Another stoned driver kills - Page 4

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Another stoned driver kills (Page 4 of 5)

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:01:25 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit some people are stuck on stupid....

Quoted:
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

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?

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

Road and Track did that with drivers in 1980. The pot smokers won.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:02:52 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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.

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.

Even the people who wrote the original drug laws agreed that government had no right to control what people put into their own bodies.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:04:05 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Better still, let each person decide what they can do in their OWN HOME, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else??

It never works out that way.

Never? Since when could we EVER prove a negative?

).

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.

Oh, don't bother bringing up guns... OK, same exact context... how about alcohol? How about Rx drugs? How about abusive language? How about non-regulated drugs? How about knives? Pencils? Slingshots? Gasoline? Chemicals?

I could make the EXACT same blanket statement about just about ANYTHING and have it make as much sense as your statement does. So, does that mean the govt should stick its nose in everyone's business and regulate each and every little part of our lives?

I am, however, unsure exactly how "comes out into society enuf, and in such a negative manner, it MUST be regulated by the states." is determined. Is there a certain level of "coming out" into society that must happen before the govt sticks its nose in? Who determines this "coming out"? Where are the reports showing all the negative side effects of all these evil substances/practices/etc that led to the govt sticking its nose in the first place?

Since nearly any activity/substance/whatever CAN be used/done in a bad way, why shouldn't the govt just say "to hell with the BoR/constitution, nobody has ANY rights to do ANYTHING, because ANYTHING can be bad!"?

I'm of the personal opinion (yes, it's my opinion) that the treatment/"cure" for the "drug problem" is far far far far worse than the symptoms/disease. That doesn't mean OTHER measures/methods won't work... but prohibition is a MISERABLE FAILURE, and has done SO MUCH more harm than good, it's not even funny.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:04:16 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Better still, let each person decide what they can do in their OWN HOME, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else??

It never works out that way.

Never? Since when could we EVER prove a negative?

).

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.

Yeah, no sense in making a comparison between the misuse of inanimate objects. If you did, someone might just draw the conclusion that just about anything can be dangerous, and it is really a people problem. That would keep us from banning inanimate objects.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:07:20 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

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.

There are well more than 100 million people who drink alcohol on a regular basis. How many drunk driver arrests are there? How many alcohol-related auto accidents?

For a short calculation, divide the number of barrels of beer produced by any of those stats. It comes out that most alcohol is consumed in situations where they don't go on the road.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:08:58 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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.

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.

We covered this before. Read the tenth amendment. If it isn't specifically mentioned, then it is reserved to the people, not the government.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:19:10 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This just in.......

Thousands of Drivers just killed each other that didn't test positive.

Actually, LOTS of dead drivers (and passengers) test positive in the toxicology reports from the coroner. It's just a matter of whether the intox level contributed to the collision or not.

Just curious, but WTF does it matter of joe sixpack in the back seat was so drunk he was passed out if johnny-teetotaler gets distracted yapping on his cell phone while driving joe sixpack home from the bar and runs into a utility pole?

Basically, why does the intoxication level of the passengers have anything to do with the accident?

It doesn't. I'm just trying to save bandwidth and cover all the lame arguments in one go.

Ah, OK.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:30:41 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
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 -

Well, whatever the taxes and regulations were, they would be better than the current situation. Besides, you didn't really care much about their complaints, anyway, did you?

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 -

As one LEO here already stated, video is best.

2 - The taxes would probably be out the ass exspensive

You ought to be happy about that. But it hasn't put the alcohol dealers out of business, has it?

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"

Yeah, so what? Nobody has a right to blow smoke in anyone else's face. Doesn't matter what the smoke is.

4 - then what about the people underage ? shouldnt they be able to smoke up ? - Im sure they you regulate that to . . .

The US Government reports that kids find it easier to get illegal drugs than legal ones. That's the same thing we learned during alcohol prohibition. Sensible regulations would probably make it harder for kids to get and would certainly take away some of the "forbidden fruit" appeal.

I can see it now . . . all pot heads unite to get it legalized - then they unite to get the 5 year olds smokin

You took too much LSD. You are seeing things that aren't there.

I dont know awhole lot about all the "clinical studies" (or fabricated results i should say)

How would you know what they are if you never laid eyes on them?

How long is pot in your system ? - Alochol isnt in there very long . . .

So what? The impairment is the only thing that matters and that is comparable in both alcohol and pot.

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 . . . . . .

