User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:10:36 PM EDT
[#1]
"An observation
I noticed there is a difference in the train of thought concerning pot vs alcohol threads. I was reminded of another thread when I read this one. People that drink at least realize that drinking and driving is wrong, regardless of weather they do it or not. The potheads claim that not only does pot not interfere with judgement or reaction time - it actually makes everything better!" Here's an observation: I have yet to see anyone claim that smoking pot makes a person a better driver - but those who use outright fabrications to bolster their arguments tend to look like idiots - and dishonest ones at that... For the record - I think that driving while impaired on ANYTHING is wrong - regardless of the substance... - georgestrings |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:11:19 PM EDT
[#2]
You are comparing your self to people who don't give a shit. Just because you drink responsibly does not mean most people do. You know this firsthand. The point is you live in a pot hellhole. Why don't you just give them 3-4 tickets on technicalities? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:14:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Wolfman,
Do you believe it should be legal to drive under the combined influence of marijuana and cocaine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:19:02 PM EDT
[#4]
I don't think it should be legal to drive while impaired on anything, including fatigue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:22:26 PM EDT
[#5]
I think the stats are pretty clear that most people do drink responsibly. If they didn't, then alcohol accidents would be way worse than they are.
Yeah, there you go. Never mind the law. Cops ought to dish out their own punishment just to teach everybody a lesson. What do we give them night sticks for, anyway? Give them a few whacks with the stick if you don't like their looks. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:34:01 PM EDT
[#6]
It seems here that it is acceptable to have a six pack every Friday night and not be labeled an alcoholic, but if someone smoked some marijuana 10 years ago and, through firsthand experience, knows that there is no reason that it should not be allowed with similar restrictions as alcohol, they are labeled a pothead. Oh yeah, and shouldn't have guns either. Oh, and if they did it when they were 18 in college, and are now 35, they shouldn't be able to apply for an FBI position either.
Let's see... current unlawful user? Nope. Addicted to? Nope. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:38:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Haven't seen ANYONE say that. I certainly don't beleive that.
If pot SHOULD be legal, and there is no reason it shouldn't be allowed, why don't you toke up now? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:40:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Good one G-dood!!!! You writes real good and real pretty. You should git you one of them there TV writer jobs!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:43:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Because a. I don't really care to do it anymore, I don't party like I did in my early 20's b. My job has random drug testing, and background checks every 5 years. Private sector, with security clearance. If I want to go government later on and have to do the polygraph, I'd rather have more time between the last time I did it and my test. Now, I'm only involved with doing background checks for gov't and private entities, all the way to the top. And I didn't lie in my interviews either. If they legalized it tomorrow, I'd treat it the same as I would a shot of whiskey (which I rarely do). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:44:16 PM EDT
[#10]
You need a hobby other than following me around Arfcom. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:44:44 PM EDT
[#11]
There is absolutely no justification for driving with anything but the food in your belly and the air you're breathing in your system.
If anyone can justify driving under the influence of ANY impairing substance (cocaine, pot, booze, take your pick) I'd love to hear it. Glad I didn't have to wait for one of those pit bull threads to get into this kind of action! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:46:17 PM EDT
[#12]
I'm surprised at the number of people who just love to get drunk every weekend. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:46:50 PM EDT
[#13]
I don't think that there is ANYONE here that thinks that anyone should drive with any amount of impairing substance in their bodies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:47:44 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm tired of gun owner "logic." |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:47:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Like going to |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:49:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Try France. Lots of weed, not many guns. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:55:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Apparently you missed the"potheads are better drivers" and "Cocaine improves drivers reaction times" posts a couple of pages back. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:56:11 PM EDT
[#18]
The arguement against weed is identical to the arguement against guns. Some people take advantage of their right and make everyone else look bad. People make dumb decisions and the item gets blamed for it. ETA: It blows my mind how people can't put prohibition and marijuana together and realize how silly it is. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 12:59:39 PM EDT
[#19]
<heavy sigh> For the 10,000 time - RKBA, while being a natural right, is SPECFICALLY ENUMERATED in the COnstitution as being beyond Federal control, and also so codified in most state Constitutions. WEED IS NOT. GOT IT????? WEED IS NOT. Ergo, weed and guns are NOT in ANY way correlary.  So knock it off with the weed / guns correlation. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:01:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Fixed it for ya.....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:04:56 PM EDT
[#21]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: "No, they're idiots. But the crime doesn't occur until they infringe on the rights of others" But drugs and alchohol increase the odds of that happening considerably. People voluntarily use drugs and alcohol and then drive, or are to out of it to know not to drive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure, and gun ownership increases the odds of a particular individual shooting another person. It's the same arguement, it's just a different "dangerous" thing. That's quite an elaboration. There is a big difference in ability to use anything under the influence of something, which is what matters in this case. There is simply no way to use drugs safely. I'm well aware the drugs are illegal, that wasn't my point. It's illegal to posess a rifle with the wrong parts combination, it's illegal to build a shelter on your own land without a permit in many jurisdictions, it's illegal to grow a vegetable garden in a town not too far from where I live! These things aren't crimes. A crime is when anothers rights are infringed, period. These people became criminals when they got behind the wheel, not before. If drugs are illegal then no they violated a crime when they bought them and used them, and again is irrelevant to their ability to drive under the influence of something. "I don't blame the beer, I blame the prick." I don't see where we're disagreeing in that regards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:05:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Prohibition failed Constitutional muster to the degree it was Federally funded / performed. I also am against Federal bans of pot. Its a state issue. What blows my mind is how piss poor people's understanding of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:07:18 PM EDT
