On 8/13/2016 10:17 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:47:28 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>>>>
>>>> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>>>
>>> Virginia:
>>>
>>> Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>>>
>>> Sweden:
>>>
>>> Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with €500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>>
>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.



> Here's what was said without editing

Right, did I say something out of line? You said the level is
very low 'here', meaning Canada.



> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>> they leave?
>>
>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>> our lenient drunk-driving laws. It's as if driving was a civil right
>> or something.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Phew! I didn't know that. The level is very low here and now in
> addition to roadside checks there are all sorts of PSAs urging people
> to phone in if they see a driver acting erratically - if they use
> their mobile it has to be a hands free, not legal any other way.
>

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:59:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>> out in public?! What a concept.
>
>A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.

Kids generally like to go grocery shopping and bother though it was
with each of mine there was one day when we walked back to the car and
skipped the groceries. That was the lesson for all time

The other thing I hated was 'I want' so my kids knew that if they once
on a shopping trip whined about wanting something, the outcome was
they got nothing. Good behaviour merited a reward of fifty cents to
spend how they wished at the end of the trip. I think you would
probably have to pay more now, but come to think of it, today mum
would probably advise the child what it should buy!!

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:19:57 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 10:17 AM, wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:47:28 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>>>>
>>>> Virginia:
>>>>
>>>> Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>>>>
>>>> Sweden:
>>>>
>>>> Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with €500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>>>
>>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>
>
>
>> Here's what was said without editing
>
>Right, did I say something out of line? You said the level is
>very low 'here', meaning Canada.

No I thought your comment meant you hadn't seen what Cindy and I
originally were posting. I don't think our laws are Draconian
though, anything that stops needless DUI deaths is great.
>
>
>
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>>> they leave?
>>>
>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws. It's as if driving was a civil right
>>> or something.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Phew! I didn't know that. The level is very low here and now in
>> addition to roadside checks there are all sorts of PSAs urging people
>> to phone in if they see a driver acting erratically - if they use
>> their mobile it has to be a hands free, not legal any other way.
>>

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:27:07 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 06:55:07 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2016 9:05 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:39:45 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/12/2016 7:53 PM, wrote:
>>>>> Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>>>> they leave?
>>>>
>>>> The concept is new to me. I'd have that concern, for sure.
>>>
>>> You're suggesting banning all bars and restaurants from serving
>>> alcohol, too? How is that any different?
>>>
>> Of course not. But I don't exect my grocery store to *be* a bar.
>
>Or a restaurant. But they are. They even give away free samples of
>beer and wine. They also have events where you can buy tickets for
>bigger pours at any of 8-15 different stations set up by the
>distributors and/or manufacturers.
>
>Back to the pint though, a grocery store serving alcohol isn't any
>different than a bar, restaurant, or art gallery.
>
>-sw

Personally I think there is - admit I find it difficult to explain
why. I think perhaps because if I am going to other places, such as
bars, restaurants, then booze belongs there, or will be there. However
going for groceries - at most there might be free samples of food but
I find booze, over the top.

Are they trying to loosen you up so you spend more? I also don't like
to think of a parent getting the groceries, imbibing free samples then
driving home with kids in the vehicles.

On 8/13/2016 10:00 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>>
>> I wasn't clear. That was only price satisfaction. Overall Wegman's is #1.
>> The top of the overall rankings:
>
> I'm sorry, I read too much into it. You were clear. I saw full
> red dots and ran with it.
>
>> Wegman's
>> Publix
>> Trader Joe's
>> Fareway Stores
>> Market Basket (Northeast)
>> Costco
>
> Aside from 4 & 5, which I don't know, that list doesn't surprise me.
>
> nancy
>

Market Basket is pretty good. Prices are good and you don't need a
rewards card or other dumb program to get them. Employees are treated
well too. At one point they were doing well so the gave all customers a
4% discount on the total tab for two months.

