you can't get laid in a porsche, but the second you get out you get laid.
Hold up here. You've driven a CRX, clearly you know you can have sex in small spaces. The del slo used to be the perfect getaway for myself and a date.
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
you can't get laid in a porsche, but the second you get out you get laid.
You can't ask for better proof than Amsterdam.
That's where personal responsibility comes into play. Using the drumming example again, I'll play high but not stoned to the "whoa, dude...this is the coolest chicken I've evAr seen!" point. I can't even play Forza like that, why the hell would I want to drive like that? People who've never used drugs in their lives make bad judgment calls. Such as people who talk on their cell phones, while drinking a StarBucks, and driving down the road. Or the person you see trying to navigate the mall parking lot, almost hitting you and several parked cars along the way, because that person's more concerned with their cell phone? I'm one of the people who thinks that it's entirely too easy to get a license these days. One of the main things that makes the Autobahn safe is the extreme driver education. The other main thing is driver respect.
Maybe this is me just being silly... but uhh, in that Amsterdam article you posted, where did it relate their quality of life to Amsterdam's drug policy or usage? Unless you had other intentions...
You ASSume too much. I do in fact find great fault in someone attempting to drive beyond their means in ANY situation, sober or not, there are limits on how much alcohol you can have before you are "impaired". There should be a similar criteria for marijuana based on THC concentrations.Yes, which is an oversight on your part. I know because you see no fault in the behavior you can completely overlook it, when in fact its very serious. I'm sure you'll be the first one to complain about "stupid people" driving and how driving tests need to be more stringent, but clearly you'll also be on the bandwagon of the people to lobby for lenience on those who drive under the influence.
Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which is Harmful? : Austin Criminal Defense LawyerI'm not a part of the federal database. To find actual statistics on accidents that are generally all lumped together would be very difficult. I'm not disputing that alcohol may impair driving skills on a larger scale than marijuana but I'm also not insisting as you are that its no big deal. This can have a significant impact, yet again something that you overlooked because it fits into your agenda rather than the benefit of society as a whole.
Obviously this is true, however, there is no way you can prove beyond personal speculation that a legalization would increase the number of impaired drivers. I don't think it would, you do think it would. Who's right? well, me. obviouslyI bet you would want your little girl out on the road with drivers who are impaired or generally lacking in their driving skills. Think of the country's people in the same regards. The government is supposed to look at the people as its children who's health and best interest it must always protect.
I told you i have considered the cost and found it to be insignificant. Prove that it will have catastrophic ramifications. Find me one example of marijuana-legal society having a disaster due to it's drug policy. You act as if marijuana would be destroy us culturally, I don't see that happening.Sure when you never look at the costs, the benefits will outweigh the costs. This is exactly the approach you have taken in your analysis.
Alcohol is a depressant/barbiturate.I know you said you couldn't find the article, but I would love to read that article.
It seems as though that would also argue the point, those who are intoxicated by alcohol and know they're intoxicated by alcohol would drive almost as identical. Clearly this is not the case, so I would find it difficult to believe that users intoxicated by other substances would drive nearly the same. It just seems highly improbable when you think of the situation.
As I said before, there are legal limits on alcohol. There should be legal limits on marijuana, the punishment should be the same.I know when under the influence I could "fake it" when driving a short distance, but eventually I would zone out, make a mistake, or react far too slowly if something were ever to happen. I'm sure people who have smoked can attest to the feeling of "holy s#)%( how am I home already?" where you lose track of time and simply seem to arrive at your destination.
As am I.Like I said, I'm not speaking out of ignorance here before. I've done plenty of dumb things and am simply honest enough with myself to admit how the situation played out.
This is where I make a strong stance of opposition. You are perpetuating the mindset that is the governments responsibility to force you into making good decisions, thus absolving the individual of any responsibility. If someone wishes to make a bad decision, they should be allowed to do so, even if it is breaking the law. There are consequences for breaking the law just like there are consequences for eating junk food. It is up to the individual to make the decision to eat right, obey the law, not drive when stoned...For the record, I think the food industry should be regulated as well and unhealthy foods taken out of the supermarket and restaurants. There's a problem when unhealthy food is cheaper to purchase and more readily available than healthy food and when the common person doesn't possess the information necessary to make sound decisions. I've actually done primary research on this topic. So yes, in sort I think thats the direction this country should be heading.
It wouldn't enable ANYONE to drive impaired. It's not legalizing DUI, It's legalizing the private personal use of cannabis by adult citizens. Anything past that is still a crime.This is the point that I was trying to characterize in my post. I believe, as car enthusiasts, we would all agree that many people are driving out on the road when they have no business being out there. I'm simply saying, since I think we almost all agree on this point, why then would anyone wish to support an idea that enables more people, who shouldn't be out on the roads, to be let loose under the influence?
You're grasping at straws that arent there. I never advocated driving under the influence of marijuana. The point was, it's perfectly legal for me to drink a few beers and drive through a school zone full of children. Are my abilities impaired compared to being straight sober? Slightly, yes. Yet everyone knows that 2 beers is not enough for me to be a serious threat to public safety. I was trying to explain to you that marijuana should be regarded the same way. If I took a hit or two and then drove down the street, I guarantee that my driving ability would not be noticeably impaired. Now, if I whooped out a fatty blunt and chiefed up a hot box to where I couldnt even talk straight, then of course I shouldnt be driving and of course, that should be illegal.By taking the emphasis off of the severity of the situation by saying, "I know my limits" and "some people can drive almost the same under the influence" is simply supporting the notion that this should not be a major concern. As I posed the question to Cliff, would you want your child out on the road with someone under the influence because they could possibly drive nearly as well intoxicated as they could sober. Most people can't drive sober, where does that leave them intoxicated?
I agree, yet booze is still legal. Should we outlaw it too?Also to "know ones limits", one must have tested them first. You learn your limits through trial and error which is not something lives should be staked on. I know that I ate a special brownie for the first time, thought I was fine for the next hour or two, and then wound up rocking in a chair for hours with my eyes swollen shut. Without that experience I would have never known my limits. Who's to say people won't smoke to the point where they don't realize how bad off they are, get in the car and drive off in a state they shouldn't be driving?
This happens with alcohol all the time. People simply don't know how the are going to function until they're put in the situation, especially if they're inexperienced.
I totally agree.I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm saying that this is legislation for the masses and it should have the common [inexperienced] person in mind when looking out for the rest of society.
Anticipating defeat?Also, pish posh.
I know Cliff or someone will come in and try to shoot holes through my argument,
Cliff, reverse everything you said, dance around the questions and you have yourself a great debate.
Yes, and that is the definition of assuming.You tell me I assume too much, yet I took what you said and paraphrased every ounce of it. I didn't think in my head, "oh Cliff is likely to think..." I took what you said from a combination of your posts.
We're going in circles here, you keep saying that it will make things worse, I keep saying that the massive revenues generated could be a great benefit if used properly. Let's stick to arguing the specific points instead of making these blanket statementsI don't think that legalizing marijuana will be the bane of society but rather something that could lead this country to progress in an even worse direction than its already taken.
I ask you a question about would you want your daughter on the road with people who are even remotely intoxicated or simply bad drivers and what do you do? You dance and you never actually answer the question.
I bet you would want your little girl out on the road with drivers who are impaired or generally lacking in their driving skills.
Obviously this is true,
How so, I am advocating the responsible use of marijuana. Shoot away.Of course common sense says you wouldn't and if you would which shoots major holes in your argument.
Why are peoples children made to be subjected to drunk drivers? Because with freedom comes responsibility, those that are irresponsible and abuse their freedoms get it taken away, but that doesn't mean you should take away everyones freedom just because someone might abuse that freedom at some point in time.Contrastingly, if you play devil's advocate here and say that I'm assuming, then we'll go the other direction and say "well I wouldn't mind if she were on the road with intoxicated or incapable drivers" I would tell you you're a terrible parent and certainly not looking out for your child.
If you wouldn't want to put your child in that situation, why should anyone else's child be made to be put in that situation.
Yes, and? you agree? repeating what I said for emphasis?Yes there's a degree to which you can function with certain amounts of a substance in your body, but its still going to negatively effect your driving ability regardless of the amount. The threshold is simply determined for legality purposes, just as the tolerance for the limit of alcohol in your blood while driving has become more stringent over the years.
I quit smoking over a year and a half ago.I'm too tired to quote and debate everything you've said. You've brought up some valid points, but honestly it seems as though for every stoner in this thread (except myself) the end justifies the means and you'll support anything that supports the behaviors you indulge in.
So you think that just because their are people who abuse a privilege, that it should be outlawed for everyone? Even those who use it responsibly? Should everyone be banned for driving because SOME of the populous abuses the privilege? Your logic is flawed.I'm not against legalized marijuana, I'm against the idea of the possible negative outcomes. I'm against those who aren't intelligent enough to know not to drive, or that they're pissing their lives away not following their hopes and dreams and lets face it, the average IQ of a stoner is even more bleak than the IQ of the average citizen. (This is not to suggest that intelligent people do not smoke marijuana but rather that many young, uneducated people indulge in this behavior.)
You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that people have a right to break the law without consequence, I'm saying that in America, we trust people to obey the laws, and when they don't they are punished. You shouldn't write legislation under the assumption that the majority of citizens are criminals, that is the definition of government oppression.It is NOT up to the individual to make all decisions simply because its a free country. The decision MUST be made within the rules and regulations of society, otherwise we have the definition of anarchy.
Simply because I wish to harm others and I live in a free country, does not mean that I'm entitled to this right.
Yes but freedom means that the responsibility to make the decision is up to the individual. It's a trade off, it allows people to do and sometimes get away with a great deal of terrible things, but along with that It also provides law abiding citizens with an unmatched level of freedom and quality of life.Your line of thinking says, "I'm entitled to this right, but I should be punished if I make a bad decision." Too late, the damage is already done.
You can't legislate peoples attitudes.Your line of thinking is also as selfish as one could possibly be and frankly as I've said in other posts, I see this outlook but fat, stupid, Americans who could care less about their fellow man as the true downfall of society. One of my favorite movies is "Pay It Forward" because the movie is based on such a basic ideal that if literally every cared enough to participate the world could be made a better place. Its those who refuse to participate that hurt society in my opinion.
Ignorance of the law is never a valid defense, yet you think that we should throw away all these possible positive benefits just because some ignorant uneducated people will abuse the privilege. Your POV makes no sense to me.As you already agreed in your post, the government should have the common [inexperienced] person in mind when looking out for the rest of society. This includes the uneducated people who cannot make sound decisions, this includes empowering and enabling the people to make sound decisions through government funded programs and a simplified effective system which can be easily interpreted and obeyed by all.
I don't think my POV is distorted, I think you have distorted my view points.Freedom does not mean "no rules".
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Your pursuit of happiness should not effect mine or anyone else's basic rights. When you endanger me, you're negatively effecting my basic rights.
Its interesting to see your viewpoint but the points you are saying are entirely distorted from the way that I have ever interpreted or ever had someone interpret the intent of the founding fathers when they structured the government.