How totally nonsensical -- as if they have any way to verify which are published and which are not. Further, NOBODY likes the police state hassle of a checkpoint (has nothing to do with inebriation even) and everyone who cares about their civil rights ought to find ways to avoid them!
Nobody should ever submit to a search voluntarily for any reason -- did you all forget your rights? If you don't exercise your rights, you will not have any rights! A checkpoint is unreasonable in my book, and sure reminiscent of Nazi Gestapo tactics -- papers please.
“\tThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\t”
So now this moves from AppStore to web app? Tired of the nanny-state supervisors telling us what kinds of information is ok and what is not.
Harmful how? All the applications do is publish publicly available information. The Supreme Court has held that it is unreasonable to have DUI checkpoints without publishing the information first thereby removing a persons' reasonable expectation of privacy. The is a gutless move by Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
This is interesting. In the San Jose Mercury News, there is a column called Mr. Roadshow, where various traffic-related questions are answered (When will that pothole be fixed? etc.).
The column is often used by police departments to advertise DUI checkpoints, rationale being that by knowing cops are out enforcing that someone will decide to not drink that night--prevention before incarceration, if you will. If by checking the app I see that a party will be too close to a DUI checkpoint and I decide not to drink, isn't that a good thing?
So...what's the difference here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKZ
So which is it AppleInsider? Are they completely banning apps that alert users to DUI checkpoints or just the ones that aren't published by the local police departments? Seeing that you wrote a totally wrong headline to get page clicks, and you didn't read your own article it seems to me you have no clue what you are talking about. Now you have a bunch of retarded commenters debating what people will do with an app when no one actually cares but lying politicians. Congrats. You've gotten click bait down to an art form.
How will those morally superior, "don't break the law" folks respond to this conveniently ignored fact about the law requiring public notification of dui checkpoints?
The difference being one enters your private domain in your home while the other you are on publicly funded streets.
Not that I think government should be unfettered with what they can do, but I've alway assumed once I leave the home, any expectation of privacy and freedoms are greatly reduced.
(Not saying it's right, just realistic.)
My Constitutional Rights are not usurped because i'm on a State road. Remember that States only have the ability to create laws when those laws don't conflict with Federal Law. The Constitution is Federal Law which all 50 states must abide by.
The 4th Amendment is very clear. It's there to establish a right to privacy for every American citizen from search and seizure which was so common prior to the formation of this country. It was important enough to be an early amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
App Store is not a democracy and it is not an outlet for free speech. It is a privately run entity created by and run by a U.S. corporation. They can accept/reject anything they want. It is their right. We can buy or not buy iPhones. That is our right.
+1
I'm not really faulting Apple here. They must pick and choose their battles and fighting for DUI Checkpoint apps isn't worth fighting
App Store is not a democracy and it is not an outlet for free speech. It is a privately run entity created by and run by a U.S. corporation. They can accept/reject anything they want. It is their right. We can buy or not buy iPhones. That is our right.
That's true, but doesn't it bother you that it was a Senator that asked them to do it?
I think if he wants something to happen, he should follow the proper procedures and pass a law. Then effected people have recourse, there is a vote etc. Instead he just asked. Now, as a private individual of course he has the right to do that, but it just seems a little improper.
I really hate how we've come to live in a police state, where our 4th amendment rights are meaningless, and our 1st amendment right to free speech (telling others about a potential 4th amendment violation - to protect others rights) can so easily be trampled on by a senator.
I despise drunk driving, but the fact of the matter is, many of the laws passed through the lobbying of MADD are unconstitutional. Forced to consent to a search without a warrant without probable cause under coercion and threat of losing your drivers license - whether you're sober or not.
The problem with checkpoints is they are fishing expeditions. Anything the police can use to say you might be drunk, even refusing to answer questions which you legally may refuse to answer (5th amendment anyone?), gives them the ability (legal or not) to search your car, phone, laptop, etc. Next thing you know you might have been downtown when a bank was being robbed in the area based on your location data. That gives them probable cause to search your whole life -and there are so many laws, you know somewhere they are going to find something to charge you with no matter how petty.