Family owned, the two cousins had disagreement and Arthur was fired as
CEO. Customers and employees boycotted the store until he was able to
buy it back. Arthur wanted to share profits with employees, cousin
wanted to take it all.
http://fortune.com/2014/08/28/exclus...ystery-backer/

On 8/13/2016 10:27 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:19:57 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:

>> Right, did I say something out of line? You said the level is
>> very low 'here', meaning Canada.
>
> No I thought your comment meant you hadn't seen what Cindy and I
> originally were posting. I don't think our laws are Draconian
> though, anything that stops needless DUI deaths is great.
>>

I imagine not, they're probably more in line with ours.

I'm too lazy to look up Canadian laws, or if they're different
in various cities or provinces.

nancy

On 2016-08-13 10:17 AM, wrote:

> Phew! I didn't know that. The level is very low here and now in
> addition to roadside checks there are all sorts of PSAs urging people
> to phone in if they see a driver acting erratically - if they use
> their mobile it has to be a hands free, not legal any other way.
>

They get a little carried away with the arbitrary limits. Here in
Ontario they keep nailing people for driving over the .08 limit so they
brought in roadside 24 license suspensions for .05, though there is no
fine for that amount. We had a case a few years ago where a bunch of
young people sat around a bar drinking all afternoon, got shit faced
drunk and then drove off and got involved in a multi fatality crash.
The driver was well over the .08 limit, but the government brought in a
new law with zero tolerance for alcohol for drivers under the age of 22.

AFAIAC, drivers talking on cell phones and those who are texting are as
much a hazard to public safety as drunks, and I mean drunks, not those
who blow a little over the arbitrary limit.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:53:53 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 10:27 AM, wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:19:57 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Right, did I say something out of line? You said the level is
>>> very low 'here', meaning Canada.
>>
>> No I thought your comment meant you hadn't seen what Cindy and I
>> originally were posting. I don't think our laws are Draconian
>> though, anything that stops needless DUI deaths is great.
>>>
>
>I imagine not, they're probably more in line with ours.
>
>I'm too lazy to look up Canadian laws, or if they're different
>in various cities or provinces.
>
>nancy
>
They vary a little by province, but not too much. Here it is .05 but
how much you can afford to drink varies I guess with body weight etc.
though I have always understood one glass of wine with a meal and you
wouldn't exceed that limit.

On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>> out in public?! What a concept.
>
> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>
I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go to
the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents these days.

Jill

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>> out in public?! What a concept.
>
> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.

They are woefully absent many times these days.

Cheri

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>>> out in public?! What a concept.
>>
>> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>>
> I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go to
> the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents these
> days.
>
> Jill

Lazy parenting.

Cheri

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>
> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.

Or California in recent years.

Cheri

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> >> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
> >>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
> >>
> >> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
> >
> > Virginia:
> >
> > Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
> >
> > Sweden:
> >
> > Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with ‚¬500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>
> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.

Canada's laws seem only slightly stiffer than ours.

<http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/AlcoholCountries/background_&_intro.htm>

Looks like the U.S. has about 10,000 drunk driving fatalities per
year, or 30% of all driving fatalities. Unless one simply thinks
of it as "evolution in action", we've got some room for improvement.

<http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html>


Cindy Hamilton

On 8/13/2016 11:27 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>>>> out in public?! What a concept.
>>>
>>> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>>>
>> I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go
>> to the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents
>> these days.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Lazy parenting.
>
> Cheri

Someone will surely chime up and say I don't have children. No, I
don't. But I've said it before and I'll say it again: It was a
privilege to be allowed to go to the store with Mom as a kid. We knew
better than to run amok.

Jill

On 8/13/2016 11:19 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>>> out in public?! What a concept.
>>
>> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>>
> I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go to
> the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents these days.
>
> Jill

Parents want to be the best friend of their children, not their parents.
If you correct the little brats you may hurt their feeling and they
won't like you.

On 2016-08-13 11:17 AM, wrote:

>> I'm too lazy to look up Canadian laws, or if they're different
>> in various cities or provinces.
>>
>> nancy
>>
> They vary a little by province, but not too much. Here it is .05 but
> how much you can afford to drink varies I guess with body weight etc.
> though I have always understood one glass of wine with a meal and you
> wouldn't exceed that limit.
>

Drunk driving in a criminal offense in Canada, so the limit is set
federally at 0.08. Several provinces have roadside suspension to 0.05
to 0.08. In SK the roadside suspension level is 0.04.