So what? There are all sorts of things that might be harmful. Is it any of your business how many cheeseburgers someone eats?

- i dont smoke pot - i dont smoke cigarettes - I do very rarely drink -

Good for you.

Posted: 10/12/2005 2:31:10 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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.

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.

What about booze?

Posted: 10/12/2005 3:15:58 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
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...

Same tests as for alcohol or any other drug a combination of the DAR 7-step process and the NTSA approved SFST.

Pulse
HGN
Nonconvergence
Verticle Nystagmus
Rhomberg
Pulse
Walk & Turn
Pupilary comparison.
One Leg Stand.
Pulse

Marijuana influence will show up as distorted time estimation, dilated pupils, elevated pulse, & non convergence. Then those biggest indicators of impairment; observed driving, traffic collisions, and drivers statements.

Posted: 10/12/2005 3:19:34 PM EDT

[#11]

Wondering what the hell a thread about driving under the influence of coacine and marijuana has to do with gun rights, constitutional law, and marijuana taxation?

Posted: 10/12/2005 3:42:25 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Wondering what the hell a thread about driving under the influence of coacine and marijuana has to do with gun rights, constitutional law, and marijuana taxation?

Its a libertarian thing.

AR15fan, technically you could arrest someone for DUI on pot right? Why not run them through the tests and scare the shit out of them. Word gets around.

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:12:57 PM EDT

[#13]

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my doobie.

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:23:57 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

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.

By "states" do you mean strictly a state rights issue or do you mean states in the federal sense?

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:56:42 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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...

Same tests as for alcohol or any other drug a combination of the DAR 7-step process and the NTSA approved SFST.

Pulse
HGN
Nonconvergence
Verticle Nystagmus
Rhomberg
Pulse
Walk & Turn
Pupilary comparison.
One Leg Stand.
Pulse

Marijuana influence will show up as distorted time estimation, dilated pupils, elevated pulse, & non convergence. Then those biggest indicators of impairment; observed driving, traffic collisions, and drivers statements.

If you think the list includes dilated pupils, that would be erroneous. Marijuana doesn't dilate pupils.

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:57:48 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wondering what the hell a thread about driving under the influence of coacine and marijuana has to do with gun rights, constitutional law, and marijuana taxation?

Its a libertarian thing.

AR15fan, technically you could arrest someone for DUI on pot right? Why not run them through the tests and scare the shit out of them. Word gets around.

Yeah, waste a lot of time scaring people that you aren't sure are intoxicated, anyway.

Posted: 10/12/2005 4:59:39 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I have said it many times and I'll say it again: I would rather have the roads populated with pot heads than drinkers at 3:00 AM in the morning. Odds are the pot heads will not be crashing their cars.

+1

I agree

Posted: 10/13/2005 3:48:36 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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.

By "states" do you mean strictly a state rights issue or do you mean states in the federal sense?

Strictly the several states, or the people (see Ninth and Tenth Amendments)

Posted: 10/13/2005 3:49:56 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my doobie.

So what?

All that earns you is adjoining cells.

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:28:10 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my doobie.

So what?

All that earns you is adjoining cells.

BAH! A Kennedy in a cell! Shoot...THAT's comedy....

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:32:20 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wondering what the hell a thread about driving under the influence of coacine and marijuana has to do with gun rights, constitutional law, and marijuana taxation?

Its a libertarian thing.

AR15fan, technically you could arrest someone for DUI on pot right?

Yes, and It would be a lawfull arrest, but the DA would not prosecute unless there was a traffic collision resulting in injury/death. Our assistant DA's only want to prosecute DUI alcohol cases. Blow a .08 BAC and your screwed, but take a handful of soma & xanax wsh them down with a couple beers and blow a .07BAC and the DA will refuse to prosecute.

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:33:15 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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...

Same tests as for alcohol or any other drug a combination of the DAR 7-step process and the NTSA approved SFST.

Pulse
HGN
Nonconvergence
Verticle Nystagmus
Rhomberg
Pulse
Walk & Turn
Pupilary comparison.
One Leg Stand.
Pulse

Marijuana influence will show up as distorted time estimation, dilated pupils, elevated pulse, & non convergence. Then those biggest indicators of impairment; observed driving, traffic collisions, and drivers statements.

If you think the list includes dilated pupils, that would be erroneous. Marijuana doesn't dilate pupils.

Good marijuana does, ditch weed doesnt.

Posted: 10/13/2005 6:55:23 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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...

Same tests as for alcohol or any other drug a combination of the DAR 7-step process and the NTSA approved SFST.

Pulse
HGN
Nonconvergence
Verticle Nystagmus
Rhomberg
Pulse
Walk & Turn
Pupilary comparison.
One Leg Stand.
Pulse

Marijuana influence will show up as distorted time estimation, dilated pupils, elevated pulse, & non convergence. Then those biggest indicators of impairment; observed driving, traffic collisions, and drivers statements.

If you think the list includes dilated pupils, that would be erroneous. Marijuana doesn't dilate pupils.

Good marijuana does, ditch weed doesnt.

Your information is about 15 years behind the times.

Pupils do not become dilated, however, which was previously believed. Accurate measurements of pupil diameter after smoking marijuana have actually shown that there is a slight decrease in pupil size, but the change cannot be seen without precise instruments (McKim 1991).

sulcus.berkeley.edu/mcb/165_001/papers/manuscripts/_584.html

ETA: Also, getting stopped by the cops will cause an elevated pulse.

Posted: 10/13/2005 6:56:34 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my doobie.

So what?

All that earns you is adjoining cells.

Since his doobie has killed as many people as your guns, then you would be in the next cell.

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:06:48 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my doobie.

So what?

All that earns you is adjoining cells.

Since his doobie has killed as many people as your guns, then you would be in the next cell.

That's a stupid comment.

Do you know why?

I've told you several times.

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:37:28 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
That I understand but what about the other rights that I mentioned that are arguably natural rights yet not enumerated?

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think that was Garandman's point. This should not be a Federal issue, but a States issue.

My view, I don't really care one way or the other about the legality of pot. I'm allergic to the smoke. Being around the stuff makes me very sick. The fact is, it's still illegal. And to the point of somone previously who talked about "assault weapons," well, I wasn't making those when they were illegal either.

Either way, I think this is still a gun board and partaking of illegal drugs still precludes the purchase of firearms, so I have to wonder about people who smoke pot and own guns. They're lying somewhere.

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:38:54 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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 -

Well, whatever the taxes and regulations were, they would be better than the current situation. Besides, you didn't really care much about their complaints, anyway, did you?

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 -

As one LEO here already stated, video is best.

2 - The taxes would probably be out the ass exspensive

You ought to be happy about that. But it hasn't put the alcohol dealers out of business, has it?

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"

Yeah, so what? Nobody has a right to blow smoke in anyone else's face. Doesn't matter what the smoke is.

4 - then what about the people underage ? shouldnt they be able to smoke up ? - Im sure they you regulate that to . . .

The US Government reports that kids find it easier to get illegal drugs than legal ones. That's the same thing we learned during alcohol prohibition. Sensible regulations would probably make it harder for kids to get and would certainly take away some of the "forbidden fruit" appeal.

I can see it now . . . all pot heads unite to get it legalized - then they unite to get the 5 year olds smokin

You took too much LSD. You are seeing things that aren't there.

I dont know awhole lot about all the "clinical studies" (or fabricated results i should say)

How would you know what they are if you never laid eyes on them?

How long is pot in your system ? - Alochol isnt in there very long . . .

So what? The impairment is the only thing that matters and that is comparable in both alcohol and pot.

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 . . . . . .

So what? There are all sorts of things that might be harmful. Is it any of your business how many cheeseburgers someone eats?

- i dont smoke pot - i dont smoke cigarettes - I do very rarely drink -

Good for you.

LoL - Want a cookie ?

Nothing you said makes much sense . . .

"Well, whatever the taxes and regulations were, they would be better than the current situation. Besides, you didn't really care much about their complaints, anyway, did you?"
The current "Illegal status" ? - well yeah of course it would be better . . . since your not getting your ass hauled to jail . . .

"As one LEO here already stated, video is best." - Video of what ? -

"Yeah, so what? Nobody has a right to blow smoke in anyone else's face. Doesn't matter what the smoke is." - My point was - More than Likely - You wouldnt be able to smoke in public . . .

"The US Government reports that kids find it easier to get illegal drugs than legal ones. That's the same thing we learned during alcohol prohibition. Sensible regulations would probably make it harder for kids to get and would certainly take away some of the "forbidden fruit" appeal." - Of course its harder to walk up to a CVS and say "Hey can I get some Vikadin" - than to walk up to someone and say "hey can I get some pot" - whats your point here ? - The goverment also reports its easier to get an unregister/illegal firearm . . . .
And if your point was to let people under 18 or 21 smoke - then we need to lowe the alochol age limit as well . . . .

