Inviting Conversation for February 23, 2010
Whether or not driving is a right or a privilege has been debated for as long as I can remember. Whichever side one takes with this, one should acknowledge that certain conditions must be met to be “legally” allowed to drive. In most states, the vehicle should be properly insured. Some states require the vehicle to pass an emissions test to be considered legally roadworthy. The vehicle must be registered. The person should be properly licensed, which means having a license with the correct information, as well as a license in good standing. There are situations when a license revocation or suspension has been declared. This should be common knowledge.
I recently discovered that an alarming number of drivers who have had their licenses suspended because of a DUI charge are still driving. I have read several reports where an estimated 20% of fatal crashes involve an unlicensed driver. Although alcohol-related deaths are on the decline, deaths relative to drug use are rising heavily. I heard a recent discussion on the radio which focused the rising use of marijuana by Americans 55 and older, from 1.9% to 2.9%. Ohio reported that in 2008, 626,255 administrative or court-mandated drivers license suspensions were handled by the BMV. This generated $36,692,637 in reinstatement fees for the state.
An attorney informed me that at a recent CLE (learning) seminar, it was revealed that it is estimated that 9 in 10 drivers on Ohio roads are missing one or more elements which means they not legally compliant as they drive. The drivers may have no insurance. Their licenses are suspended, revoked or have incorrect information. The driver may have no license at all. I confirmed this with another attorney who attended the event.
As ten vehicles pass by you, think about that. Only ONE of them may be truly “legal.” Should anything be done? Do we need checkpoints? How do we discern between people who made mistakes versus those who knowingly disregard the law? Should it matter? Is it economically feasible to try and stop all of the people driving illegally? One in ten vehicles may be driven “legally.” Are you concerned?
Information taken for this article from:
http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/facts_figures.stm
http://www.thetennesseeautoaccidentattorney.com/tag/drivers-with-suspended-and-revoked-licenses-often-drive/
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
In order for Congress to work as it should, do we the voters need to vote out the incumbents and just start anew?
Inviting Conversation for February 16, 2010
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh stunned the political world recently by announcing he would not seek reelection. Reports indicated that the Senator appeared strong in his bid for reelection. His resignation itself is not what caught my interest. It was Senator Bayh’s comments that surprised me. He said that the American political system is dysfunctional. He claims that the current environment is so divisive that Senators are spending six years campaigning and raising money, and that with these demands it was impossible to focus on passing legislation. It was also noted that 44% of Americans, as noted in a recent poll, want the incumbents to be voted out. His bold recommendation: Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.
Is Senator Bayh correct? Is the current Congress that dysfunctional? In order for Congress to work as it should, do we the voters need to vote out the incumbents and just start anew? Is there a better answer?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh stunned the political world recently by announcing he would not seek reelection. Reports indicated that the Senator appeared strong in his bid for reelection. His resignation itself is not what caught my interest. It was Senator Bayh’s comments that surprised me. He said that the American political system is dysfunctional. He claims that the current environment is so divisive that Senators are spending six years campaigning and raising money, and that with these demands it was impossible to focus on passing legislation. It was also noted that 44% of Americans, as noted in a recent poll, want the incumbents to be voted out. His bold recommendation: Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.
Is Senator Bayh correct? Is the current Congress that dysfunctional? In order for Congress to work as it should, do we the voters need to vote out the incumbents and just start anew? Is there a better answer?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user from employment?
Inviting Conversation for February 9, 2010
“As if higher tobacco taxes, steeper health insurance premiums and smoke-free workplaces weren’t enough, tobacco users have one more financial incentive to kick the habit — missed job opportunities. Starting Feb. 1, [Chattanooga, Tennessee’s] Memorial Hospital no longer will hire people who use tobacco products, making the hospital one of a small number of employers nationwide that consider smoking status in job applicants. Under the new rule, which does not affect current Memorial employees, those offered employment at the hospital will be tested for nicotine during their required drug test, a human resources officer said. Even nicotine gum or the patch would make a potential employee ineligible”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jan/18/smokers-need-not-apply-job/.