There are a lot of factors that are taken into account to guesstimate
your BAC,like size, weight, sex, whether or not you are eating food with
the booze, and how well your liver is working to metabolize the alcohol.
While size is naturally a factor it also depends on whether you are
well muscled or flabby. People with lower body fat will have a lower
BAC. Women will have a higher BAC than an equal sized male because they
tend to have a higher percentage of fat and they lack the enzyme that
helps to break down alcohol in the stomach.

On 8/13/2016 9:42 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>>>>
>>>> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>>>
>>> Virginia:
>>>
>>> Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>>>
>>> Sweden:
>>>
>>> Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with ‚¬500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>>
>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>
> Canada's laws seem only slightly stiffer than ours.
>
There are two sets of laws here. Driving over .08 is a criminal and
therefore a Federal offence and if no injuries are involved, the
penalties are set out he
http://tiny.cc/1xuxdy

However, some Provinces have also added administrative penalties for
over .05 (they are not allowed to pass their own criminal laws as they
are federal jurisdiction). In Alberta the following are added:
Implemented July 1, 2012
For drivers with blood alcohol over .08:

Criminal charge for BAC over .08, impaired by drugs or alcohol or
refusal to provide requested sample(s).
Immediate licence suspension which is sustained until criminal
charge is resolved.
1st charge: sustained licence suspension and 3-day vehicle seizure,
€œPlanning Ahead€� course.
2nd charge: sustained licence suspension, 7- day vehicle seizure,
€œImpact€� course.
3rd charge: sustained licence suspension, 7-day vehicle seizure,
€œImpact€� course.
Mandatory ignition interlock after criminal conviction €“ 1 year for
1st conviction; 3 years for 2nd conviction; 5 years for 3rd conviction.

Implemented September 1, 2012
For drivers with Blood Alcohol .05 to .08:

1st offence - Immediate 3-day licence suspension and 3-day vehicle
seizure.
2nd offence - Immediate 15-day licence suspension, 7-day vehicle
seizure, €œPlanning Ahead€� course.
3rd offence - Immediate 30-day licence suspension, 7-day vehicle
seizure, €œImpact€� course.

Implemented July 1, 2012
For new (GDL) drivers with blood alcohol over .00

GDL driver found with any blood alcohol - Immediate 30-day licence
suspension and 7-day vehicle seizure

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/13/2016 11:27 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when
>>>>> they're
>>>>> out in public?! What a concept.
>>>>
>>>> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>>>>
>>> I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go
>>> to the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents
>>> these days.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Lazy parenting.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Someone will surely chime up and say I don't have children. No, I don't.
> But I've said it before and I'll say it again: It was a privilege to be
> allowed to go to the store with Mom as a kid. We knew better than to run
> amok.
>
> Jill

Yes, even my grandchildren which I spoil a bit knew how to behave in stores
etc., or it's back to the car in a flash.

Cheri

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:16:06 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-08-13 10:17 AM, wrote:
>
> > Phew! I didn't know that. The level is very low here and now in
> > addition to roadside checks there are all sorts of PSAs urging people
> > to phone in if they see a driver acting erratically - if they use
> > their mobile it has to be a hands free, not legal any other way.

This is why I say our laws have no teeth:

<http://wtkr.com/2016/08/08/michigan-man-with-12-dui-convictions-charged-in-alleged-drunk-driving-crash-that-killed-12-year-old/>

>
> They get a little carried away with the arbitrary limits. Here in
> Ontario they keep nailing people for driving over the .08 limit so they
> brought in roadside 24 license suspensions for .05, though there is no
> fine for that amount. We had a case a few years ago where a bunch of
> young people sat around a bar drinking all afternoon, got shit faced
> drunk and then drove off and got involved in a multi fatality crash.
> The driver was well over the .08 limit, but the government brought in a
> new law with zero tolerance for alcohol for drivers under the age of 22.
>
> AFAIAC, drivers talking on cell phones and those who are texting are as
> much a hazard to public safety as drunks, and I mean drunks, not those
> who blow a little over the arbitrary limit.

This is the law in Michigan (I find it funny that there's a legal BAC
limit for people who can't buy alcohol. I suppose it's for kids whose
parents give them a glass of wine with dinner or something.):


It is a crime for a driver to have a bodily alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or greater if over age 21 or .02 or greater if under 21. In addition, Michigan has a high-BAC law with enhanced penalties for anyone caught driving with a BAC of .17 or higher. However, drivers can be arrested at any BAC level if they exhibit signs of impairment while operating a motor vehicle.

Drivers with any amount of a Schedule 1 narcotic--such as marijuana, GHB, or heroin--are subject to the same fines and penalties as drunk drivers, even if they show no signs of impairment.


Costs and Consequences of a Drunk Driving Conviction


If BAC is below .17 and this is a first offense:
€¢Up to $500 fine
€¢Up to 93 days in jail
€¢Up to 360 hours of community service
€¢Up to 180 days license suspension
€¢6 points on a driver's license

If BAC is .17 or higher and this is a first offense:
€¢Up to $700 fine
€¢Up to 180 days in jail
€¢Up to 360 hours of community service
€¢Up to one year license suspension
€¢6 points on a driver's license
€¢Mandatory completion of an alcohol treatment program
€¢Ignition interlock use and compliance after 45 days license suspension is required to receive a restricted driver's license. Convicted drunk drivers have limited driving privileges, are prohibited from operating a vehicle without an approved and properly installed ignition interlock device, and are responsible for all installation and upkeep costs for the device.

Anyone who refuses a breath test the first time is given an automatic one-year driver's license suspension. For a second refusal within seven years, the suspension is two years.

Convicted drunk drivers are subject to a $1,000 penalty for two consecutive years under the Driver Responsibility Act, for a total of $2,000 in additional costs.



Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:57:17 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:53:37 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>>Bullshit, nobody beats Walmart's prices,
>
>Shoplifters can.

It's very easy to shoplift from a small mom n'pop, near impossible at
Walmart, they maintain very sophisticated state of the art security,
and they do prosecute, even for a pack of gum.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 07:42:10 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 8/12/2016 11:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 22:04:05 -0400, Don Wiss >
>> wrote:
>
>>> Consumer Reports ranks supermarkets. They rank 68 of them. Walmart
>>> Supercenters are at the bottom. The dots are either all black, or half
>>> black, except for one. They get a half red for Price satisfaction.
>
>> Bullshit, nobody beats Walmart's prices, I haven't found any store yet
>> with lower prices... just this week I needed deodorant, Walmart's
>> price for Old Spice Classic was a dollar less than at the local Rite
>> Aid. I shop the local Rite Aid for a couple Rx drugs but for nothing
>> else, I wait until I get to Walmart... BJs prices are good too but BJs
>> is Walmart.
>
>They did get a half red for Price satisfaction. I guess you'd
>give them a whole red. Seems the people who voted aren't as
>impressed.
>
>nancy

Walmart has a free App that tracks your purchases and compares prices
within a hundred mile radius, any found lower you get that difference
deducted from your next purchase. It's rare it finds lower prices and
typically very small amounts, less than 50¢

On 8/13/2016 12:01 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:04:49 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Hands free phone is a joke, too, it's been proven many times,
>> they just can't enforce you to stop talking while you're driving.
>> The thing is, from my experience, people don't talk much on the
>> phone anymore, they text. They aren't doing that hands free from
>> what I can see.
>
> Here, the cops drive around in busses and tall trucks to catch people
> texting and talking on their phones.

Now that you mention it, more and more of our cop cars are
SUVs these days. Maybe that's why.

> And nowadays speech-to-text
> features of phones are fairly advanced allowing people to text and
> drive hands-free.
>
> People still love pressing buttons on their cell phones.

Yeah, they all have their phones in hand.

Have you noticed this phenomenon? Used to be people would see the
stop line and stop halfway across it. Now it's very common for
people to stop easily a car length away from it. I could pull in
front of them sometimes. Ditto stopping behind other cars at a
light.

My theory is that people texting are so used to trying to keep a
cushion so they don't run into other cars, they don't even realize
they've stopped too soon. Looking at their phone.

nancy

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:45:53 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 9:39 AM, Don Wiss wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016, Nancy Young > wrote:
>
>> Okay. Let's see what stores got a full red dot. In rank order:
>>
>> Trader Joe's
>> Fareway Stores
>> Market Basket (Northeast)
>> Costco
>> Win-Co
>> Aldi
>>
>> That's it. Only six full red dots.
>
>I'm surprised to see Aldi there, and not Wegman's. Or Publix,
>not that there are any of those around here.
>
>The store where I do most of my day to day shopping (meaning,
>not Costco) is always ranked near the bottom. I like the store,
>though, warts and all.
>
>nancy

I like the Tops Market in town but I only buy sale items there and
fresh meats on sale, otherwise their prices are high. I do major
grocery shopping at Walmart and Bjs. No Costco here, but BJs is like
Costco.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> >> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>> >>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>> >>
>> >> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>> >
>> > Virginia:
>> >
>> > Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>> >
>> > Sweden:
>> >
>> > Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with €500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>>
>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>
>Canada's laws seem only slightly stiffer than ours.
>
><http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/AlcoholCountries/background_&_intro.htm>
>
>Looks like the U.S. has about 10,000 drunk driving fatalities per
>year, or 30% of all driving fatalities. Unless one simply thinks
>of it as "evolution in action", we've got some room for improvement.
>
><http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html>
>
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Well IMO it's okay if the drunk driver dies but very often it's not. A
married in aunt had a sister who was coming home from a school concert
with her husband and two children. They were hit by an elderly male
driving drunk as a skunk. The husband and daughter died, she was left
to live with a son who was a veggie, it was all terribly sad. The
nasty old drunk barely had a scratch

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:49:49 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:47:28 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>
>Canada is only slightly less lenient than the average U.S. State. But
>they have this funny law where they won't even let Americans cross the
>border if they have *any* sort of alcohol-related driving arrests -
>even if they're not driving or planning on driving. Same with Mexico.
>America has no such restrictions - we are much more friendly and
>inviting to our neighbors.
>
>[gratuitous and obligatory RFC-style foreigner-bashing comment]
>
>-sw

I have to assume you know whereof you speak but far more Americans get
turned back at the border because of weapons.

Back in the day, 1955 I think, I was turned down for a US visa. This
was in Tokyo and my father called the ambassador to ask him why. After
investigating it he found that they didn't like the fact that in mock
general elections in an English boarding school I had stood as the
communist candidate lol I got my visa needless to add and spent a
very nice summer as a counsellor at a camp for kids in the Carmel
Valley.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:58:55 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:33:53 -0300, wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>>> they leave?
>>>
>>>This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>our lenient drunk-driving laws. It's as if driving was a civil right
>>>or something.
>>>
>>>Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Phew! I didn't know that.
>
>It's not like that. The U.S. laws are comparable to most other
>developed countries, and even more strict than Canada.
>
>-sw

It's .05 here.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:08:32 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 9:42 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-4, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2016 8:39 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>>>>
>>>> Virginia:
>>>>
>>>> Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>>>>
>>>> Sweden:
>>>>
>>>> Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with €500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>>>
>>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>>
>> Canada's laws seem only slightly stiffer than ours.
>>
>There are two sets of laws here. Driving over .08 is a criminal and
>therefore a Federal offence and if no injuries are involved, the
>penalties are set out he
>http://tiny.cc/1xuxdy
>
>However, some Provinces have also added administrative penalties for
>over .05 (they are not allowed to pass their own criminal laws as they
>are federal jurisdiction). In Alberta the following are added:
> Implemented July 1, 2012
>For drivers with blood alcohol over .08:
>
> Criminal charge for BAC over .08, impaired by drugs or alcohol or
>refusal to provide requested sample(s).
> Immediate licence suspension which is sustained until criminal
>charge is resolved.
> 1st charge: sustained licence suspension and 3-day vehicle seizure,
>“Planning Ahead” course.
> 2nd charge: sustained licence suspension, 7- day vehicle seizure,
>“Impact” course.
> 3rd charge: sustained licence suspension, 7-day vehicle seizure,
>“Impact” course.
> Mandatory ignition interlock after criminal conviction – 1 year for
>1st conviction; 3 years for 2nd conviction; 5 years for 3rd conviction.
>
>Implemented September 1, 2012
>For drivers with Blood Alcohol .05 to .08:
>
> 1st offence - Immediate 3-day licence suspension and 3-day vehicle
>seizure.
> 2nd offence - Immediate 15-day licence suspension, 7-day vehicle
>seizure, “Planning Ahead” course.
> 3rd offence - Immediate 30-day licence suspension, 7-day vehicle
>seizure, “Impact” course.
>
>Implemented July 1, 2012
>For new (GDL) drivers with blood alcohol over .00
>
> GDL driver found with any blood alcohol - Immediate 30-day licence
>suspension and 7-day vehicle seizure
>
I don't take chances, happily I have several non-drinking friends for
when I am out and for family do's my eldest grandson lives nearby and
they always pick me up. I wouldn't take the chance anyway, have seen
what it can do.

We came here nearly 50 years ago now and I am very happy that there is
a total attitude change on that score. People used to think tales
about how they just managed to get home after a party were funny...

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 2:39:55 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> > Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
> > > our lenient drunk-driving laws.
> >
> > Lenient? Don't get caught DUI in Virginia.
>
> Virginia:
>
> Virginia categorizes a first DUI offense as a class 1 misdemeanor and imposes a fine ranginging from $250 to $2,500. The law also imposes a one-year license suspension. The punishment increases if you were arrested with a BAC of 0.15% or higher in which case your sentence may include a minimum five-day jail sentence..
>
> Sweden:
>
> Surpassing the limit is a serious offence, fined with ‚¬500. Driving with an alcohol rate over 0.12% is a crime (up to 6 months imprisonment and license suspension up to 4 years). Sweden: 0.02% (up to 6 months imprisonment), 0.10% (imprisonment, maximum 2 years).
>
> Cindy Hamilton

If you're a commercial pilot who is drunk on the job - you get suspended for a year and you have to go get professional help. If you get caught the second time, the same thing happens. If you get caught the third time - you're grounded permanently.

P.S.: We need self-driving cars.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:19:42 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 9:59 AM, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> You're expecting parents to actually *mind* their children when they're
>>> out in public?! What a concept.
>>
>> A good parent teaches their children to behave in public.
>>
>I was taught to behave or I else I would not have been allowed to go to
>the store. I have no idea why it is such a problem for parents these days.

Probably regarded as 'child abuse' these days...

On 2016-08-13 3:45 PM, wrote:

> Well IMO it's okay if the drunk driver dies but very often it's not. A
> married in aunt had a sister who was coming home from a school concert
> with her husband and two children. They were hit by an elderly male
> driving drunk as a skunk. The husband and daughter died, she was left
> to live with a son who was a veggie, it was all terribly sad. The
> nasty old drunk barely had a scratch
>

I don't have a problem with them throwing the book at people who drive
drunk and crash, especially when there are fatalities. My issue is more
about the treatment of people who simply blow a little over the limit.
I am thinking of a case of an east coast driver who racked up about a
dozen convictions for DUI, all for blowing over the limit, but who had
not crashed, and they threw the book at him/ He got a couple years in
prison. Around the same there was a local case of a young woman who was
driving drunk, crashed her car and killed her best friend.
She got a couple months of house arrest.

I accept that the guy was a repeat offender who apparently didn't learn
from his earlier convictions and the sentences he received, but I figure
that the the most serious punishment should be applied in the worst case
scenarios. He was sentenced to jail because his previous punishment
didn't teach him about the possibility of being one of those worst case
scenarios... like the crash she was involved in. She was in a single car
accident and killed her friend, but she ended up with a much, much
lighter sentence.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:32:39 -0300, wrote:


>Are they trying to loosen you up so you spend more?

It at least keeps people in the store longer, spending more.

Some people would view it as a convenience, I see it more as training
people to consume even more... even while they're already buying stuff
to consume. I mean really, can't people shop without cramming
something down their neck? Can't even burn off any calories from the
minimal exercise they get from pushing a trolley

Cup holders in trolleys is another example.

On 2016-08-13 3:50 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:49:49 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 09:47:28 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> What about Cananda? That's where lucretia lives. Just because some
>>> country has draconian laws doesn't mean ours are bad.
>>
>> Canada is only slightly less lenient than the average U.S. State. But
>> they have this funny law where they won't even let Americans cross the
>> border if they have *any* sort of alcohol-related driving arrests -
>> even if they're not driving or planning on driving. Same with Mexico.
>> America has no such restrictions - we are much more friendly and
>> inviting to our neighbors.
>>
>> [gratuitous and obligatory RFC-style foreigner-bashing comment]
>>
>> -sw
>
> I have to assume you know whereof you speak but far more Americans get
> turned back at the border because of weapons.

I know people who work at the border and there are more people turned
back for criminal records than for firearms. They don't have a problem
with people who declare guns, though they are turned back to find a
place to store the firearms and are allowed to come back. A DUI is a
criminal code offence here and makes them inadmisable.

>
> Back in the day, 1955 I think, I was turned down for a US visa. This
> was in Tokyo and my father called the ambassador to ask him why. After
> investigating it he found that they didn't like the fact that in mock
> general elections in an English boarding school I had stood as the
> communist candidate lol I got my visa needless to add and spent a
> very nice summer as a counsellor at a camp for kids in the Carmel
> Valley.
>

On 2016-08-13 3:52 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:58:55 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:33:53 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 02:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>>>> they leave?
>>>>
>>>> This is America. We barely care about drunk driving, as evinced by
>>>> our lenient drunk-driving laws. It's as if driving was a civil right
>>>> or something.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> Phew! I didn't know that.
>>
>> It's not like that. The U.S. laws are comparable to most other
>> developed countries, and even more strict than Canada.
>>
>> -sw
>
> It's .05 here.
>

The .05 limit is for a roadside administrative suspension for 24 hours.
It does not carry a fine or imprisonment.

On 8/13/2016 6:05 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:32:39 -0300, wrote:
>
>
>> Are they trying to loosen you up so you spend more?
>
> It at least keeps people in the store longer, spending more.
>
> Some people would view it as a convenience, I see it more as training
> people to consume even more... even while they're already buying stuff
> to consume. I mean really, can't people shop without cramming
> something down their neck? Can't even burn off any calories from the
> minimal exercise they get from pushing a trolley
>
> Cup holders in trolleys is another example.
>
>
I've not seen cup holders in trolleys/shopping carts. I also don't eat
or drink anything when I'm shopping for food. I'm a believer in not
shopping for groceries when you're hungry. Have a bite to eat before
you leave the house. Cuts down on the impluse buying.

Jill

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:16:21 -0300, wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:06:58 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:53:43 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>>We have at least three grocery stores here that have wine bars on the
>>>>shopping floor. Whole Foods has at least 2 bars that serve wine (and
>>>>a couple others serve beer). And each Central Market has - or at
>>>>least had - one. They also serve wine in the cafes that are open to
>>>>the sales floor. You are also allowed to drink beer and wine as you
>>>>shop.
>>>>
>>>>The second floor of Whole Foods is reserved for seating and am ice
>>>>rink - I don't think they have any service up there.
>>>
>>>Don't they have any concerns about drivers being over the limit after
>>>they leave?
>>
>>Wonder what the liability would be if somebody was drunk (or over the
>>limit) pushing a trolley and caused injury to themselves or others ?
>>:P
>>
>>What a bizarre concept... I never really thought about drinking (or
>>eating) whilst grocery shopping.
>
>I didn't think of that but yes, a spoiled kid once ran a cart into me
>and the crack on the ankle made my eyes water. My foot was bruised
>and swollen for about a week.
>
>What really ****ed me off was the mother seemed to think I should have
>moved so her kid could continue!

Figures. You see the same mentality with people who think it's their
right to text while walking.

>She had three there and shortly
>after that they ran into a pyramid display of maple syrup which came
>down. She was asked to leave - and take her kids with her - and she
>was mad as hell, yelling at all of us and asking didn't we remember
>what minding three little kids was like! Somebody told her, yes, we
>disciplined them!

