DC reaches new level of hysteria - .01 blood alcohol can earn you time in jail

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.

She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.

Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Bolton, 45, an energy lawyer and single mother of two who lives in Alexandria, had just run into a little-known piece of D.C. law: In the District, a driver can be arrested with as little as .01 blood-alcohol content.

As D.C. police officer Dennis Fair, who arrested Bolton on May 15, put it in an interview recently: "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance. . . . Anything above .01, we can arrest."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101968.html?sub=AR

How many of us have forgotten to turn on our lights at night when dead sober? I was guilty of it once in my life. DUI laws are insane in the district, and are obviously being abused by the police.

If you read the article further, you will see that this is a case of the officer overreacting because he felt insulted by the woman's "excited" and "cocky" attitude.

Lesson learned: for all the innocent civilians out there, if you didn't know it already you should never assume that the laws are rational, the police are interested in real justice, or that they care about the truth.
 
Thats taking it a little too far. People should be able to enjoy a glass a wine or a beer with their dinner. Glad I dont live in DC for another reason now. :D
 
I thought toronto was bad, 1 beer could put you over the legal limit, and if you were below .08 (say .05 or .06) you could still be charged with impaired driving. I agree with the reasoning, I just think it's a bit much in dc. It's kinda difficult to sit around and wait for the alcohol blood level to lower when it has to lower to .01. Maybe they should change it to .08, but .01 if your driving appears to be impaired.
 
Who can afford to drive in DC? Anyway, .01 is absurd; think of the sheer percentage of people you could pull over during the AM commute who have just gargled with Scope not fifteen minutes prior.

I think, in general, DUI penalties need to be rethought from scratch. There seems to be no deterrent effect or reduction in drunk driving from roadstops and laws such as these. It isn't changing anything, except the public's perception that the government is "doing something."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who can afford to drive in DC? Anyway, .01 is absurd; think of the sheer percentage of people you could pull over during the AM commute who have just gargled with Scope not fifteen minutes prior.

I think, in general, DUI penalties need to be rethought from scratch. There seems to be no deterrent effect or reduction in drunk driving from roadstops and laws such as these. It isn't changing anything, except the public's perception that the government is "doing something."[/QUOTE]

Drunk driving accidents, fatalities etc. have decreased since they began cracking down on it in the 80's. I can only imagine what it was like in the 50's and 60's.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Drunk driving accidents, fatalities etc. have decreased since they began cracking down on it in the 80's. I can only imagine what it was like in the 50's and 60's.[/QUOTE]

Well Cheney had what, 6 DWIs, and he still kept his drivers license. I don't think it was a big deal back then - it was regularly parodied in movies and songs from what I see.

I guess my point is that giving some lattitude to judges is generally a good thing because they tend to be rational individuals, but giving lattitude to police has to be weighed very carefully against the possibility for abuse. The lattitude currently given to DC police is clearly outside the bounds of reason when single 40 year-old mothers are jailed over a glass of red wine and being a bit mouthy (but behaving reasonably courteously) to a police officer.

I'm also becoming more and more leary of the government stepping in to protect us from everything - increasingly it just feels like a fascist power grab that appeals to the more hysterical elements of both parties (theocratic radicals and overprotective soccer moms).
 
I agree, it's a reason not to visit DC. If more people are aware of this law, local businesses will feel the effects, and local politicians will have to address the issue.

If DC wants to be a dry town, let them. I just won't be visiting it again.
 
In Illinois, there's a law that has a limit at .01 BAC. You get fined an exorbitant amount of money, get your license revoked and you may be subjected to community service. Of course, you have to be under 21 for this to happen (a large amount of people at my school seem to get caught by this law...stupid people).

Personally, I have no problem with cracking down on cracking down on drunk driving, but I do firmly believe that .01 is far too little an amount to really impair all but the lightest of light weights.



[quote name='camoor']leary[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Leary is a name, Leery is the word you're thinking of.
 
