Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you Mac, we don't need any more laws. Another factor is the amount of traffic. There's not enough traffic where I live for it to become a law. The insurance industries could probably provide us with the high rates of collisions that occur while on the cell phone. Too bad the insurance companies wouldn't give you some discount for providing a receipt for a hands free device.
Instead of fretting about radiation, I got rid of my microwave and use BioPro Cellphone Chips available at http://www.mybiopro.com/sheila_clark
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
This might come as a bit of a shock to you but it is not illegal to drink and drive in Canada. Seriously.

If you have a single drink and then drive, you have not broken the law. If you have two drinks and drive, it is unlikely you've broken the law. For most people, three drinks within the space of an hour will bring them close to breaking the law... but there's no guarantee such is the case.

I think you probably know what I meant when I said "drink and drive", but just to be clear, do you think it should be illegal to drive while impaired (from alcohol)? If so, how many drinks, 2? 3? 5? 10? no limit??
Quote:
Most provinces already have legislation which will amply deal with those who chat on their cellphones and don't pay attention to their driving. In BC, we have two sections of the Motor Vehicle Act which can be used: Driving Without Due Care & Attention and Driving Without Reasonable Consideration for the Safety of Others. Neither offer prohibitions of any kind but both allow police enforcement of the kind of negligence which causes collisions.

Do you support these laws? If so, why do you support the government telling people that they can't drive without "due care & attention" but don't support the government telling people that they can't drive while talking on a cell phone?
Unfortunately, these laws didn't prevent a driver (who was talking on her cellphone) from driving through a stop sign without stopping the other day, and could have hit someone. If there were laws against talking on a cellphone while driving, maybe she wouldn't have been on the phone...and if she hadn't been on the phone, maybe she would have noticed the stop sign.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
I think you probably know what I meant when I said "drink and drive", but just to be clear, do you think it should be illegal to drive while impaired (from alcohol)? If so, how many drinks, 2? 3? 5? 10? no limit??

Wouldn't it be easier to simply make your point instead of trying to force me to pick a side in your monochromatic world view? I've already answered these questions and I'm not interested in reiterating my answers. I don't have time or patience for another of your "well, if you don't answer" debates.

gc wrote:
Do you support these laws? If so, why do you support the government telling people that they can't drive without "due care & attention" but don't support the government telling people that they can't drive while talking on a cell phone?

Yes, I support these laws because, unlike like the cellphone-while-driving prohibition, "due care & attention" type offences don't prohibit one particular activity because some people lack the common sense to avoid engaging in that potentially risky activity. Prohibitions attempt to replace discretion (ie: common sense) with regulation and history has shown how effective that is... :roll:

In an ideal world, no regulations whatsoever would be necessary as drivers wouldn't engage in the kind of behaviours which pose a danger and road conditions would never be hazardous. In the real world, some traffic regulation is necessary but it is not possible to regulate away risk or stupidity. My preference would be safety with minimum intervention instead of making rules for the sake of making rules which encourages more intrusive regulation of the daily activities of citizens.

gc wrote:
Unfortunately, these laws didn't prevent a driver (who was talking on her cellphone) from driving through a stop sign without stopping the other day, and could have hit someone. If there were laws against talking on a cellphone while driving, maybe she wouldn't have been on the phone...and if she hadn't been on the phone, maybe she would have noticed the stop sign.

Yes, yes, I know... if it saves one life, all the intrusions and lost liberties are worth it!! :roll:

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, yes, I know... if it saves one life, all the intrusions and lost liberties are worth it!!


Then you wouldn't mind signing my "Wear a Helmet While Jogging Petition"

How about Kids Wearing Life Jackets in the Tub.

Why not have governors on cars so they can't go over the speed limit.

There's a million out there and the next time we elect a socialist governmernt there will only be 900,000 out there, because they will enact a bunch of stupid laws that only burden the electorate.