It seems to be a rare concept these days (disciplining children).

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:29:02 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:57:17 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 23:53:37 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bullshit, nobody beats Walmart's prices,
>>
>>Shoplifters can.
>
>It's very easy to shoplift from a small mom n'pop, near impossible at
>Walmart, they maintain very sophisticated state of the art security,
>and they do prosecute, even for a pack of gum.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 18:28:41 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 8/13/2016 6:05 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 11:32:39 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Are they trying to loosen you up so you spend more?
>>
>> It at least keeps people in the store longer, spending more.
>>
>> Some people would view it as a convenience, I see it more as training
>> people to consume even more... even while they're already buying stuff
>> to consume. I mean really, can't people shop without cramming
>> something down their neck? Can't even burn off any calories from the
>> minimal exercise they get from pushing a trolley
>>
>> Cup holders in trolleys is another example.
>>
>>
>I've not seen cup holders in trolleys/shopping carts.

Nor I, although I have heard of them.

>I also don't eat
>or drink anything when I'm shopping for food. I'm a believer in not
>shopping for groceries when you're hungry. Have a bite to eat before
>you leave the house. Cuts down on the impluse buying.

I used to make sure I wasn't hungry when shopping, these days I find
I'm disciplined enough that being hungry doesnt make me buy more than
normal. It's a good idea though. If anything I'm too good at talking
myself out of buying something at the supermarket, which I do regret
occasionally.

On 2016-08-13 6:28 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Cup holders in trolleys is another example.
>>
>>
> I've not seen cup holders in trolleys/shopping carts. I also don't eat
> or drink anything when I'm shopping for food. I'm a believer in not
> shopping for groceries when you're hungry. Have a bite to eat before
> you leave the house. Cuts down on the impluse buying.

I agree that it is a good idea not to shop when hungry. I do not buy
drinks or food items to consume while shopping. I have been known to try
food samples that I have been offered, but I can't think of any that
inspired me to buy the product. On the contrary, most of them have been
disappointing. I especially remember once having a sample of hummus and
it was so terrible I was surprised that they would be giving out samples
of something so bad. They would have had a better chance of selling the
product on people willing to pay to try it because anyone who sampled it
would be nuts to buy it.

On 2016-08-13 7:16 AM, wrote:
>
> I didn't think of that but yes, a spoiled kid once ran a cart into me
> and the crack on the ankle made my eyes water. My foot was bruised
> and swollen for about a week.


FWIW, my cart crashing incidents involved old ladies. Being bumped in
the back of the ankle once is bad enough, but when you get the same
person ramming you three times in less than a minute.... what gives with
that?




> What really ****ed me off was the mother seemed to think I should have
> moved so her kid could continue!She had three there and shortly
> after that they ran into a pyramid display of maple syrup which came
> down.

My son told me about an incident he had in a No Frills store where a
nasty little mullet sporting welfare ape made like he was going to throw
something at him. My son just gave him a firm and disapproving stare.
Welfare cow mother caught the look and told the kid " Tell him back the
**** off" .

On 8/13/2016 6:44 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-08-13 6:28 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I've not seen cup holders in trolleys/shopping carts. I also don't eat
>> or drink anything when I'm shopping for food. I'm a believer in not
>> shopping for groceries when you're hungry. Have a bite to eat before
>> you leave the house. Cuts down on the impluse buying.
>
> I agree that it is a good idea not to shop when hungry. I do not buy
> drinks or food items to consume while shopping. I have been known to try
> food samples that I have been offered, but I can't think of any that
> inspired me to buy the product. On the contrary, most of them have been
> disappointing. I especially remember once having a sample of hummus and
> it was so terrible I was surprised that they would be giving out samples
> of something so bad. They would have had a better chance of selling the
> product on people willing to pay to try it because anyone who sampled it
> would be nuts to buy it.
>
>
I see the occasional 'Demo Dollies'. They are rarely, if ever, offering
samples of anything I'd consider buying. I simply say "no thank you"
and keep walking.

I don't know about everyone else. I don't go to the grocery store with
grazing or trying to get a free lunch/snack in mind.

Don't get me started on hummus.

Jill