I don't see the problem here. If you drink at all, don't drive. I guess that's a good thing since I work in DC! The drivers are bad enough without drinking anyway. (damn diplomats!)
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't see the problem here. If you drink at all, don't drive. I guess that's a good thing since I work in DC! The drivers are bad enough without drinking anyway. (damn diplomats!)[/QUOTE]

One drink does not impair your driving. The government is causing more harm by arresting and punishing people who have one beer and drive, they should leave these citizens alone. The negative publicity will also hurt DC tourism (just read this thread)
 
[quote name='camoor']The negative publicity will also hurt DC tourism (just read this thread)[/QUOTE]

Since when did people go to dc for the bars? Did you forget why people actually go to visit washington?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']To get drunk?[/QUOTE]

LoL - I assume that's why we just had a massive influx of Texans.

Seriously though - if this story gets legs (and it's already hit the front page of the Washington Post) then I bet it will start to affect the DC bar and restaurant scene.

DC police have an incredible amount of power - it's not just these insane DUI laws. The metro police here arrested a 13 year-old girl for eating a candy bar on the train, and a woman at a bus stop for "talking too loud on her cell phone". Despite what you may think, when you live around draconian, power-tripping police officers you begin to avoid areas where you think they are most likely to congregate (for example, I bet the poor woman in the article no longer has dinner in Georgetown, DC).

There are some pretty swell restaurants in DC, but if you can't drive in and have a beer with your Pad Thai then it's easier just to stay in the MD and VA suburbs just outside.

Besides, plenty of tourists come to DC and stay to have a drink - Old Ebbit Grill is just one of the many bars where tourists hang out.

If anything tourism will dip rather then crash, but it's screwed up when people fear the police more then the criminals.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Since when did people go to dc for the bars? Did you forget why people actually go to visit washington?[/QUOTE]
To give Lincoln's statue a lap dance?
 
That's alright, last week my dad was arrested and brought in under suspision of DUI. The kicker? He doesn't drink and actually blew a breathilizer of .00 on the scene. The state trooper saw prescription pills (which my dad all had prescriptions for and the officer saw these prescriptions) after conducting an illegal search of my dad's car, he didn't even bother to ask if he could search and didn't say anything about probably cause. Furthermore, he had my dad's car towed and brought him into the station to have his blood tested. Afterward, he made my mom come pick up my dad because he warned my dad not to drive the rest of the day and not pick up his car from impound until the next day.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Leary is a name, Leery is the word you're thinking of.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but the world could use more Leary (Timothy and Dennis)
 
[quote name='camoor']LoL - I assume that's why we just had a massive influx of Texans.

Seriously though - if this story gets legs (and it's already hit the front page of the Washington Post) then I bet it will start to affect the DC bar and restaurant scene.

DC police have an incredible amount of power - it's not just these insane DUI laws. The metro police here arrested a 13 year-old girl for eating a candy bar on the train, and a woman at a bus stop for "talking too loud on her cell phone". Despite what you may think, when you live around draconian, power-tripping police officers you begin to avoid areas where you think they are most likely to congregate (for example, I bet the poor woman in the article no longer has dinner in Georgetown, DC).

There are some pretty swell restaurants in DC, but if you can't drive in and have a beer with your Pad Thai then it's easier just to stay in the MD and VA suburbs just outside.

Besides, plenty of tourists come to DC and stay to have a drink - Old Ebbit Grill is just one of the many bars where tourists hang out.

If anything tourism will dip rather then crash, but it's screwed up when people fear the police more then the criminals.[/QUOTE]

Most tourists go their for all the tourist attractions and government buildings, not to drink. Sure there are bars tourists frequent, but I can't imagine them not going there because they can't drive afterward (especially since many tourists don't even rent cars). The only loss I could see is college kids from the surrounding area not taking the trip into the city, but the bar and night scene isn't the most important business for most cities anyway, especially crime ridden ones like washington.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most tourists go their for all the tourist attractions and government buildings, not to drink. Sure there are bars tourists frequent, but I can't imagine them not going there because they can't drive afterward (especially since many tourists don't even rent cars). The only loss I could see is college kids from the surrounding area not taking the trip into the city, but the bar and night scene isn't the most important business for most cities anyway, especially crime ridden ones like washington.[/QUOTE]

How about 40 and 50 year-olds (like the single mother in the story) not going into DC for dinner?