This is how the police state works, turn us into scared little babies. They will probably win.
There was a TV program about Americans living in France. They said the difference they notice most is that in France the government is afraid of the people, in America the people are afraid of the government.
I'd like to see Apple ban sales to congressmen and senators that failed to vote against torture;
then name and shame them.
I'd like to see Apple ban sales to anybody who is against "torture". And by torture, I mean enhanced interrogations, which isn't really torture at all. Shame on these ignorant people.
This is a direct assult on the first ammendment of the constitution.
The government is pressuring apple into silencing speech about the government! I do not like or support drunk driving, I have stopped people from driving drunk before and I in no way support it, it is awefull and criminal. That said, I have a right to say in a public forum "hey, a cop is sitting here looking for drunks" that cop is a government official therefor I have the right to speak about his on the job behavior. This is a slippery slope. Next it will be seatbelt checkpoint apps, then speed trap apps and so on... and before you know it, you will not be allowed to talk about the police state that has risen up around you...
This is a direct assult on the first ammendment of the constitution.
Baloney. Apple is a private company, they're not the government. And Apple can do whatever it pleases, as long as it is legal.
If you had your own app store, then you would be free to exclude certain types of apps also. I know that if I owned my own app store, then I would be excluding certain types of apps which I do not care for. That is freedom, the freedom to decide over your own business.
If you don't like what Apple did, then you have the freedom to not buy any Apple gear in the future.
Baloney. Apple is a private company, they're not the government. And Apple can do whatever it pleases, as long as it is legal.
A US Senator said "I dont like this free speech thats going on here, make it go away"
That is the attack on the 1st Amendment
Apple willingly went along - showing their lack of backbone to defend against an attack on our rights which I do understand - standing up against this woulda been bad pr for apple considering this is a country full of dumb asses who only read headlines...
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
You see, we have this thing called a Constitution. And we don't cling to it "no matter what." If we feel it's no lo longer applicable or needs to be changed for other reasons, we have a process to amend it.
Quote:
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
I care about "these freedoms" more than almost anything. As for this case, our freedoms need to be weighed against the effect they have on others. No one is arguing that we shouldn't have law and order.
Quote:
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
I'm sorry...perhaps I missed something...is there a movement to oppose TWD legislation? I must have missed it. The issue some people DO have is laws that are overly broad (i.e. banning use of "electronic devices" while driving or laws banning the use of HANDS FREE phones).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
For religious and health reasons, I don't drink any alcoholic beverages, nor do I do drugs (not even tobacco), nor do I condone those substances for use by others. [
No one cares what you condone for them. Thanks.
Quote:
And I certainly do not condone drunk driving. Even so, I think caving in to Congress on this is ludicrous, especially in light of the plain logic before us. If a so-called "drunk" is sober enough to use an iPhone app to navigate around a checkpoint, he's sober enough to drive safely.
The usage of the app itself should determine if one is too drunk to drive. And if one wishes to contend the app is so easy now that even a drunk or drugged person could use it, rather than remove it from the iTunes entirely, just make it more challenging to use such that the app would become a sobriety check.
The fact that Apple did not suggest this sanity to Congress indicates Apple suffers from the same brain disease as Congress. And I'm surprised that more people aren't mentioning this either. Is everyone suffering from the same disease now days?
Did that really just happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
These checkpoints are not about catching drunk drivers. They are nets intended to catch people for a anything. For instance, not having a proper drivers license. They are huge money makers for the States that implement them. It used to be the case, if you blew .12 or over you'd be considered drunk. The States then found out they make a lot of money off supposed drunk driving cases, and could make more if they caught more people. So, they lowered the amount. Most convictions are based off the breathalyzer, which is ridiculous because you can blow into the same machine twice back to back and get dramatically different results.
