erynthered Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I haven't been profound in years. Listening to Chef Jim's band can do that to you.
Simon Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 are you trying to control my personal freedoms???? You just want to protect the pharmaceutical company profits by denying folks access to a wonder drug like marihuana! Kick him in the shin to see how profound he is? More like prolost. Besides, he's kinda old. I don't want to break him.
Stl Bills Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 What are you, a friggin nut-job? You want the gubmint to decide when you get start your own car?? What happens when states start caving again to the MADD lunatics and drop the legal BAC down to .02?? Oops...I just took cough syrup, now my car won't start. Yeah either a nutt job or someone whose lost a loved one to a drunk driver in 2005. Better hope Big Brother didn't just read your post KD they could be on there way to your house right now to take your guns too. I don't know considering 15,000 people died in alcohol related crashes in the United States alone in 2008 I'd say yeah (couldn't find a 2009 stat). And I'd say its a bit harsh to call members of MADD lunatics as most of the members are family members of someone who has either been killed or severly injured by a drunk driver. And why haven't the states already caved to lowering the BAC level yet? Probably because its not going to happen and doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making about interlocks that prevent people who are over the current legal limit behind the wheel of a car. If you took the drunks off the road and people stopped getting killed at such alarming numbers I don't think you'd here as much from organizations such as MADD. But keep letting people die at the rate of 15k + each year and MADD will only continue to grow and the legislation you fear so much will be much more of a reality. But yeah call me a nutt job because I support something that would prevent innocent people from getting killed.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 You know I just tend to degrade people that do illegal ****. But you're taking the me, me, me stance here because you just want it legal because you smoke it. I want it kept illegal to protect eveyone from impaired people which you know will increase if it's legalized. between this thread, and the bike thread, you have proven yourself to be the king of the circular logic pissing matches. you just got called out for being self-serving, and you still try to twist it back around to only you being correct. if you honestly cant see the blatant fallacy of your argument (even though i know you are smarter than that), then it's not even worth discussing with you anymore. you've already admitted that if MJ were legal, you would use it. you have one extremely minor point that you are sticking to. either understand that, contrary to your OPINION, there really would NOT be that many more impaired people effecting you (considering you live in SF and anyone who wants weed already has it), or just stop repeating your played out point that really doesnt hold much water.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 between this thread, and the bike thread, you have proven yourself to be the king of the circular logic pissing matches. you just got called out for being self-serving, and you still try to twist it back around to only you being correct. if you honestly cant see the blatant fallacy of your argument (even though i know you are smarter than that), then it's not even worth discussing with you anymore. you've already admitted that if MJ were legal, you would use it. you have one extremely minor point that you are sticking to. either understand that, contrary to your OPINION, there really would NOT be that many more impaired people effecting you (considering you live in SF and anyone who wants weed already has it), or just stop repeating your played out point that really doesnt hold much water. I think Chef Boyardee is stoned, damn hippie.
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 between this thread, and the bike thread, you have proven yourself to be the king of the circular logic pissing matches. you just got called out for being self-serving, and you still try to twist it back around to only you being correct. if you honestly cant see the blatant fallacy of your argument (even though i know you are smarter than that), then it's not even worth discussing with you anymore. you've already admitted that if MJ were legal, you would use it. you have one extremely minor point that you are sticking to. either understand that, contrary to your OPINION, there really would NOT be that many more impaired people effecting you considering you live in SF and anyone who wants weed already has it), or just stop repeating your played out point that really doesnt hold much water. See those first two highlighted lines? You think I'm going to be the only one using if it becomes legal that doesn't use now because it is not? I won't be out driving stoned but there will be those that will be. Pardon me for not wanting more people DUI. And if you don't think think that's going to be the case then I can't reason with you. BTW you said there really would not be that many more impaired people. That means you think there will be more. Even one more is too many for me and I can't believe you're cool with that. See that third line? I'm living proof that there are people in SF that would want weed but don't already have it. See there are those of us (and it's safe to say that number is large seeing SF is the financial capital of CA) who if we got caught with something illegal would lose our professional licenses that we worked so hard for and do not want to jeopardize our careers, so because of that we do not seek it out now.
Magox Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 You guys are just going around in circles. Basically the two viewpoints in this thread are Concern: More impaired drivers, therefore endangering peoples lives. Objection: Minor concern. The reality is that it is a perfectly legitimate concern, there are merits to it, however it is an obstacle that in my view can easily be overcome. The amount of tax revenues that would be generated would easily surpass the cost to create a technology to detect people who are driving high, so that there could be some sort of recourse for those that break the law. I would be much more worried with people drinking and driving than those who smoke and drive. If we can have laws to attempt to deter people from D&D then I'm pretty sure we can easiy do the same for those that S&D.