How about 20 to 30 somethings not stopping in DC on their way home for a happy hour beer?

How about choosing north Virginia instead of DC for a ritzy 50-person company dinner?

Frankly, I think you are underestimating the impact of locals on the DC entertainment industry. I know about this issue much better from keeping tabs on the smoking ban in bars proposal that DC was entertaining - it's a very fickle crowd that will migrate to MD and VA establishments in a flash.

You are probably right about proper tourists (like the type that are coming in from the midwest to see the museums) for now. However the DC policy is clearly draconian, and if police continue to abuse their overly-permissive discretion then I guarantee that you will see a change in DC revenue dollars.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most tourists go their for all the tourist attractions and government buildings, not to drink. Sure there are bars tourists frequent, but I can't imagine them not going there because they can't drive afterward (especially since many tourists don't even rent cars). The only loss I could see is college kids from the surrounding area not taking the trip into the city, but the bar and night scene isn't the most important business for most cities anyway, especially crime ridden ones like washington.[/QUOTE]

The difference though is that those people probably aren't spending much money while "touring" DC. Touring is free. Businesses that count on groups of people spending money are going to feel the pain. I myself always enjoy getting a beer with my dinner, and love to do so while in the city. I can't be the only one.
 
[quote name='camoor']How about 40 and 50 year-olds (like the single mother in the story) not going into DC for dinner?

How about 20 to 30 somethings not stopping in DC on their way home for a happy hour beer?

How about choosing north Virginia instead of DC for a ritzy 50-person company dinner?

Frankly, I think you are underestimating the impact of locals on the DC entertainment industry. I know about this issue much better from keeping tabs on the smoking ban in bars proposal that DC was entertaining - it's a very fickle crowd that will migrate to MD and VA establishments in a flash.

You are probably right about proper tourists (like the type that are coming in from the midwest to see the museums) for now. However the DC policy is clearly draconian, and if police continue to abuse their overly-permissive discretion then I guarantee that you will see a change in DC revenue dollars.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you want to argue it's like banning smokine.g They've had a smoking ban in restaurants in MA for a while now, and restaurants and bars have increased business (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/). It also raised the amount of tax money generated by meals. In NY, a study found that the smoking ban has had no effect on business.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't think you want to argue it's like banning smokine.g They've had a smoking ban in restaurants in MA for a while now, and restaurants and bars have increased business (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/). It also raised the amount of tax money generated by meals. In NY, a study found that the smoking ban has had no effect on business.[/QUOTE]

2 points

1. It's not 100% completely similar to banning smoking, but the ban smoking issue has given me a general education on the types of people who frequent the bars, clubs, and restaurants of DC, and how much these people spend.

2. Massachussets is in the North. Washington DC is a stone's throw away from south Virginia. There is a big difference in how these two areas feel about government restrictions and tobacco.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I don't think you want to argue it's like banning smokine.g They've had a smoking ban in restaurants in MA for a while now, and restaurants and bars have increased business (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/). It also raised the amount of tax money generated by meals. In NY, a study found that the smoking ban has had no effect on business.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the smokers want us to think that they're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore if they can't blow smoke in our faces during dinner :roll: Seriously, I wish that VA would ban smoking in restaurants. Think of the poor wait staff in these smoke-filled restaurants who have greater risk of lung cancer. And then there's people like my sister, who has bad asthma.

Anyway, I can see the draconian argument because it's very true that DC police have gone way overboard in the past, like arresting some kid on Metro for eating a candy bar or a woman for talking on a cell phone loudly (I mean handcuffing these individuals!), and there was another recent case where police surrounded protesters, told them to disperse, but then wouldn't let them leave, and then arrested them for not dispersing.
 
If only they could expand this law to cover making speeches on the senate and house floors. They should have to blow before reaching the podium.
 