Unquestionably, there have been many debates over the years about smoking.
There have been debates about smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. There have been debates over who is responsible for paying for the medical costs as lifelong smokers become older. A recent CDC study showed that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are “at increased risk for bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth”
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fact_sheets/smoking.htm.
The actions of Chattanooga’s Memorial Hospital poses an interesting question. As companies face increasing health care costs, and as the debate continues to rage on Capitol Hill about how to address our health care crisis, how much latitude should companies be given with regard to hiring smokers? Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user, even someone trying to quit, from employment?
“As if higher tobacco taxes, steeper health insurance premiums and smoke-free workplaces weren’t enough, tobacco users have one more financial incentive to kick the habit — missed job opportunities. Starting Feb. 1, [Chattanooga, Tennessee’s] Memorial Hospital no longer will hire people who use tobacco products, making the hospital one of a small number of employers nationwide that consider smoking status in job applicants. Under the new rule, which does not affect current Memorial employees, those offered employment at the hospital will be tested for nicotine during their required drug test, a human resources officer said. Even nicotine gum or the patch would make a potential employee ineligible”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/jan/18/smokers-need-not-apply-job/.
Unquestionably, there have been many debates over the years about smoking.
There have been debates about smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. There have been debates over who is responsible for paying for the medical costs as lifelong smokers become older. A recent CDC study showed that children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are “at increased risk for bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections, severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth”
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/fact_sheets/smoking.htm.
The actions of Chattanooga’s Memorial Hospital poses an interesting question. As companies face increasing health care costs, and as the debate continues to rage on Capitol Hill about how to address our health care crisis, how much latitude should companies be given with regard to hiring smokers? Is it discrimination for an employer to disqualify a nicotine user, even someone trying to quit, from employment?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
What does the court or Society do about a man who has been arrested 74 times in two years?
“Cincinnati Man Jailed 74 Times in Two Years” – no, that is not a misprint. That is 74 times. I had to take a second look at the headline as well. Douglas Robinson’s 74th arrest resulted in the maximum 90-day jail sentence on charges of solicitation and possession of illegal drugs. The previous 73 arrests, accounting for 153 charges, have been mostly for panhandling, trespassing and occasionally resisting arrest. Robinson, who is 50 years old according to the newspaper report, has a criminal history which dates back to spring, 2008, when he was kicked out of a homeless shelter after being accused of theft. Social service agencies in the area want to help him.
An interesting quote from Hamilton County’s director of pretrial services, Wendy Niehaus, “The sheriff has to prioritize. Is it Douglas that he keeps? Or is the person charged with aggravated robbery? That’s the bottom line.”
That is the bottom line. Sheriff Leis has to close 800 jail beds because tax increases for a new jail have been rejected twice. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Last year more than 20,000 inmates were released because of overcrowding.”
I can not prove this, but I would suspect that none of Douglas Robinson’s crimes have been heinous or violent, or have caused serious injury or death. Some may argue he allows himself to be arrested and convicted because it gives me “three hots and a cot.” I can not prove this either.
But there is a problem here. Or is there?
An interesting quote from Hamilton County’s director of pretrial services, Wendy Niehaus, “The sheriff has to prioritize. Is it Douglas that he keeps? Or is the person charged with aggravated robbery? That’s the bottom line.”
That is the bottom line. Sheriff Leis has to close 800 jail beds because tax increases for a new jail have been rejected twice. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Last year more than 20,000 inmates were released because of overcrowding.”
I can not prove this, but I would suspect that none of Douglas Robinson’s crimes have been heinous or violent, or have caused serious injury or death. Some may argue he allows himself to be arrested and convicted because it gives me “three hots and a cot.” I can not prove this either.
But there is a problem here. Or is there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