So what? There are all sorts of things that might be harmful. Is it any of your business how many cheeseburgers someone eats?
- When in the hell was the last time a cheeseburger got you high ?

Good for you. - Yes yes - good for me - Im happy with my sober status . . . .

If it were made legal -It would be heavily regulated - (or atleast i hope it would be)
Just like alochol - You smoke in your home - as soon as you leave your home - or drive - its going to be a free ride to jail -
So no late night runs becuase "you want some tuna and bread cuz i have the munchies"
- you would probably need a license to grow
- license to resale
- depending on how the goverment would legalize it - Most of you people would probably still go about illegal activities involving pot - Driving - "Public Intox" - Selling to a minor - Or giving to a minor
- my point is - the complaints - the pushing - the rallying - it will never stop - even it was made legal

You ought to be happy about that. But it hasn't put the alcohol dealers out of business, has it? Actually the goverment makes more with it being illegal -
all the bail - legal fee - court costs - tickets -
but then again - maybe they could make more on taxing it - and then still arresting you since you just had to go get some chips and dip

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:45:55 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Damnit some people are stuck on stupid....

Quoted:
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

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?

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

Road and Track did that with drivers in 1980. The pot smokers won.

won what ? againt the people wasted on alochol ? of course . . . .

The thread isnt about pot vs alochol - Everyone knows drinking screws you up to much to drive - thats why ITS ILLEGAL - Its about driving while High - Its illegal as well - for good reason

are you trying to say it should be legal to drive after youve hit the bong a few times ?

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:47:06 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That I understand but what about the other rights that I mentioned that are arguably natural rights yet not enumerated?

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I think that was Garandman's point. This should not be a Federal issue, but a States issue.

Right.

"Natural right" is a term of logic. A "natural right" is a right that is fundamental to all other rights. Without the right to defend your life (the point of RKBA) , you have no other rights.

Without the right to determine your own form of gov't (freedom of speech) you risk gov't infringement of all your other rights.

Doobies are NOT a natural right. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is NOT a natural right.

The BoR PREVENTS Fed gov't from regulating doobies, AND recognizes the several states POWERS to regulate them.

Either way, I think this is still a gun board and partaking of illegal drugs still precludes the purchase of firearms, so I have to wonder about people who smoke pot and own guns. They're lying somewhere.

Yup.

We're not really talking about doobies here.

We're talking about charachter. Human decency. The REAL question is "Are you a liar?"

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:18:11 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Either way, I think this is still a gun board and partaking of illegal drugs still precludes the purchase of firearms, so I have to wonder about people who smoke pot and own guns. They're lying somewhere.

I understand Gman's point but a parallel argument can be made relative to unenumerated rights that I suggested and an unenumerated right (whether we can agree that it exists or not) of a person to ingest what one wishes, whether it be a lethal chemical, for those committing suicide (think terminally ill), an artery clogging double quarter pounder, a liver destroying bottle of tequila, a lung blackening cigarette or someone using marijuana to ease symptoms of illness.

Nobody has yet identified a clear source of unenumerated rights so I'm not in a position to debate the existence or non-existence of any such unenumerated rights under any given theory.

As far as lying goes... it's entirely possible that someone could have acquired their guns prior to engaging in the use of illegal substances which would therefore not involve a deliberately false misrepresentation on a 4473. Clearly, I must concede that a marijuana user is this country is committing criminal acts but I think one would be hard pressed to find many people who have not engaged in any act contrary to criminal law.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:28:46 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
LoL - Want a cookie ?

What kind?

Nothing you said makes much sense . . .

Speak for yourself.

"Well, whatever the taxes and regulations were, they would be better than the current situation. Besides, you didn't really care much about their complaints, anyway, did you?"
The current "Illegal status" ? - well yeah of course it would be better . . . since your not getting your ass hauled to jail . . .

I don't have that worry, thanks. Looks to me like you made a stupid, erroneous assumption.

Better for you -- more taxes to pay for welfare and such.

"As one LEO here already stated, video is best." - Video of what ? -

OK, so you got this far and didn't bother to read the thread.

"Yeah, so what? Nobody has a right to blow smoke in anyone else's face. Doesn't matter what the smoke is." - My point was - More than Likely - You wouldnt be able to smoke in public . . .

Well, I don't smoke anything in public anyway, so we will put that down as a "generic you".