Safety is a noble goal, but checkpoints are a pain in the butt for everybody and the cost is not worth the benefit. So, me opposing the removal of such applications has nothing to do with assisting drunk drivers. It has to do with me not being significantly inconvenienced just so the state can make money off people. Further, what many don't understand is these applications comply with the Supreme Court ruling requiring the DUI checkpoints to be made public prior to setting them up. They decimate readily available public information.
Bingo. In PA, the limit is .08. That is absurd. There is no way that most people are significantly impaired at that level. For some people, that can be as low as two beers. The limit should be higher...closer to the .12 that you mentioned.
As for DUI checkpoints, I have a slightly different view. Their constitutionality has been upheld, but they are required to be advertised in advance. As for the app, I don't see the problem. The information is publicly available. Then again, I can see how this might assist drunk drivers in getting away with it. Apple probably just decided it was better not to be perceived as being on the side of those who wish to drive drunk. My suspicion is that many of the decision-makers feel like I do about the app, but weren't willing to go to the mats over this.
Roughly 618 thousand men and women died during the Civil War to uphold freedoms that today are so "cavalierly" diluted.
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment - December 15, 1791)
While I do not condone slavery, neither do I condone the current Massachusetts law of female marriage at the age of 12 with parental consent! But, I'm sure as hell not going to try to force them to bend to my will.
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment - December 15, 1791)
While I do not condone slavery, neither do I condone the current Massachusetts law of female marriage at the age of 12 with parental consent! But, I'm sure as hell not going to try to force them to bend to my will.
....end rant
You're defending the South's right to secede? You are therefore supporting slavery. Good to know.
Since Apple is not the government they are not bound by the 1st ammendment (which only regulates the governments ability to limit free speech) ... corporations have no such limitations.
As to the checkpoints being a 4th ammendment violation, the Supreme Court has already decided that question and is unlikely to revisit it. Remember there is a key word in the 4th ammendment that gives a little wiggle room ... that word is "unreasonable". They basically ruled that if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy then the 4th ammendment protections are more limited. This allows airport security, metal detectors at various locations, and other "reasonable" security measures. Our founding fathers made the constitution a little open ended like that because they intended it to be a living document.
It is also interesting the number of people who seem to think we live in a Police State. I wonder how many people have actually been in a Police States. I haven't personally, but stuff I have seen on documentaries would seem to indicate we aren't even close to a Police State. I have been in countries where armed soldiers patrol the airports and armed guards are outside banks and shopping malls. I don't think we need to worry about the Fascists just yet
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
Har! This is hilarious!
Oh, sorry, you weren't being serious... were you??!!
You misquoted me. Your use of the word "for" is incorrect, and I said I do NOT condone drugs of any sort including soft legalized drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and I then cited my reasons for not condoning them. I felt it important to explain that I do not use those substances nor do I condone them in order to emphasize that I am not on the side of drunks who drive, yet I disagree with the position of Congress and Apple about having DUI apps removed.
I find your jab "no one cares" amusing as YOU clearly cared enough to comment on what I wrote. But with over 12,000 posts to your name in this forum, I see you are a caring person indeed. :-)
I stand by the content of my previous post. I still think DUI apps could be used for good, as a sobriety test for drunks and as a convenience for people like myself who do not drink at all, yet want to avoid losing time on a road with a checkpoint.
I do NOT condone drugs of any sort including soft legalized drugs such as alcohol
Carrie Nation! Yeah!
That was a great time in history. Too bad they got rid of Prohibition. The country has been going downhill ever since. God is against the use of Alcohol and Tobacco.
Next thing you know, those Godless lieberals will legalize Pot, and all of our kids will be lost to addiction.
Comments
How totally nonsensical -- as if they have any way to verify which are published and which are not. Further, NOBODY likes the police state hassle of a checkpoint (has nothing to do with inebriation even) and everyone who cares about their civil rights ought to find ways to avoid them!
