly lead to safer roads.

more punches to the guts should definitely be legislated ;p
Let the punishment fit the crime
The footprints on (the sign the time)
The philosophy of (warish crime)
Make a man humble in his prime

let me drop a dime then we'll get go get some lime so i can drink in my prime

So much violent erotica from demon... I thought the pills were meant to make you a giant teletubby incapable of harm.

you n your crazy thoughts obes! :D

keep the drinking age the same, but ban tradie wankers with bad attidudes, southern cross tatts and shirts that are too small for them.

I'm pretty sure this is one of the stupidest ideas to come from krudd's mouth yet, and he's said some pretty f***ing retarded things.

Yet another reason labor sux
if this goes through, all i see is the people who do the right thing being denied a good time and the sale of fake id's going through the roof

I might be outraged, indignant and outspoken, but who here is going to accuse me of being stupid?

Legalize Pot.
Will lower Alcohol violence.

I don't like it when I agree with faceman but he's right, it's a completely safe drug that actually reduces peoples aggression with ZERO percent chance of death.

alcohol is the exact opposite

You're stupid teq.

your a lesbian frakture, I don't need to provide any proof of this

its not the pot that is doing the damage, its the carcinogens in the actual smoke
pot has never been linked to brain damage, despite what desperate government official will try and tell you

nooooooo,

how will anyone pick up 18yr - 21yr old drunk poon at mono if they cant drink!!!

your a lesbian frakture, I don't need to provide any proof of this

You're right teq, I am into chicks.

excellent pickup of an insignificant error, your point must surely be proven by now?
being outspoken doesn't make anyone stupid, being stupid makes you stupid


you're poor

zing

I got scared when pinky said if you smoke 20 cones a day you will have health problems.

i got told by someone that a cone is as equally bad as 6 ciggies for ur lungs.

its all bulls*** tho, western society has outlawed it cause they cant control distribution/get a piece of the pie, so they make up wild accusations that its bad for u.

pretty sure natives have been using marijuna for centuries for spiritual enlightening/ ceremonies/ cures for pains etc.

western society has outlawed it cause they cant control distribution/get a piece of the pie, so they make up wild accusations that its bad for u.

may i enquire which website you gained this wisdom from?

I still think you're stupid though teq, you have the most ridiculous views on things.

sc00bs i was watching a doco (Should I smoke Dope? - great doco in which the presenter smokes dope), a specialist in something or another said that smoking dope damages your lungs 3 times more than smoking a fag.

btw i like how you say what your friend said is bulls*** yet go on to say why it was outlawed with no proof.

excellent pickup of an insignificant error, your point must surely be proven by now?

Actually, your gay

Actually, your gay

it's "you're"

how do u know that the specialist isnt gettin paid to say that tho? there was a report a few months ago, maybe a yr that a group of scientists in America wanted to release about weed, saying that it wasnt as bad as everyone thought etc and the government came in, took all their research/ cut funding and wouldnt let them write anything about their findings or they would go to jail.

btw i like how you say what your friend said is bulls*** yet go on to say why it was outlawed with no proof.

why dont they outlaw ciggies then if every 3rd ciggy u have is as bad as 1cone? maybe because they are making billions in sales and treatments?

ppl should be allowed to to what they want to their bodies, whether it be smoke a ciggy,cone, have some pingers, get drunk...

If you are going to mention reports being censored by the government and stuff you really need to provide a link or something.

in NL the legal drinking age is 16.. also i never see people get really drunk

a link to a censored report? yer good one f*** head

How about a link to where you read about this originally? Or let me guess, you didn't read it, one of your dumb c*** mates just told you about it?

u ams not very brite

im not trolling google looking for some report to make u happy c***face

It's not gonna make me happy, and I know it's not there anyway. It's bulls*** just like your little cafe that didn't serve white people that you couldn't even provide an address for.

You're a dumbc*** bulls*** artist and everyone knows it.

Australia's culture of getting s***faced is more the problem here. Change that first, then maybe look at drinking age.

Couldn't agree more.

By moving the drinking age, you're just moving the bar.