But, for the people who might, so what? I haven't heard anyone campaigning for a law that would allow them to do it. Not that I would understand how this would be different than smoking tobacco in public, anyway.

- Of course its harder to walk up to a CVS and say "Hey can I get some Vikadin" - than to walk up to someone and say "hey can I get some pot" - whats your point here ? - The goverment also reports its easier to get an unregister/illegal firearm . . . .
And if your point was to let people under 18 or 21 smoke - then we need to lowe the alochol age limit as well . . . .

I know, we have to go extra slow for you. The point is that bad laws make it easier for kids to get drugs. That's a bad thing.

So what? There are all sorts of things that might be harmful. Is it any of your business how many cheeseburgers someone eats?
- When in the hell was the last time a cheeseburger got you high ?

The point in question there was the damage it was doing to someone's personal health. The damage it does to their health is none of your business.

If it were made legal -It would be heavily regulated - (or atleast i hope it would be)
Just like alochol - You smoke in your home - as soon as you leave your home - or drive - its going to be a free ride to jail -

Yeah, so what?

So no late night runs becuase "you want some tuna and bread cuz i have the munchies"

Not a problem for me, thanks.

- you would probably need a license to grow

Why would you need a license to grow if you don't need a license to make your own booze?

- license to resale

Only if you intend to go into the business -- same as with alcohol. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

- depending on how the goverment would legalize it - Most of you people would probably still go about illegal activities involving pot - Driving - "Public Intox" - Selling to a minor - Or giving to a minor

If you are talking to me as "you people" then you made another stupid mistake. I don't see a lot of people out there selling alcohol illegally to minors. If they do, then they have committed a crime, whatever.

- my point is - the complaints - the pushing - the rallying - it will never stop - even it was made legal

Well, you are big on erroneous assumptions, so I don't know that I would take your word for it. Tell me, does all this pushing and rallying go on for alcohol? Are you familiar at all with the history of alcohol prohibition?

You ought to be happy about that. But it hasn't put the alcohol dealers out of business, has it? Actually the goverment makes more with it being illegal -
all the bail - legal fee - court costs - tickets -
but then again - maybe they could make more on taxing it - and then still arresting you since you just had to go get some chips and dip

According to the Federal Government's own financial analysis of the legalization of drugs, it would improve the Federal budget by (conservatively speaking) 37 Billion dollars per year.

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:36:19 AM EDT

[#32]

Im tired of arguing this point . . . over and over and over

My roommate and I never stop arguing this . . .

I fear for what type of country my kids will be living in . . . .

Vote for hitlery clinton - she will probably help you get your pot legal

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:39:47 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Im tired of arguing this point . . . over and over and over

My roommate and I never stop arguing this . . .

I fear for what type of country my kids will be living in . . . .

Vote for hitlery clinton - she will probably help you get your pot legal

Why don't you read some of the major research on the subject, so you understand it?

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:42:08 AM EDT

[#34]

I have . . . . whats your point ?

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:43:31 AM EDT

[#35]

And people criticize the "drug free" commercials.

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:44:27 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
And people criticize the "drug free" commercials.

huh?

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:45:10 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I have . . . . whats your point ?

What did you read? What did it say?

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:48:33 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Im tired of arguing this point . . . over and over and over

My roommate and I never stop arguing this . . .

I fear for what type of country my kids will be living in . . . .

Vote for hitlery clinton - she will probably help you get your pot legal

Why don't you read some of the major research on the subject, so you understand it?

It doesn't matter, man. I haven't touched the stuff in 10 years, and just because I don't agree that it should be illegal, I am:

-a pothead
-an idiot
-a boneheaded, brainless dolt

And if I am all of those, even though I have two college degrees (one cum laude, the other summa cum laude) and do quite well for myself working with a security clearance, I hate to think of what anyone else who dares question the wisdom of the WOD is classified as.

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:53:01 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have . . . . whats your point ?

What did you read? What did it say?

Dude - Im done arguing . . . I just cant understand "pothead" ("pot users") logic . . .

FYI: - Ive done internet research
Ive read Lilly reports on "syntechic" pot
Ive read the "road course" tests
I did a paper on it for school . . . .

Why do you need to hear from me what they said ? Go read them youself . . . .
It all boils down to personal opionons . . .

Posted: 10/13/2005 9:56:30 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have . . . . whats your point ?

What did you read? What did it say?

Dude - Im done arguing . . . I just cant understand "pothead" logic . . .