[#23]
On the tenth I agree, but was does Stoney McStonerson have to do with the ninth more than Drunky McDrunkerson? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:08:25 PM EDT
[#24]
So there's no way to use alcohol responsibly either then, right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:09:07 PM EDT
[#25]
BOTH are state issues. Better still, each are answered at the municipal level, with each community making their own determination, as would be done in a Constitutional democratic republic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:13:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Ok.. what the fuck. first RKBA is a 'natural' right.... but the ability to choose which plants I have in my garden, isn't???? You b 1 confusicated guy. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:13:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Mmmm. I dunno about community-wide. Do you know how confusing that would be to have a whole new set of laws when you crossed city lines? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:16:41 PM EDT
[#28]
Let's take it one step further: Better still, let each person decide what they can do in their OWN HOME, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else?? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:17:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Yes. Self defense is a natural right. Getting stoned in not. Is that plain enuf for you?? Get another hobby other than following me around Arfcom. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:21:08 PM EDT
[#30]
It never works out that way. It never stays within their own home, and it never doesn't hurt someone else. You gotta go back to foudational principles - "Men will either be governed by God (or alternatively self govern) or they WILL be ruled by tyrants." Potheads ALWAYS push it and go walking around stoned, or drive stoned, or sell pot (commerce) or get in fights. Its pandemic. And therefore a matter that SHOULD be regulated by the states. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:22:47 PM EDT
[#31]
So is the mere possesion of a plant a sin?????? You guys have some fucked up rules. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:22:57 PM EDT
[#32]
This logic is inherently flawed. No accurate observations can be made regarding the responsibility, or lack thereof, of drinking drivers. Just because a driver drinks, then does not cause a wreck,injury or fatality, does not equate to responsible drinking and driving. It simply doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:24:05 PM EDT
[#33]
The people that smoke pot all the time - and are more conerned about getting pot legalized than defending their 2nd amendmant rights - Even if POT was legal . . you would complain about the taxes . . about the "over" regulation of it -
1 - How would police officers be able to tell "how high you are" - TO MY KNOWLEDGE (correct me if im wrong) - There isnt and sobriety test for pot EDIT (since some people are misunderstanding me) : - There needs to be a sobriety test - Just like alochol - Can you always tell someone is drunk ? - i cant - 2 - The taxes would probably be out the ass exspensive 3 - you think smoking cigarettes in public is getting harder and harder ? - I doubt you would be able to smoke pot anywhere in public - If you have the right to breath pot smoke - then I have the right to breath completely clean air free of pot smoke and not get a contact "buzz" 4 - then what about the people underage ? shouldnt they be able to smoke up ? - Im sure they you regulate that to . . . I can see it now . . . all pot heads unite to get it legalized - then they unite to get the 5 year olds smokin I dont know awhole lot about all the "clinical studies" (or fabricated results i should say) How long is pot in your system ? - Alochol isnt in there very long . . . Wouldnt the pot be releasing itself somehow during the time its in your system ? - If im correct - doesnt it store in the fatty parts of your brain tissue ? - something about that seems alittle bad . . . . . . - i dont smoke pot - i dont smoke cigarettes - I do very rarely drink - |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:24:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Who said anything about sin? Get another hobby other than following me around Arfcom. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:27:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Geez you're fucking dense. see these little marks "???" those indicate a 'question", or a query. you seem to have an grossly inflated sense of self-importance. No one is following you around. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:30:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Sin is NOT the issue in this thread, (legality / Constitutionality is) so your question is STUPID and irrelevant. And as usual, you show you stupidity by trying to express your weak thought forcefully, via a curse word. And you have a pattern of following me around posting STUPID irrelvant troll-like comments and questions. Get another hobby, man. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:33:12 PM EDT
[#37]
I don't see a right to have children, I don't see a right to raise your own children, I don't see a right to travel freely, I don't see a right to engage in commerce, I don't see where one has a right to a fair trial and I don't see a right to privacy, I don't see a right to consume food, I don't see a right to consume medicinal compounds, including marijuana...by extension none of those exist, do they? wait wait, I mean ergo, none of those rights exists. I think something is missing from your syllogism. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:33:41 PM EDT
[#38]
It was a simple question troll boy. If you can't answer it, at least have the balls to say so. You have to be one of the biggest jokes on this entire site. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:35:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Why are you concerned with morals ? You cant tell me you have some |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:36:51 PM EDT
[#40]
It was an OFF TOPIC question. YOu want to start a morals / sin thread re: pot, START YOUR OWN THREAD. (nice transition from curse words to crude anatomical references. You are quite impressive in your intellect.) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:39:03 PM EDT
[#41]
 I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you? You don't see those natural rights where? Anywhere? Or enumerated in the Cosntitution, as a basis for law in this country. What the heck are you talking about?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:39:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Wow, OK, you've convinced me. Something just has to be done about the pandemic of pothead fights!  Should outlaw that walking around stuff too, that sounds pretty bad. Commerce too, lets outlaw that! Damn capitalists! I'm with you on the driving while intoxicated part. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:42:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Damnit some people are stuck on stupid....
There isn't a sobriety test? You're saying someone high on pot will pass the current field sobriety tests no problem? Isn't that saying that pot doesn't impair you? If it's such a bad drug, why is it so hard to figure out if someone is high? Does this make any sense to you? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:42:45 PM EDT
[#44]
The simple reality is pot WILL NEVER stay in peoples private lives and homes. People don't have the moral decency or self discipline to do so. It WILL ALWAYS affect the rest of society negatively to a degree it MUST be addressed by the several states. I wish pot could be legal. But people are too selfish / childish (read: immoral) to allow that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:44:38 PM EDT
[#45]
They are not specifically enumerated... your syllogism seems to go: 1) The RKBA is enumerated in the Constitution 2) The right to keep and ingest marijuana is not 3) Therefore, there is no right to keep and ingest marijuana. I am carrying your syllogism further by identifying other rights not specifically enumerated. Following the logic set out above, no such rights exist. However, you and I both would probably agree that some of those rights do, in fact, exist. Either they do not or the initial syllogism proposed is flawed. I'm not suggest that there is necessarily a right to keep and ingest marijuana. I am only suggesting that there is something missing from your statement of the case. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:45:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Never? Since when could we EVER prove a negative? FYI, it's been proven many many many many times that your "never" statement is false in this particular situation.
Two more nevers (one a double negative, too! woohoo!). Please provide ANY evidence that "it never stays in their own home". I suppose you are omnipresent/omniscient and know that drug/alcohol/whatever use has never managed to be done in private, ever... correct? Oh, and "it never doesn't hurt someone else", haha. I mean come on... you don't seriously believe what you're spouting off do you? You essentially are saying it ALWAYS hurts someone else (double negative). Please give us some sort of explination to your off the wall ideas about the subject... as you essentially have no credibility with these huge blanket statements without something REAL (besides your strange ideas) to up your statements.
Well, unless the REAL definition of "pothead(s)" means "someone who ALWAYS either walk around stoned, drive stoned, get in fights and/or sell pot."; you're about the least credible pro-WoD proponent I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Please stop spouting ignorance. Do some research, find some FACTS and try to bring something rational to the debate, please. And for the record, I don't use drugs (stronger than tylenol or sinus relief medecines), nor do I condone/recommend using them. Anyone who would use them and attempt any number of potentially dangerous activities (such as driving/posessing a weapon/etc) should have VERY harsh penalties to deal with. However, the govt shouldn't interfere UNTIL someone (sober or not) is actually infringing on the rights of someone else (or putting themselves in a position to have a high probability to do so). edited to fix my "omni***" mistake |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:45:58 PM EDT
[#47]
what the heck ? im stuck on stupid ? - Dude when my roomate comes home from smoking a few - I can tell - And i sure as hell wouldnt wanna ride in a car with him So are you one of those that think your motor skills improve after you hit the bong acouple times ? you hit the bong a few times - then we'll have a shoot out - lets see who wins |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:46:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Oh, Ok I get your question. Easily answered - "Natural right" exists separately from and supercedes specific enumeration. RKBA is BUT ONE specifically enumerated right. The fear that regulation of pot will lead to regulation of guns falls flat given RKBA is specifically enumerated. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:49:55 PM EDT
[#49]
By "never" I mean pot never stays 100% by all people all the time within their own homes. Ergo, it OFTEN comes out into society. In fact, it comes out into society enuf, and in such a negative manner, it MUST be regulated by the states. And don't bother even throwing guns into the discussion. I've answerd taht issue 100 times, and will not do so again. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2005 1:55:21 PM EDT
[#50]
That I understand but what about the other rights that I mentioned that are arguably natural rights yet not enumerated? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