Nobody should ever submit to a search voluntarily for any reason -- did you all forget your rights? If you don't exercise your rights, you will not have any rights! A checkpoint is unreasonable in my book, and sure reminiscent of Nazi Gestapo tactics -- papers please.
“\tThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\t”
So now this moves from AppStore to web app? Tired of the nanny-state supervisors telling us what kinds of information is ok and what is not.
Harmful how? All the applications do is publish publicly available information. The Supreme Court has held that it is unreasonable to have DUI checkpoints without publishing the information first thereby removing a persons' reasonable expectation of privacy. The is a gutless move by Apple.
This is interesting. In the San Jose Mercury News, there is a column called Mr. Roadshow, where various traffic-related questions are answered (When will that pothole be fixed? etc.).
The column is often used by police departments to advertise DUI checkpoints, rationale being that by knowing cops are out enforcing that someone will decide to not drink that night--prevention before incarceration, if you will. If by checking the app I see that a party will be too close to a DUI checkpoint and I decide not to drink, isn't that a good thing?
So...what's the difference here?
So which is it AppleInsider? Are they completely banning apps that alert users to DUI checkpoints or just the ones that aren't published by the local police departments? Seeing that you wrote a totally wrong headline to get page clicks, and you didn't read your own article it seems to me you have no clue what you are talking about. Now you have a bunch of retarded commenters debating what people will do with an app when no one actually cares but lying politicians. Congrats. You've gotten click bait down to an art form.
How will those morally superior, "don't break the law" folks respond to this conveniently ignored fact about the law requiring public notification of dui checkpoints?
The difference being one enters your private domain in your home while the other you are on publicly funded streets.
Not that I think government should be unfettered with what they can do, but I've alway assumed once I leave the home, any expectation of privacy and freedoms are greatly reduced.
(Not saying it's right, just realistic.)
My Constitutional Rights are not usurped because i'm on a State road. Remember that States only have the ability to create laws when those laws don't conflict with Federal Law. The Constitution is Federal Law which all 50 states must abide by.
The 4th Amendment is very clear. It's there to establish a right to privacy for every American citizen from search and seizure which was so common prior to the formation of this country. It was important enough to be an early amendment.
App Store is not a democracy and it is not an outlet for free speech. It is a privately run entity created by and run by a U.S. corporation. They can accept/reject anything they want. It is their right. We can buy or not buy iPhones. That is our right.
+1
I'm not really faulting Apple here. They must pick and choose their battles and fighting for DUI Checkpoint apps isn't worth fighting
App Store is not a democracy and it is not an outlet for free speech. It is a privately run entity created by and run by a U.S. corporation. They can accept/reject anything they want. It is their right. We can buy or not buy iPhones. That is our right.
That's true, but doesn't it bother you that it was a Senator that asked them to do it?
I think if he wants something to happen, he should follow the proper procedures and pass a law. Then effected people have recourse, there is a vote etc. Instead he just asked. Now, as a private individual of course he has the right to do that, but it just seems a little improper.
then name and shame them.
Papers please?
I really hate how we've come to live in a police state, where our 4th amendment rights are meaningless, and our 1st amendment right to free speech (telling others about a potential 4th amendment violation - to protect others rights) can so easily be trampled on by a senator.
I despise drunk driving, but the fact of the matter is, many of the laws passed through the lobbying of MADD are unconstitutional. Forced to consent to a search without a warrant without probable cause under coercion and threat of losing your drivers license - whether you're sober or not.
The problem with checkpoints is they are fishing expeditions. Anything the police can use to say you might be drunk, even refusing to answer questions which you legally may refuse to answer (5th amendment anyone?), gives them the ability (legal or not) to search your car, phone, laptop, etc. Next thing you know you might have been downtown when a bank was being robbed in the area based on your location data. That gives them probable cause to search your whole life -and there are so many laws, you know somewhere they are going to find something to charge you with no matter how petty.
This is how the police state works, turn us into scared little babies. They will probably win.