There is a proverb in the Bible about a father not burdening his children with too many rules. Governments should try and not burden us with bullshit laws that only seek to collect money from us for breaking overbearing rules.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Yes, yes, I know... if it saves one life, all the intrusions and lost liberties are worth it!! :roll:


Yeah, let's legalize j-walking too since it is such an intrusion on our liberties :roll:

Heck - who needs policemen at all - they just intrude on our liberties :roll:

And let's not allow policemen to use any wiretapping or any techniques for finding terrorists since it might intrude on our liberties :roll:

Laws are so over-rated.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
because they will enact a bunch of stupid laws that only burden the electorate.


Yeah - stupid laws like banning machines that cause brain cancer. How stupid is that???
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Yeah - stupid laws like banning machines that cause brain cancer. How stupid is that???

It looks like you and Sheila have something in common after all, Craig. See her earlier post on this thread...

-Mac
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
There's a million out there and the next time we elect a socialist governmernt there will only be 900,000 out there, because they will enact a bunch of stupid laws that only burden the electorate.

The sad part is so many people will not only allow this, they will actively endorse it. That's why I congratulated FF_Canuck on his reference to the banality of evil. Not everyone can take a step back and realize that ill-conceived regulations can do more harm than good.

What is the road to hell paved with again?

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Yeah - stupid laws like banning machines that cause brain cancer. How stupid is that???


If someone gets in an accident while talking on a cell phone they can be charged with dangerous driving. Even if they do not get in an accident they should be charged with careless driving. Therre are laws already on the book for this. Why do we need new laws. Mac can tell you that the police are smart enough to enforce the laws that already exists.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
It looks like you and Sheila have something in common after all, Craig. See her earlier post on this thread...


We have lots in common. We PM on a regular basis.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
If someone gets in an accident while talking on a cell phone they can be charged with dangerous driving. Even if they do not get in an accident they should be charged with careless driving.


I'm not talking about driving. I'm talking about radiation from cell phones. They are completely different issues.

Quote:
There are laws already on the book for this. Why do we need new laws.


Perhaps, I'm missing something here. Isn't this thread about the dangers of cell phones in terms of the radiation they emit. There are no laws on the books regarding that.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought we were talking about the law in Quebec banning cell phones while driving. No wonder I've never posted on this thread before. :oops:

Well ya got me on that one Craig, but I hope you are not backing the Greens demand to save "endangered feces"

Who'd want to save such a thing! :shock:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
I thought we were talking about the law in Quebec banning cell phones while driving. No wonder I've never posted on this thread before. :oops:

Actually, you did... way back when this thread started. I think you got sidetracked but you weren't alone since several of us got the two threads mixed up.

Since this is the brain cancer thread, I should mention there is a law regulating the power output of cellular phones. Spectrum Management (who licence and regulate all RF activity in Canada) is part of Industry Canada. I haven't had much experience with them so I don't know what specific Acts they use for their authority but they're federally mandated.

Cell phones put out a maximum of 1 watt of RF energy. Ye Average Old incandescent light bulb puts out 60 watts. Danger from exposure drops exponentially through empty air (ie: you can hold your fingers an inch away from a bulb and not be burned but touch it direct and ouch!!) so I find it very unlikely that a cellphone could cause damage at a cellular level. If cell phone are causing cancer, I'm curious what the mechanism is that causes the cancer since we live our lives bathed in RF energy, both naturally occurring and human made.

-Mac
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Cell phones put out a maximum of 1 watt of RF energy. Ye Average Old incandescent light bulb puts out 60 watts.


I hope you aren't suggesting that incandescent light bulbs emit microwave energy. Because if you are then you are going to look very silly very soon.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
I'm curious what the mechanism is that causes the cancer since we live our lives bathed in RF energy, both naturally occurring and human made.


You are right. These respected brain surgeons who have spent their lives studying this don't know crap. The articles they published in refereed journals based on years of scientific study are useless. We would all be better off listening to a policeman tell us about the microwaves emitted by incandescent light bulbs.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Green Party demands federal action on cell phones...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB