LAST EDITED ON 22-Aug-10 AT 04:26 PM (PST)
I think it goes without saying that no one wants people to drink and drive. However, I think we're missing the larger issue at hand: these checkpoints, regardless of how effective or ineffective they are, illustrate how we're slowly but surely becoming a police state.Consider, before you might quickly disagree with a unconsidered response, what the founders of this country meant when they wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Do you think they wanted any police force to stop all those on any public street and require them to prove that they haven't been drinking or prove that they have the required papers to pass down that or any other public street?
Supposedly we are free from any "unreasonable search" according to the Bill of Rights, yet because of various Supreme Court decisions, that right has been whittled away to the point where, with no probable cause, police departments can set up such checkpoints and question you about your drinking habits and other things (including such questions as "Where are you coming from?" or "Where are you going?"--and if you point out that such information is none of their business, don't be surprised if you're then told to pull over because "we suspect you might be under the influence of alcohol or some other controlled substance"). That's not what the founders of this country wanted when they decided to sever themselves from England and King George. America was never meant to become a police state.
Some on this site say they support checkpoints because they protect the sober against those driving drunk. In short, checkpoints are a means of increasing public safety.
Yet that same argument can me made against sites like RB, CL, Eros, etc. These sites encourage mostly men to have sex with strangers even though they might contract STDs or even HIV: These men don't ask their spouses or significant others--future spouses or significant others are at risk too--if they can take the chance of becoming infected and then possibly pass along such dangerous infections to their loved ones. Isn't that a public safety concern? And if it is, wouldn't the police be justified in "policing" such sites and their users to protect the public's safety?
I know four people who contracted either an STD or HIV from their significant others: All of the men passed along infections they acquired from others. Two of those people have since died, one is on HIV medications (and will do so for the rest of her life), and the other one is dealing with a life-long STD that increases her chances of developing cervical/uterine cancer. Now, to prevent similar infections in the future, should all men who frequent sites like RB be forced to go through some kind of cyber "checkpoint" for the public's safety? Should those who frequent such sites have their names listed on public websites to "warn" others?
Ask yourself this important question: If checkpoints promote public safety, what other kind of checkpoints should be tolerated to increase public safety? Could these checkpoints get to the point where no one has a right to privacy? And if that becomes the case, what was the point of founding this country based on certain "inalienable rights"?
For those who wish to become moderators, please ask yourself if your own personal history about the negative effects of drunken driving is coloring your overall ability to see what could be a larger implication for yourselves: Since RB is a site dedicated to "hobbying," couldn't those who help run the site be guilty of pimping? Don't some police departments charge motel owners with "running houses of prostitution" simply because they rent rooms to providers? And what about the whole issue of sex slavery?
We live in a glass house; hence, let's not throw rocks at others.
All the best,
latinopoet
Premier Adult Entertainment Community
Printer Friendly view
, 21-Aug-10, 10:02 PM, (1)
