Ban Driving Instead!

Currently awaiting approval from the Texas Senate after passing the House last week is a bill that seeks to ban text messaging while driving. A similiar bill was approved by the House and the Senate in 2011 but was vetoed by Governer Rick Perry who suggested that he would veto again if it passes this year according to mysanantonio.com. My problem with this is that if an educated group of men and women – my mistake, two educated groups of men and women are approving this measure shouldn't that be the majority? I understand that our state government works in a certain way and in this case the decision of the governer to veto said bill, but maybe we could try getting the bill to the governer prior to ten days before the session ends so that the governer is forced to veto the bill while the legislature is still in session that it can be overturned by a 2/3 vote. The machinations of what I will call Legislature V. Governer are quite atrocious as we can see in the past from the low number of overridden vetoes. I seemed to have ran off on a tangent however inconsequential, my main point was that why shoudn't texting be banned while driving. I see way to many people on the roads just talking on the phones driving with one hand not to mention the people that I see looking down at their phones hungrily awaiting their next text message. This is not to say that I myself have never texted while driving just that I would gladly lose the text messaging if it would save some lives and cause more people to be aware of their surrounding while driving. 

Is there anything that we can do as an alternative to texting while driving? Well, I have looked into this and the technology just doesn't seem to be there. We currently have dictation programs but those usually cost more than they are worth and that isn't saying much. The fact that our governer will not allow this measure to pass disturbs me and I am hoping that the legislature will at least have the chance to override if indeed it is vetoed. I just do not see an underlying reason to NOT ban texting while driving, political or financial. People are still going to do it no matter what the laws say but at least our state can start benefiting financially from lawbreaking texters. The safety of our highways will always be paramount to finding out juicy gossip in a text message that could have waited.

Pissing Our Money Away?

I ran across an article from one of my classmates Doug Warzon that talks a little about screening welfare applicants for drug use, you can check out the full article here. Contrary to the title of my post I found myself agreeing with Doug - mostly - on the issue presented. I believe in helping people but only as far as they help themselves. Why would I want my hard earned tax dollars to go towards taking care of someone under the influence of drugs or someone that could care less about helping themselves? As far as that goes I believe that it is an excellent idea to screen welfare applicants with drug tests. Now, here is what I don't agree with; the numbers. I have been following the welfare drug screening legislation around the country for quite some time now and I can tell you that even though the idea is a really good one, the execution is below poor. One of the main reasons that it doesn't really matter if we test them or not is the cost; it doesn't save us (taxpayers) a single dime to see these people drug tested.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating to just keep the system the way it is and let people keep getting their welfare without any sort of repercussions if they are drug users, but maybe we should find a way to create a better system. There is a thing called "lobbying" and I am sure you have all heard of it, so it should come as no surprise that there are drug testing companies that lobby our government and more specifically our legislatures. What better way to satisfy the general publics appetite for welfare reform (with drug screening) and to receive a great big campaign contribution than to pass a law that requires drug screening for welfare applicants; oh and by the way, Company X who provided my campaign contribution will also be the company we use for the drug test. This is exactly the problem that I am talking about and a solution needs to be found if we are to see any positive results.

The last problem with this system is the money; sure, the applicants are required to pay for their tests which saves the state a lot of money and gets rid of the drug addicts right? Wrong, as the laws now stand, an applicant that is found to have no intoxicants is refunded the cost of the drug test by the state which it was administered, coming directly out of our pockets. So with such a broken system it is no wonder that the ACLU is getting involved and suing under infringement of our Fourth Amendment rights but I digress. I want to stop here and say that on the whole I do agree with Doug on his post, it was a great piece and we should find a way to fix the system, screen for drug users, and spend less money. Will this ever happen? I don't know but I can tell you for now until we fix the broken system, these forays into experimental legislation is the same as flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.