FYI: - Ive done internet research
Ive read Lilly reports on "syntechic" pot
Ive read the "road course" tests
I did a paper on it for school . . . .

Why do you need to hear from me what they said ? Go read them youself . . . .
It all boils down to personal opionons . . .

I did read them. I have a pretty complete collection of the major policy studies online. I asked because it doesn't appear to me that you have read the major policy studies. You know, the studies that explored the history and background of the issue attempted to answer the question of what the laws should be.

What you have mentioned above wouldn't qualify. I have never met anyone who really read the major policy studies who thought it was just a matter of opinion. That's a clear sign that you have a limited education on the topic, from my experience.

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:02:09 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have . . . . whats your point ?

What did you read? What did it say?

Dude - Im done arguing . . . I just cant understand "pothead" logic . . .

FYI: - Ive done internet research
Ive read Lilly reports on "syntechic" pot
Ive read the "road course" tests
I did a paper on it for school . . . .

Why do you need to hear from me what they said ? Go read them youself . . . .
It all boils down to personal opionons . . .

I did read them. I have a pretty complete collection of the major policy studies online. I asked because it doesn't appear to me that you have read the major policy studies. You know, the studies that explored the history and background of the issue attempted to answer the question of what the laws should be.

What you have mentioned above wouldn't qualify. I have never met anyone who really read the major policy studies who thought it was just a matter of opinion. That's a clear sign that you have a limited education on the topic, from my experience.

how can you say its not a matter of opinion - Everything is . . .
My opinion is despite the study - I still dont think it should be legal - Just like I dont think getting drunk anywhere but in your own home should be legal . . .

Also - What "Qaulifies" - Are you "Pot certified" You got a shiny badge ?

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:04:39 AM EDT

[#42]

Rather than hitting eachother in the nuts here wolfman . . . Just (politely) explain to me

If pot were to be legal - What regulations (if any) do you think there should be ? Maybe we can find a common ground here . . . .

Edited for dumbass spelling

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:06:54 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

how can you say its not a matter of opinion - Everything is . . .

Every major study of the subject in the last 100 years agreed that the evidence was overwhelming.

My opinion is despite the study - I still dont think it should be legal - Just like I dont think getting drunk anywhere but in your own home should be legal . . .

You haven't read any of the major studies.

Also - What "Qaulifies" - Are you "Pot certified" You got a shiny badge ?

What qualifies as a major study of drug policy? You can find a few examples right here; Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:08:24 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Rather than hitting eachother in the nuts here wolfman . . . Just (politely) explain to me

If pot were to be legal - What regulations (if any) do you think there should be ? Maybe we can find a common ground here . . . .

Edited for dumbass spelling

. . .

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:10:08 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Rather than hitting eachother in the nuts here wolfman . . . Just (politely) explain to me

If pot were to be legal - What regulations (if any) do you think there should be ? Maybe we can find a common ground here . . . .

Edited for dumbass spelling

Well, if you look at the drugs that really cause problems in society and, therefore, ought to be controlled, then alcohol heads the list. It wins all the prizes for damage to society hands down. Therefore, if you work out a reasonable system of regulation for the most dangerous drug in our society (alcohol) then you should have a pretty good start on a plan for regulating all the lesser drugs.

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:12:48 AM EDT

[#46]

so as i understand it: your saying all the same regulations as alochol ?

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:13:40 AM EDT

[#47]

how surprising, academia wins again...

"dood, i read it on the interweb, i'm an expert!"

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:20:26 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
how surprising, academia wins again...

"dood, i read it on the interweb, i'm an expert!"

OK, so you never bothered to look and don't know anything about the subject. You might want to check some of the other threads where this has been discussed.

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:21:17 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
so as i understand it: your saying all the same regulations as alochol ?

I don't think that would necessarily be perfect, but it would be an acceptable place to start.

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:28:08 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
so as i understand it: your saying all the same regulations as alochol ?

I don't think that would necessarily be perfect, but it would be an acceptable place to start.

Ok I think we may have found some common ground -

Putting aside the debate on the legalality of it (since i do bevlieve thats a matter of opionon at this point)

If it were made legal - I believe there should be strick regulations on it (just as there is alochol) - I think 21 should be the limit -
The only fuzzy part is this: A "Legal Limit" - Should there be an acceptable legal limit ? or should you not be able to go in public if youve smoked in the last few hours ? what do you think ?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Another stoned driver kills (Page 4 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us