Hippies.... Everywhere....

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.

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.
 
You can't ask for better proof than Amsterdam.

Even though it was a joke,

"Therefore, in this section the living conditions in Amsterdam are compared to the living conditions in the Netherlands as a whole. When applying the weights of the Netherlands to the Amsterdam data, we see that living conditions in Amsterdam are on average worse than in the Netherlands as a whole (see Table 4). This is
hardly surprising given the fact that a greater proportion of people living in large cities such as Amsterdam are more deprived in terms of education and income."

http://www.os.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2002_quality_of_life.pdf

A survey of the quality of life in Amsterdam by one of their government institutions ranks Amsterdam lower than the rest of the Netherlands. Generally, we speak highly of Amsterdam while the people there do not lead nearly as high quality of lives as we do, here in the United States. Its the whole, "the grass is always greener on the other side" idea.
 
Man, totalburnout is a totaldowner.

Edit: This is a joke. No need to take any of this garbage personally. :D
 
Last edited:
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.

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?

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?

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'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.
 
Also, pish posh.

I know Cliff or someone will come in and try to shoot holes through my argument, but I simply feel that Darkhand has been the only one to break the situation down and start to look at both some of the positive and negative outcomes of the situation.

Its a slippery slope and not something I would like the nation to fall down.
 
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...
 
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...

My intentions were to say that quality of life is not based upon drug usage. ;)

Blanco, those students don't take into account the history of the subjects in question. Are they experienced users? Inexperienced users? Closed course or public roads?

Regardless, users were still negatively effected in a manner that the study brushed off as "small". I would say the inability to maintain a lane while driving is a little more than a "small" problem, especially should the drivers be out on public roads with other people who they are endangering. They point of the matter is not to justify the degree to which users are effected, but rather that the users are all negatively effected when compared to their ability to drive in a sober state.

The second study is a wash because its a game, as opposed to real life operating conditions where your surroundings are physically changing and you have to compensate for uncontrollable variables like other motorists, but I see where you were trying to head with that study.
 
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.
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.
No one ever says "Well, it's legal for me to drink 15 beers, so I figured it was ok to drive". Yet, you assume that people will take this attitude when it comes to weed. There is a point at which you can consume marijuana and safely operate a vehicle. There is also a point at which you should not operate anything but an XBOX controller.
As far as leniency for DUI's, again you ASSume wrong. I got a DUI 2 months after I turned 21. It sucked, I hated it, but I realized that I made a terrible decision and deserve every ounce of punishment that I received (3 days in jail, 90 day license suspension, thousands upon thousands of dollars in fines/fees/insurance costs). I think that the punishment for driving stoned beyond a certain limit, that would be specified in the legislation, should carry an equal weight in punishment for someone who drives intoxicated over the legal limit.

I'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.
Marijuana vs. Alcohol: Which is Harmful? : Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer
The Safety of Marijuana : Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer
DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving? - Arizona DUI Laws Attorney Lawyer Phoenix DUI Drunk Driving Defense Extreme Penalties In Scottsdale
I 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.
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. obviously:)
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.
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.

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.
Alcohol is a depressant/barbiturate.
Marijuana is a hallucinogen
Saying that one will affect you like the other is ignorance.
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 I said before, there are legal limits on alcohol. There should be legal limits on marijuana, the punishment should be the same.
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.
As am I.
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.
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...
If the government had a drug/method of making it so that citizens were physically incapable of committing crimes, I'll bet you'd be down at the polls voting that it be mandatory for citizenship. While I personally would be finding another country to live in. Why? Because America stands for freedom. The freedom to choose. To eat bad food, and not exercise, and smoke cigarettes, and drive a truck that gets 2.5 miles to a gallon. Are these decisions bad? YES. But goddamnit, no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives or make decisions for us.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 agree, yet booze is still legal. Should we outlaw it too?
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.
I totally agree.
Also, pish posh.

I know Cliff or someone will come in and try to shoot holes through my argument,
Anticipating defeat? :D
 
For the record, CBD is what causes most to hallucinate while 'high' on Cannabis. I have never had hallucinations while high. Perhaps I didn't smoke myself stupid, or just didn't have that much at all. They've also stated that it is different when ingested versus being smoked.
 
Cliff, reverse everything you said, dance around the questions and you have yourself a great debate.

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.

I 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. Of course common sense says you wouldn't and if you would which shoots major holes in your argument. 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 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'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.

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.)
 
"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..."

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
There's one problem with all that... No one cares about anyone else's rights. That's the short way of saying it, anyway. With some of the things going on in our country today, I'm surprised we still have any 'rights' at all. And on top of that... driving isn't a 'right' it's a privilege.
 
Let the record state that I can't drive for shit when i'm high.

which is why i don't smoke any more and haven't in a long time
 
Cliff, reverse everything you said, dance around the questions and you have yourself a great debate.
:confused:
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.
Yes, and that is the definition of assuming.
I 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.
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 statements
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,

I answered your question quite directly, no dancing.

Of course common sense says you wouldn't and if you would which shoots major holes in your argument.
How so, I am advocating the responsible use of marijuana. Shoot away.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and? you agree? repeating what I said for emphasis?
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.
I quit smoking over a year and a half ago. :shrug2:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
You can't legislate peoples attitudes.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think my POV is distorted, I think you have distorted my view points.
 
Back
Top