Also, by 18, you're an adult and can think for yourself

ike they said on the j's this morning, it'd be f***ing difficult to police

And this.

last edited by Agent 99 at 17:49:53 09/Feb/10

its not the pot that is doing the damage, its the carcinogens in the actual smoke
pot has never been linked to brain damage, despite what desperate government official will try and tell you

Pot has the ability to significantly affect quality of life whilst you're young.

Smoking however won't give you problems until later in life.

I think both are awful habits however. Experimenting/trying it once or twice on the other hand is only ok if you've got the personality to deal with it and no family history imo.

well I've been a regular smoker (as in every day) for the past 8 years and I haven't flipped out, shot anyone or commited any violent crimes
the worst thing I've ever done while smoking is pass out or eat more than my fair share of marshmallows

in that time I've managed to have a family, buy a home, keep a stable income/job, make wise investment decisions and travel, socialise etc

yes, pot is just so terrible ..

meanwhile there are 10 kids that end up alcoholics for every one that ends up a stoner
the alcoholics ruin the lives of people around them and their own, meanwhile the stoner is just thought of as a no-good-nick

last edited by tequila at 19:10:00 09/Feb/10

Yeah nothing wrong with you. Except you believe that challenging a speeding fine and not showing up to court causes 'ripples' (honestly that really is hilarious) and also the fact that you base your whole argument for weed based only off your individual experience. Don't you realize how dumb that is?

is that the best argument you've got, that I make my point using unorthodox means?
cause I've got a counter argument for anything you can say against stoners;

http://dingo.net.au/media/slugman/FPOT_SLUGMAN.jpg

come off it teq, you look more like a cocksmoker than the slugman.

Dude I smoke weed, but there is no way I'd ever mention my individual experience in an argument about legalizing it or comparing it to alcohol. Nor would I ever use the word un-orthodox to replace 'petty, useless, stupid or pointless' like you just seemed to then.

last edited by fpot at 19:25:10 09/Feb/10

why not, my individual experience represents 95% of the people who I know that smoke regularly
the dips***s that end up on welfare that smoke weed often abuse alcohol too, or they would have ended up on welfare regardless of any substance abuse because they're just plain retard


frakture it's great to sit on the fence and throw a few rocks every now and then but no one gives a f*** what you've got to say until you actually voice an opinion, rather than just mindless bulls***

I'd rather be known as a wacko extremist stoner than just a nobody that doesn't even have the balls to input real information during a discussion
at the end of the day I at very least have the balls to stand up for what I believe in

grow a pair you useless cock

420 drink booze everyday

Okay so you don't realise how dumb it is. Keep posting your inane bulls*** then.

you realise that you're a spineless sheep who does as his told by anyone who has been trusted with any kind of authority?

the only real information to put into this conversation is that you are f***wit crazy person and anyone who disagree's with your opinion is a weak sheep taking it up the ass.

Newsflash teq, the world does not revolve around your deranged life, just f***ing realise how stupid you sound already.

"f***wit crazy person" ?

now you're just being silly

No I don't realise that teq how do you get that impression?

Weed should be legal. Government should tax for it.

I guess the only problem is if people are smoking weed and/or drinking excessively then they are not becoming productive members of society. They will be doll bludgers costing the government money, working for minimal wage.

The less people the government has to help the better it is for everybody. Although people who smoke weed all day where probably lazy to begin with... and girls who party all the time where probably stupid to begin with...

Okay new plan. The government sets up a Death Squad as part of the Legion of Intellectual Beings. They randomly break into peoples homes where the residents are subjected unwillingly to an IQ test.

If they fail, they are shot on site. Although this would probably drive Bogans to extinction. To be honest I think this is a great idea, this way we wouldn't have silly drug laws which cater to the stupid people who cannot hold their liquor.

Hmm then there would be no drunk hot chicks D:

Okay Plan 1.1;

If you fail the IQ test but pass the sexiness test then you shall be enslaved as escort for willing men.

I think plan 1.1 is a great idea. No matter how much you fight for equality we're all different.

Weed shouldn't be illegal, or at least not in the same catagory as what heroin and cocain are and such. For one it's just a plant which is more than I can say for all the s*** you need to make other drugs that are out there. Yeah i've tried it when I was in high school and loved it but don't use it anymore. Anything done in excess can kill you. How many people are in the news each year (and how many famous people die as a direct result) due to people using and mixing perscription drugs? They are more dangerous for you than what weed is

holy s***, epic thread.
glad I waited til it got good before reading it.

teq's a wacko extremist lesbian.

DM you know that cocaine and heroin both come from plants, right?

next time rudd or abbot says something ridiculous i want a journo to stand up and say 'first post in an epic thread' or tell them to stop going for some 100post thread piechart action

DM you know that cocaine and heroin both come from plants, right?

so does booze.

That pommy scientist got sacked for declaring Pot was not dangerous.
The people didnt complain about what he said so why was he sacked ?
because Big Pharma makes a great deal of money from Drug Prohibition.

So does the Booze Industry.
Didnt take them long to get involved today. They make staggering amounts of money from the 'young dumb and full o' cum' 18-21 yrolds.

Pot has many influential Enemies and some very dangerous siblings.
But like everything else in life 'Use in Moderation' and all drugs can be safely used.
even Alcohol.

I am not a drinker.

I am not a smoker.

I am a stoner...

Yes I know that heroin and coke come from plants. What I ment was you then have to process it and s*** to get it into usable form. Pot you don't.

All you guys need to chill out, have a blaze and lets be friends :D

matchfixa, I knew it!!
you've been hittin that hookah (not pave's mum)

haha speeding has what to do with binge drinking laws?

and suggesting the whole population takes up dope instead of the national pasttime of binge drinking...

this thread is comedy gold.

i did a school exchange in year ten. i lived in germany for three months, "went to school" an drank in bars. in germany the legal drinking age for beer and wine is 16, for spirits it's 18. this is not enforced. you can look 12 and buy spirits from a bottle shop.

HOWEVER, there is little to no binge drinking amongst young people. HOW, you ask? drinking a bit of watered down wine or light beer here or there at the dinner table with the family while growing up makes kids familiar with the concept of alcohol and its intoxicating effects. it also removes the whole "taboo" thing. sure, kids in germany get drunk on the weekend, but you never hear them saying "oh klaus, dude, you were so f***ing wasted on saturday night you threw up in your own lap and then fell asleep in my mum's rose bush."

also, harsher penalties for violent crime. glassing somone is an assault with a deadly weapon. penalise it as such. glass someone, go to jail and pay compensation to the victim. see how quickly people think twice if losing thousands of dollars and spending at least six months behind bars is the minimum penalty.

a couple of years ago, london lifted curfews, extended the drinking hours and saw an overnight decrease in violence. so yeah, more restrictions, earlier closing hours and a higher drinking age are OBVIOUSLY the way to go.

Personally, I think this is ridiculous. If the real issue is drinking and driving due to being able to get your P's at 18, then I would think to follow suit with new zealand. They can get their equiv of red P's at 15 and a half, and equiv of greens at 16 and a half (laws state that you can't drive with alcohol in system until 25). It seems like a more constructive way of actually controlling youth drinking and driving, and also allows 2 years or so between two major "coming of age" events, thus causing drivers to gain proper experience in driving, and to be bored of it and not drive for every single small thing.

germany is the perfect country, autobahn and 16 years drinking age

But really, who cares anyway, if i was 19 in oz i'd just drink anyway. Gimme the fine, who cares? I'll just pay a lawyer 3k/day and be on my way!

Reading this thread it's almost like there are two different teqs posting, each competing to be the most retarded.

tbh, i'd just go back to NZ :/

Ahahaha ive said it once, ill say it again. Teq, you are dead set....the most ....retarded c*** who will ever grace this board. Your amazing perspective on life not only astounds me, it makes me chuckle deep down inside.

Its not just that though, its coupled with those pictures you posted of yourself recently.

I say change it, means I'll venture out again and not have to put up with d*******s and slurries getting in my way.

Ban alcohol, problem solved.