I lived in DC for two years and there is several things I have come to know about the town:

The cops are unjustly violent and unrulely, and often times, under trained. They routinely skirt the law in order to uphold justice, particularly against african americans, even though a majority of the police force is black.

Secondly, there is no representive government in the district. We did not have representives in Congress and the mayor is always a congressional lapdog, paid off by the giant corporations who are now booting the poor out in order to build their gigantic condos and NATS stadium. Gentrification is rampant.

Thirdly, it is obsurd to think that having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner is not acceptable if your driving. Its the "If you have just one drink, you shouldn't drive" nonsense that allows these laws to be created in the first place; but wait, DC doesn't have representation....Having a glass a wine with a dish is a part of a dining experience and shouldn't be altered because you blow a .01....What the hell is going on here...Do we really want the govenment to control every aspect of our lives?

Bars in DC are plentiful, particularly on 18th street in Adams Morgan, where I lived.

EDIT- Beyond this, DC has a very fine metro, if you can put up with the harassment the police likes to dole out to its taxpayers....Also, word of advice, dont use the taxis. They are fraudulent, and will charge you a mortgage payment if you do not know where you're going and what area of DC you are looking for.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yeah, the smokers want us to think that they're mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore if they can't blow smoke in our faces during dinner :roll: Seriously, I wish that VA would ban smoking in restaurants. Think of the poor wait staff in these smoke-filled restaurants who have greater risk of lung cancer. And then there's people like my sister, who has bad asthma.

Anyway, I can see the draconian argument because it's very true that DC police have gone way overboard in the past, like arresting some kid on Metro for eating a candy bar or a woman for talking on a cell phone loudly (I mean handcuffing these individuals!), and there was another recent case where police surrounded protesters, told them to disperse, but then wouldn't let them leave, and then arrested them for not dispersing.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad someone realizes that the "no smoking" argument isn't aimed at helping the smokers, but helping the staff of the establishments.

That being said, banning smoking isn't the same as banning alcohol. One thing is for sure, you can still smoke outside a dining establishment. You can also smoke in your car, in parks, etc.

However, this would be banning the consumption of alcohol. Not the banning of consumption in a restaurant.

(however, I'm not too opposed to banning alcohol in specific places. I've found alcohol to be a root of many problems that can be cleared up if people were clean and sober. I'm just a little conflicted about this, however. .03 is NOT very impaired. It's about the same as a mild buzz in a light weight and .01 would barely register on a person. Lastly, draconian police suck)
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm glad someone realizes that the "no smoking" argument isn't aimed at helping the smokers, but helping the staff of the establishments.[/quote]

It's aimed at helping people like me, who don't smoke and don't want the health risks of your smoke.

However, this would be banning the consumption of alcohol. Not the banning of consumption in a restaurant.
Click to expand...

No, it's the banning of alcohol if you're going to drive. I often have a drink at night, and it's not like I go driving after.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']No, it's the banning of alcohol if you're going to drive. I often have a drink at night, and it's not like I go driving after.[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming someone is going to drive if they're going to a nice restaurant in a city area. Even if I take the metra train (in chicago-land), no way in hell am I walking from the train to my house. Especially in the winter.

Now, what I'd like to see are these policemen being reassigned to a coal mining town where the whole work force congregates in a few bars every night. The political rancor and chaos that ensues would have people thinking twice about how "right" these police men are for making snap judgements based on arrogance and turned off head lights.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm assuming someone is going to drive if they're going to a nice restaurant in a city area. Even if I take the metra train (in chicago-land), no way in hell am I walking from the train to my house. Especially in the winter.[/QUOTE]

Well, the quality of restaruants weren't being discussed. But even then, that would depend on the city. I have no idea what washington is like but, in places like boston, most use the subway and walk the rest. Chicago didn't have a very good subway system though when I was there. But, I thought you were saying it's like banning alcohol, not just specifically restaurants.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, the quality of restaruants weren't being discussed. But even then, that would depend on the city. I have no idea what washington is like but, in places like boston, most use the subway and walk the rest. Chicago didn't have a very good subway system though when I was there. But, I thought you were saying it's like banning alcohol, not just specifically restaurants.[/QUOTE]