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 You guys are just going around in circles. Basically the two viewpoints in this thread are Concern: More impaired drivers, therefore endangering peoples lives. Objection: Minor concern. The reality is that it is a perfectly legitimate concern, there are merits to it, however it is an obstacle that in my view can easily be overcome. The amount of tax revenues that would be generated would easily surpass the cost to create a technology to detect people who are driving high, so that there could be some sort of recourse for those that break the law. I would be much more worried with people drinking and driving than those who smoke and drive. If we can have laws to attempt to deter people from D&D then I'm pretty sure we can easiy do the same for those that S&D. If they could come up with something like that I might change my opinion but I also mentioned there are other ways they could be a danger to me other than drivng, that's just my biggest concern. Now could they also come up with something that would provent them from standing behind me in a line smelling like Otto's jacket and calling eachother duuuuuuuuude?
KD in CA Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Yeah either a nutt job or someone whose lost a loved one to a drunk driver in 2005. Better hope Big Brother didn't just read your post KD they could be on there way to your house right now to take your guns too. I don't know considering 15,000 people died in alcohol related crashes in the United States alone in 2008 I'd say yeah (couldn't find a 2009 stat). And I'd say its a bit harsh to call members of MADD lunatics as most of the members are family members of someone who has either been killed or severly injured by a drunk driver. And why haven't the states already caved to lowering the BAC level yet? Probably because its not going to happen and doesn't have anything to do with the point I'm making about interlocks that prevent people who are over the current legal limit behind the wheel of a car. If you took the drunks off the road and people stopped getting killed at such alarming numbers I don't think you'd here as much from organizations such as MADD. But keep letting people die at the rate of 15k + each year and MADD will only continue to grow and the legislation you fear so much will be much more of a reality. But yeah call me a nutt job because I support something that would prevent innocent people from getting killed. Settle down Beavis....was just responding in kind (or so I thought). No one is suggesting not taking drunk drivers off the road. You'll get no argument from me supporting the absurdly lax DUI laws in this country. As far as I'm concerned, a license should be automatically suspended for a first offense and permanently revoked for a second. And if you kill someone while DUI, one year in prison for every tenth of a percent you blow. But you aren't advocating punishing offenders, you are suggesting forcing people who have never had a drink in their life to undergo a Breathalyzer every single time they turn on their car (not to mention absorbing the cost of the device). So everyone gets treated like a criminal because we are afraid of what might happen? Do you also think we need to equip all new cars with a 'cell phone scrambler' device that makes it impossible to get cell coverage in a car when the ignition is on? Lots of people die because of idiots talking on their cell phones. How about a device that checks the tire pressure and locks out the engine if it's too low? Or how about we force everyone to have a biorhythm reading before starting the car to determine how much sleep they got last night? I bet a lot of people died last year because someone fell asleep at the wheel. You can't make the world a perfect place by forcing people to take absurd steps before doing simple tasks.
bartshan-83 Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Jimbo... If I follow correctly, it is your stance that: - MJ is impairing (agreed) - Legalization will lead to wider-spread use (agreed) and consequently a higher number of impaired people (agreed) - Even ONE more impaired person is unacceptable (eh...agreed...in a vacuum, but I get your point) It is clear that the issue of impairment is very important to you and therefore is strong enough to justify keeping MJ illegal. Where you lose me, is your seemingly arbitrary distinction between marijuana and alcohol with regards to legality and danger (impairment). You concede that alcohol is just as (if not more so) impairing than MJ but the only reason you don't object to it, is its current status of being legal. You said you "don't want to make legal things illegal, but you also don't want to make illegal things legal." It seems to me that since you feel strongly about the impairment issue, that you would logically have just as much desire to eliminate a currently legal danger (alcohol) as you would to prevent a currently illegal danger (MJ) from adding to the problem. If there was a robber inside your house and another one outside your house trying to get in, wouldn't you want to get rid of both of them equally? **And to be clear, I'm not debating MJ vs. Alcohol as to which is worse...that has obviously been covered.
Stl Bills Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Settle down Beavis....was just responding in kind (or so I thought). No one is suggesting not taking drunk drivers off the road. You'll get no argument from me supporting the absurdly lax DUI laws in this country. As far as I'm concerned, a license should be automatically suspended for a first offense and permanently revoked for a second. And if you kill someone while DUI, one year in prison for every tenth of a percent you blow. But you aren't advocating punishing offenders, you are suggesting forcing people who have never had a drink in their life to undergo a Breathalyzer every single time they turn on their car (not to mention absorbing the cost of the device). So everyone gets treated like a criminal because we are afraid of what might happen? Do you also think we need to equip all new cars with a 'cell phone scrambler' device that makes it impossible to get cell coverage in a car when the ignition is on? Lots of people die because of idiots talking on their cell phones. How about a device that checks the tire pressure and locks out the engine if it's too low? Or how about we force everyone to have a biorhythm reading before starting the car to determine how much sleep they got last night? I bet a lot of people died last year because someone fell asleep at the wheel. You can't make the world a perfect place by forcing people to take absurd steps before doing simple tasks. Well I guess it all depends on what your definition of absurd is. I don't feel its absurd in any way but you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I guess I don't see it as innocent people being treated as criminals but as something that would allow people to have a little more peace of mind. Sure there is always going to be risk when driving a car but IMHO it seems all too often we here about fatalities or serious injuries because some dumbass decided to get behind the wheel of car. Anyway, I've always gotten along with you on here and enjoyed talking with you so I wasn't getting all riled up.....you just pissed me off calling me a nutt job bc this is something I def. have a strong opinion on. I'm always willing to discuss things and listen to others opinions and I certainly respect yours. Cheers.
