Friday, August 18, 2006

little rant....

so, I've been seeing ads lately that piss me off and disgust me.
-Impaired Driving-
they basically are advertising... if you were drinking and decided to drive, then don't worry about the tons of time and effort that have been put into 'don't drink and drive' ads.... we'll make sure that you can keep your license so that next time you can do some real damage!!
now, before you get all defensive on me, I realize that sometimes machines do make mistakes and it is possible that the breathalizer may yield a higher result than what alcohol was actually present in the blood. BUT - I also realize that at some points, I can drink a few drinks and feel right tipsy, yet my blood alcohol would be within the legal limit.... just as easily as you can have a few too many yet feel more sober than you are.
Nevertheless, I don't want to be a bitch about the technicalities. I'm here to bitch about the fact that it is advertised.
"so what if it's advertised, shouldn't those who are wronged by the injustice of our faulty judicial system have the right to find a qualified specialist who can assure that their innocence is upheld to the full extent of the law?!?"
Why yes Billy, of course they should! BUT if this were aimed at the few instances in which people were wronged, the advertisements would not be warranted, there wouldn't be enough cases in order for the lawyers to go this much outof their way to make themselves known.
Nevertheless, these ads do exist implying that there is a larger target audience - which I am certain are those who are looking for a way out of paying the fine or losing their license and vehicle.
Once again, I realize the fault of my passion on this topic (bitching, that is) and see that I have no proof that all the clients are guilty, and I shouldn't jump to such outlandish conclusions, no siree bob!
Nevertheless, I stand by my disgust at the mere fact that there are advertisements for "Impaired Driving". and why, why does it matter that there are advertisements/!

THE ANSWER-
Do we actually believe that fast food advertisements exist solely for those who are already hungry for that mouthwatering juicy beef slapped between two hot toasty buns leaving you hungry for.... oops, a little off topic... tee hee hee, anyway, are those advertisements only there for those who already know what they want, and perhaps just forgot that they can go out and get it?!? ... I think not!
Advertisements serve many purposes, one of those is to inform the market of what is available from the company paying for the ads. Another equally important purpose, and of more interest to the business sector, is the goal of increasing the client base.
The aim of those advertisements is to reach out to those people who don't even know they want something, and to convince them that there is a want where there was no need before.
This is why I am disgusted. Whether it be the primary intention or not, the advertisers are putting into effect incentives for people to drink and drive, countering the 'dont drink and drive' ads which came before. Where someone should think "I've had 3 drinks in 2 hours, I might be close to the legal limit; perhaps I will call a cab to play it safe", they might think "I've had 3 drinks in 2 hours, I might be close to the legal limit; close enough that I could probably fight my way around the charges thanks to my friends - the pro-drinking-and-driving-lawfirm".

I find this situation quite similar to the traffic ticket specialists who blatantly advertise that they get you off scott-free from speeding tickets. Once again, aside from the possibility that the radar gun was off by however many klicks... mumbly mumbly, it all boils down to people not wanting to accept the punishment for the crime. I'm not here to debate the value of speed limits or safety concerns because I speed just like the next person, BUT... We all know that there are speed limits and we know that there are fines for speeding,at the same time, mostly all of us gamble now and then. The majority of the time we don't get caught and we break the law openly and feel pretty good about it. Then, you get caught and boom it's an outrage and you have been violated. Or even worse those pussy ass fuckheads who claim that red-light cameras are a violation of privacy and shouldn't be legal.... FUCK YOU ASS TWAT! suck it up and pay the ticket.
Oy, now I've gone from mildly ranty, to just plain pissy.
oh well, that should be enough for tonight... I haven't writtena long entry in a while, I hope it has been as delightful to read as it has been to write.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Red light cameras are a violation of privacy rights, but im far too lazy to explain any more about that. But nice rant, you make me oh so proud!

Jonathan Evans said...

i'm pretty sure they are not. Unless the holder of the image taken decides to use it for profit, i'm pretty sure it does not violate any right at all. It is the same thing as a security camera, used many times to catch people stabbing other people. Is this also an invasion of rights?

Also these photos are not on display to the public, only to police/justice people etc. And they tell you they are there! So if you have something private going on in your vehicle, don't speed, or don't do it at that intersection moron.

I personally hate them as well and think they are just a tax, but all it takes is to slow down and pretend it's a yield sign and speed up again once you're through.