Technically, Chicago doesn't have a good subway system, because it's non-existant, but I won't hold that against you ;). However, the fact of the matter is that we don't know where these Draconian police exist, and could exist in any town and may feel like taking the law in their own hands (rather that enforcing the law that is outside of their hands. There's a reason why legislation and enforcement are two different branches of gov). As such, it shouldn't matter the quality of the town, it's more or less saying that if any alcohol is on your breath, you're getting carted, regardless of the effect. Gargling listerine and twisted underwear could land you in a jail sentence.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's aimed at helping people like me, who don't smoke and don't want the health risks of your smoke.[/QUOTE]
Seperate sections for smokers and non-smokers are meant to seperate non-smoking patrons not deal with smoke (albeit somewhat ineffective). The purpose of no smoking laws in restaurans is aimed at helping the staff that may be assigned an 8 hours shift of second hand smoke hell.

Also, there is a large amount of people that don't understand the laws and think that it's only aimed at trying to get smokers to quit (read quite a few letter to the editors about how smokers should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not they should smoke in the local [yokel] newspaper).
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']


Seperate sections for smokers and non-smokers are meant to seperate non-smoking patrons not deal with smoke (albeit somewhat ineffective). The purpose of no smoking laws in restaurans is aimed at helping the staff that may be assigned an 8 hours shift of second hand smoke hell.

Also, there is a large amount of people that don't understand the laws and think that it's only aimed at trying to get smokers to quit (read quite a few letter to the editors about how smokers should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not they should smoke in the local [yokel] newspaper).[/QUOTE]

Well, the wait staff as well. If the separate areas were more effective then there would have been less pressure to put the bans into effect. This can be observed in some currently existing laws in other areas, as they have compromised and said that the smoking area must be completely enclosed. But, either way, who cares what some people think (though I've never heard that opinion before, other than from paranoid smokers). The point is I don't have to breath it, and the wait staff isn't forced to deal with it. Smoking is a dangerous habit and you're essentially forcing others to breathe it, it would be different if it had no health effects.

Some of the places around here used to have a 5 or 6 foot tall wall (totally exposed on top, typical barrier that often separates booths in restaurants) and would place smokers on one side and non smokers on the next. That doesn't work to well.

edit: I just remembered something, in chicago only the underground part is referred to as the subway (I remember using the term subway in chicago when asking a worker for directions and he got confused, then corrected me). In boston, it's all referred to as subway, even the above ground parts. That could be because most of it is below ground though.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's aimed at helping people like me, who don't smoke and don't want the health risks of your smoke.[/QUOTE]

It's aimed at both. I don't give a shit if you want to blacken your lungs and smell like shit, but keep that shit away from me.
 
[quote name='IkilledLassic']Secondly, there is no representive government in the district. We did not have representives in Congress and the mayor is always a congressional lapdog, paid off by the giant corporations who are now booting the poor out in order to build their gigantic condos and NATS stadium. Gentrification is rampant. [/QUOTE]

Right on the money. They really should give the District, other than the federal buildings and other areas, back to Maryland and let the people be represented in Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't want to do this as they would lose a chance at statehood (and 2 guaranteed Democratic senators, 1 representative), and the Republicans don't want to do it because it would pretty much put Maryland out of play for them in statewide races (they have a tough time as it is).

And don't get me started on the stadium. D.C. is a very poor city with dilapidated schools, high murder rates, high tax rates and crumbling infrastrucure, yet the government wants to put hundreds of millions of dollars into a fucking baseball stadium.
 
And don't get me started on the stadium. D.C. is a very poor city with dilapidated schools, high murder rates, high tax rates and crumbling infrastrucure, yet the government wants to put hundreds of millions of dollars into a ing baseball stadium.
Click to expand...

I never understood that. You'd think the government would want it to be a shining example of america, but yet they seem to let it rot outside of the main tourist sites.

Though one my one chance to go there I chose ottawa instead, and therefore don't know how it is laid out. Are the poor sections are out of site from most tourists?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I never understood that. You'd think the government would want it to be a shining example of america, but yet they seem to let it rot outside of the main tourist sites.

Though one my one chance to go there I chose ottawa instead, and therefore don't know how it is laid out. Are the poor sections are out of site from most tourists?[/QUOTE]

Most tourists never see the bad parts of town. In particular, Anacostia, on the eastern side of the Anacostia River, is incredibly poor and violence-ridden. It's not a pleasant place. But on the National Mall, Capitol Hill and in places like Georgetown things are clean, well-policed and safe for the most part.

The DC government is inept and has been for a long time, ever since I can remember anyway. Remember, this is a city that has just recently elected former mayor and convicted felon Marion Barry to a City Council seat.

And you should come visit DC sometime. There's a lot to see, from the wonderful museums to the majestic monuments to our government in action (sometimes a sad sight ;)).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Most tourists never see the bad parts of town. In particular, Anacostia, on the eastern side of the Anacostia River, is incredibly poor and violence-ridden. It's not a pleasant place. But on the National Mall, Capitol Hill and in places like Georgetown things are clean, well-policed and safe for the most part.

The DC government is inept and has been for a long time, ever since I can remember anyway. Remember, this is a city that has just recently elected former mayor and convicted felon Marion Barry to a City Council seat.

And you should come visit DC sometime. There's a lot to see, from the wonderful museums to the majestic monuments to our government in action (sometimes a sad sight ;)).[/QUOTE]

It's just like Mexico. Great looking tourist places. Everything else is terrible.
 
Yes, I'm sure that every tourist bureau want's the new attarctions to be in full view of the poverty stricken ghettoes. That way they can give tours and charge admission to see the poor people on display. You could line up for your mugging and it could be an orderly, safe process, therby giving all the nice white folk the full experience of visiting an urban area.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']...The only loss I could see is college kids from the surrounding area not taking the trip into the city, but the bar and night scene isn't the most important business for most cities anyway, especially crime ridden ones like washington.[/QUOTE]

Council Hastens To Revise DUI Law
Zero-Tolerance Policy In D.C. Called 'Absurd'
By Brigid Schulte and Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 15, 2005; Page B01
D.C. Council members, swamped with irate calls and threats to boycott D.C. bars and restaurants, introduced emergency legislation yesterday that would override the police department's controversial and little-known zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving.
"We need to remedy this immediately," said council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), who is running for mayor.
Council member Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), another mayoral candidate, called the current situation "absurd."
...
"We have a very booming night life in the city with wonderful restaurants, wonderful bars, wonderful nightclubs. We want people to partake of those things -- responsibly, of course, when it comes to driving," Schwartz said. "But we certainly don't want them to feel that they can't have a glass of wine and feel that they can be intimidated in any way by anybody."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401959.html

Emergency legislation? They only act this fast when business interests are at stake, and tax dollar revenue is threatened. Kudos to Debra Bolton for standing up to the bullies in blue.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, I'm sure that every tourist bureau want's the new attarctions to be in full view of the poverty stricken ghettoes. That way they can give tours and charge admission to see the poor people on display. You could line up for your mugging and it could be an orderly, safe process, therby giving all the nice white folk the full experience of visiting an urban area.[/QUOTE]

I know that in New York city, there are areas where you can walk down one block with movie-star apartment buildings and doormen, and in another two blocks you're in the ghetto.

In DC, the gentrified area is much better defined - it's more like a blob that keeps spreading as the ghettos recede and the poor get bought out.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, I'm sure that every tourist bureau want's the new attarctions to be in full view of the poverty stricken ghettoes. That way they can give tours and charge admission to see the poor people on display. You could line up for your mugging and it could be an orderly, safe process, therby giving all the nice white folk the full experience of visiting an urban area.[/QUOTE]

That's right, we should just wall off the poor so respectable people never have to put up with their presence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top