There was a TV program about Americans living in France. They said the difference they notice most is that in France the government is afraid of the people, in America the people are afraid of the government.
I'd like to see Apple ban sales to congressmen and senators that failed to vote against torture;
then name and shame them.
I'd like to see Apple ban sales to anybody who is against "torture". And by torture, I mean enhanced interrogations, which isn't really torture at all. Shame on these ignorant people.
The government is pressuring apple into silencing speech about the government! I do not like or support drunk driving, I have stopped people from driving drunk before and I in no way support it, it is awefull and criminal. That said, I have a right to say in a public forum "hey, a cop is sitting here looking for drunks" that cop is a government official therefor I have the right to speak about his on the job behavior. This is a slippery slope. Next it will be seatbelt checkpoint apps, then speed trap apps and so on... and before you know it, you will not be allowed to talk about the police state that has risen up around you...
Thanks for not having any backbone apple.
This is a direct assult on the first ammendment of the constitution.
Baloney. Apple is a private company, they're not the government. And Apple can do whatever it pleases, as long as it is legal.
If you had your own app store, then you would be free to exclude certain types of apps also. I know that if I owned my own app store, then I would be excluding certain types of apps which I do not care for. That is freedom, the freedom to decide over your own business.
If you don't like what Apple did, then you have the freedom to not buy any Apple gear in the future.
Baloney. Apple is a private company, they're not the government. And Apple can do whatever it pleases, as long as it is legal.
A US Senator said "I dont like this free speech thats going on here, make it go away"
That is the attack on the 1st Amendment
Apple willingly went along - showing their lack of backbone to defend against an attack on our rights which I do understand - standing up against this woulda been bad pr for apple considering this is a country full of dumb asses who only read headlines...
The thing I have never understood about USA and some Americans is the way they will argue for these "rights" and "amendments" and uphold their consitution no matter what.
You see, we have this thing called a Constitution. And we don't cling to it "no matter what." If we feel it's no lo longer applicable or needs to be changed for other reasons, we have a process to amend it.
Do you honestly care so much that people have these "freedoms" that you are willing to assist people who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to endanger the lives of others?
I care about "these freedoms" more than almost anything. As for this case, our freedoms need to be weighed against the effect they have on others. No one is arguing that we shouldn't have law and order.
The same goes for the whole texting while driving thing. What is it about Americans and road safety that doesn't click?
What use is your bill of rights when you are dead?
I'm sorry...perhaps I missed something...is there a movement to oppose TWD legislation? I must have missed it. The issue some people DO have is laws that are overly broad (i.e. banning use of "electronic devices" while driving or laws banning the use of HANDS FREE phones).
For religious and health reasons, I don't drink any alcoholic beverages, nor do I do drugs (not even tobacco), nor do I condone those substances for use by others. [
No one cares what you condone for them. Thanks.
And I certainly do not condone drunk driving. Even so, I think caving in to Congress on this is ludicrous, especially in light of the plain logic before us. If a so-called "drunk" is sober enough to use an iPhone app to navigate around a checkpoint, he's sober enough to drive safely.
The usage of the app itself should determine if one is too drunk to drive. And if one wishes to contend the app is so easy now that even a drunk or drugged person could use it, rather than remove it from the iTunes entirely, just make it more challenging to use such that the app would become a sobriety check.
The fact that Apple did not suggest this sanity to Congress indicates Apple suffers from the same brain disease as Congress. And I'm surprised that more people aren't mentioning this either. Is everyone suffering from the same disease now days?
These checkpoints are not about catching drunk drivers. They are nets intended to catch people for a anything. For instance, not having a proper drivers license. They are huge money makers for the States that implement them. It used to be the case, if you blew .12 or over you'd be considered drunk. The States then found out they make a lot of money off supposed drunk driving cases, and could make more if they caught more people. So, they lowered the amount. Most convictions are based off the breathalyzer, which is ridiculous because you can blow into the same machine twice back to back and get dramatically different results.