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Jimbo... If I follow correctly, it is your stance that: - MJ is impairing (agreed) - Legalization will lead to wider-spread use (agreed) and consequently a higher number of impaired people (agreed) - Even ONE more impaired person is unacceptable (eh...agreed...in a vacuum, but I get your point) It is clear that the issue of impairment is very important to you and therefore is strong enough to justify keeping MJ illegal. Where you lose me, is your seemingly arbitrary distinction between marijuana and alcohol with regards to legality and danger (impairment). You concede that alcohol is just as (if not more so) impairing than MJ but the only reason you don't object to it, is its current status of being legal. You said you "don't want to make legal things illegal, but you also don't want to make illegal things legal." It seems to me that since you feel strongly about the impairment issue, that you would logically have just as much desire to eliminate a currently legal danger (alcohol) as you would to prevent a currently illegal danger (MJ) from adding to the problem. If there was a robber inside your house and another one outside your house trying to get in, wouldn't you want to get rid of both of them equally? **And to be clear, I'm not debating MJ vs. Alcohol as to which is worse...that has obviously been covered. I get everyone questioning my logic but I think it's more logical than "hey, booze is legal and impairs people more than marijuana so what's the big deal?" argument don't you think? People driving drunk sucks, we can all agree on that but making booze illegal would be silly but can't you agree that legalizing something that will no doubt increase the number of people that DUI is even sillier?
Fingon Posted April 22, 2010 Author Posted April 22, 2010 I get everyone questioning my logic but I think it's more logical than "hey, booze is legal and impairs people more than marijuana so what's the big deal?" argument don't you think? People driving drunk sucks, we can all agree on that but making booze illegal would be silly but can't you agree that legalizing something that will no doubt increase the number of people that DUI is even sillier? Not really. We shouldn't be putting people in prison because some people choose to drive under its influence. Just like no one is saying alcohol should be illegal because some people don't act responsibly while on it. Legalizing MJ would create an entire industry overnight. It would create thousands of jobs, and a lot of wealth. IMO, that definitely justifies making it legal. It just seems extremely silly to arrest people who are sitting in their own homes and doing no harm to anyone. Make DUI laws stricter or develop a test for it, but we are wasting a ridiculous amount of money fighting it.
Stl Bills Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Not really. We shouldn't be putting people in prison because some people choose to drive under its influence. Just like no one is saying alcohol should be illegal because some people don't act responsibly while on it. Legalizing MJ would create an entire industry overnight. It would create thousands of jobs, and a lot of wealth. IMO, that definitely justifies making it legal. It just seems extremely silly to arrest people who are sitting in their own homes and doing no harm to anyone. Make DUI laws stricter or develop a test for it, but we are wasting a ridiculous amount of money fighting it. I agree with this.
Stl Bills Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I think this whole thread can be summed up with a picture................. Link
Nervous Guy Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I think this whole thread can be summed up with a picture.................Link or this... http://www.deafhooddiscourses.com/2008/vertigo.jpg
KD in CA Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 Well I guess it all depends on what your definition of absurd is. I don't feel its absurd in any way but you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I guess I don't see it as innocent people being treated as criminals but as something that would allow people to have a little more peace of mind. Sure there is always going to be risk when driving a car but IMHO it seems all too often we here about fatalities or serious injuries because some dumbass decided to get behind the wheel of car. Anyway, I've always gotten along with you on here and enjoyed talking with you so I wasn't getting all riled up.....you just pissed me off calling me a nutt job bc this is something I def. have a strong opinion on. I'm always willing to discuss things and listen to others opinions and I certainly respect yours. Cheers. I definitely added a little verboseness to my early post for effect but certainly with no offense intended. I didn't mean to imply you were a nut or anything close. I hear you that it's a personal issue you feel strongly about and that's totally cool. Cheers.
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 or this... http://www.deafhooddiscourses.com/2008/vertigo.jpg I think you just blew some of the posters in this thread's minds.
DrDawkinstein Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 or this... http://www.deafhooddiscourses.com/2008/vertigo.jpg i can hear this pic talking to me, man...
bartshan-83 Posted April 22, 2010 Posted April 22, 2010 I get everyone questioning my logic but I think it's more logical than "hey, booze is legal and impairs people more than marijuana so what's the big deal?" argument don't you think? People driving drunk sucks, we can all agree on that but making booze illegal would be silly but can't you agree that legalizing something that will no doubt increase the number of people that DUI is even sillier? I understand...I think you're saying "We have a problem, it would be too difficult to get rid of the current cause of that problem, but let's at least not add to it." I guess the thrust of my argument was that if you felt that potential driving impairment was serious enough of an issue to justify keeping MJ illegal by itself, I would think that you wouldn't dismiss making alcohol illegal so easily. Sure there are monumental obstacles to doing that, but if it was important enough... But I get you.
Recommended Posts