Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
Nobody mentioned " dredge". 
Over the ice, it would be sufficient to truck the necessary boulders and gravel to build it shallow enough for the record speeds that would result. To create a straight course, boulders would require "popping".
Outside of the canal—where it is shallow enough— rafting could be encouraged along both sides. (Where it is deep, a few mooring balls could be installed for spectators).
Sponsored by private donors—in coöperation with the State—think of it as a watery equivalent to the former NHIS. 
All the time, money and effort that went into arguing SB27 could've been expended in The Witches Canal venture with all the above rewards to all boaters.
Who could complain? 
While there is always great risk with these risk-takers, The Witches Canal could become a Mecca for those seeking extreme speeds without resorting to those other concrete-sided canals where those extreme speeds are sought— with disastrous results to peaceable boaters, the speedsters themselves and even the houses that line those canals. 
A single, six-fatality, collision once occurred within such a canal. 
Because New Hampshire's peaceable boaters—and our lake's unrepentant speedsters both win—think of this as a "Win-Win" proposal. 
This is a difficult question to answer, but here's an admittedly " oblique try". 
1) The transport of three liters of Vodka—plus an unknown quantity of beer—was only discovered in the aftermath of a boat collision with one of Winnipesaukee's 253 islands— an island that was tragically encountered directly in the center of Lake Winnipesaukee.
2) While that "transport" was not technically illegal, every experienced Captain is responsible for their boat, passengers and crew—so, viewed in the bright light of Rule 5—how can it be viewed as otherwise than "wrong, unethical, and morally unacceptable".
How'd I do?
|
Poorly.
First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal.
Secondly regarding the alcohol. In the example you cited above, the persons were allegedly consuming the alcohol that was being transported. That would be the problem. The transportation of the alcohol has nothing to do with anything. It is the consumption.
I will give you the same example I have given before, again with no response from you.
On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice. Between the store and home, I have a horrible accident. I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died. Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car. *GASP* beer cans!?!? He must have been drunk! Blood is drawn to determine how much I had to drink that day.
Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car. The store receipt in my pocket confirms this. The receipt says I bought an 18 pack. 18 full beer cans are found in my car. It is obvious to the investigators that I was not drinking the beer, I was only transporting it from the store to my house.
What did I do wrong? Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?
BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal.