posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 01:25 AM
The tattoo idea in shorts sets up a nanny state, and no one wants that. Once you open the doors to that, then you end up with something that will be
perverted and used beyond its original intentions. History and other organizations have showed us that. Take the Organization MADD, we all remember
that. The original idea was to prevent drunk driving. Good idea, as the number of deaths due to people driving drunk was high and the creator, Candy
Lightner, founder had lost her child from someone driving drunk. But then it got perverted and she left the organization. Why, in her words:
"[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I have ever wanted or envisioned...I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to
deal with the issues of drunk driving."
MADD is one of the staunchest supporters of ignition-interlock (aka Prohignition) legislation in the country. Bottom line is if this gets passed,
then cars will be fitted with a breathlizers to prevent people from driving drunk and everyone pays the price, both in a loss of liberty and in the
cost of a car.
Bottom line is that if you demand the tattooing of people with HIV, then you have to enforce mandatory HIV testing of every single person in the
country, and then how do you enforce that they have safe sex? And did you consider the cost of such, who is going to pay for it? Are you willing to
have your taxes raised for the cost of all of this, including the therapy sessions for the people who are young and have gotten that tattoo cause they
got it from their mother and had no control over getting this horrid disease? Nor have you addressed the privacy issue, what about that, are you
willing to have what you do in your bedroom exposed to the public in the interest of public safety?