Safety is a noble goal, but checkpoints are a pain in the butt for everybody and the cost is not worth the benefit. So, me opposing the removal of such applications has nothing to do with assisting drunk drivers. It has to do with me not being significantly inconvenienced just so the state can make money off people. Further, what many don't understand is these applications comply with the Supreme Court ruling requiring the DUI checkpoints to be made public prior to setting them up. They decimate readily available public information.
Bingo. In PA, the limit is .08. That is absurd. There is no way that most people are significantly impaired at that level. For some people, that can be as low as two beers. The limit should be higher...closer to the .12 that you mentioned.
As for DUI checkpoints, I have a slightly different view. Their constitutionality has been upheld, but they are required to be advertised in advance. As for the app, I don't see the problem. The information is publicly available. Then again, I can see how this might assist drunk drivers in getting away with it. Apple probably just decided it was better not to be perceived as being on the side of those who wish to drive drunk. My suspicion is that many of the decision-makers feel like I do about the app, but weren't willing to go to the mats over this.
Roughly 618 thousand men and women died during the Civil War to uphold freedoms that today are so "cavalierly" diluted.
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment - December 15, 1791)
While I do not condone slavery, neither do I condone the current Massachusetts law of female marriage at the age of 12 with parental consent! But, I'm sure as hell not going to try to force them to bend to my will.
....end rant
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment - December 15, 1791)
While I do not condone slavery, neither do I condone the current Massachusetts law of female marriage at the age of 12 with parental consent! But, I'm sure as hell not going to try to force them to bend to my will.
....end rant
You're defending the South's right to secede? You are therefore supporting slavery. Good to know.
As to the checkpoints being a 4th ammendment violation, the Supreme Court has already decided that question and is unlikely to revisit it. Remember there is a key word in the 4th ammendment that gives a little wiggle room ... that word is "unreasonable". They basically ruled that if you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy then the 4th ammendment protections are more limited. This allows airport security, metal detectors at various locations, and other "reasonable" security measures. Our founding fathers made the constitution a little open ended like that because they intended it to be a living document.
It is also interesting the number of people who seem to think we live in a Police State. I wonder how many people have actually been in a Police States. I haven't personally, but stuff I have seen on documentaries would seem to indicate we aren't even close to a Police State. I have been in countries where armed soldiers patrol the airports and armed guards are outside banks and shopping malls. I don't think we need to worry about the Fascists just yet
Peace.
While I agree with most of your statement, the only people who died upholding freedoms in the War of Northern Aggression were the Confederates. Until then it was a time when States and Peoples had quite a bit more "self-determination." Our freedoms, both personal and state have been stripped away in the ensuing years by idiots who are neither Patriots nor Statesmen.
Har! This is hilarious!
Oh, sorry, you weren't being serious... were you??!!
"Personally, I'm glad for anything that saves lives." (My emphasis.)
Literally anything?
Obviously not, troll.
No one cares what you condone for them. Thanks.
You misquoted me. Your use of the word "for" is incorrect, and I said I do NOT condone drugs of any sort including soft legalized drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and I then cited my reasons for not condoning them. I felt it important to explain that I do not use those substances nor do I condone them in order to emphasize that I am not on the side of drunks who drive, yet I disagree with the position of Congress and Apple about having DUI apps removed.
I find your jab "no one cares" amusing as YOU clearly cared enough to comment on what I wrote. But with over 12,000 posts to your name in this forum, I see you are a caring person indeed. :-)
I stand by the content of my previous post. I still think DUI apps could be used for good, as a sobriety test for drunks and as a convenience for people like myself who do not drink at all, yet want to avoid losing time on a road with a checkpoint.
I do NOT condone drugs of any sort including soft legalized drugs such as alcohol
Carrie Nation! Yeah!
That was a great time in history. Too bad they got rid of Prohibition. The country has been going downhill ever since. God is against the use of Alcohol and Tobacco.
Next thing you know, those Godless lieberals will legalize Pot, and all of our kids will be lost to addiction.