Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by BringBackThatOleTimeBoys, Jan 23, 2014.
It's already happening.
There are more stops for impaired driving from pot than ever.
I've never heard that. I don't know why that would be. Is there a breathalizer for pot that can measure intake like alcohol?
If I was driving with my family down the road, I would much much much rather have someone driving towards us that had smoked a joint that one that was drunk.
A breathylizer? No.
People calling cops complaining of erratic driving? Yes.
Impaired motor co-ordination
Lost cognitive abilities
Hallucinations and paranoia when use din high doses.
A drunk or a pothead driving towrds my family? Neither one for me, thanks
"A recent analysis of data from several studies found that marijuana use more than doubles a driver’s risk of being in an accident. The combination of marijuana and alcohol is worse than either substance alone with respect to driving impairment"
This is a pretty good reference for the effects of pot. But yeah, let's legalize it.
That would be my choice as well.
Have you ever smoked pot or been drunk?
I can't wait, and I haven't touched the stuff in over 30 years.
So you were a fan of nanny state legislation pushed by the temperance movement that led to mafia style crime to be associated with alcohol instead of common sense legislation for a substance that has proven to consumed (legal or not) by a large portion of your society? Common sense is finally breaking through in terms of voter's awareness to the facade (took long enough). Marijuana is currently a type 1 narcotic (considered more dangerous than cocaine). The government is not considered a good source on the topic bc of the many complicated "participants" involved in the current structure.
losers do drugs. That never changes.
DUI, in this country is not just black and white. On the one hand, you obviously have people who drink too much and then get behind a wheel. On the other hand, you also have laws and cities that are using DUI as a revenue center. That's also not cool. Penalties are becoming more and more damaging. I think it's a problem to have this type of practice going on but there is no support to protect citizens from it. Once you say DUI, it's a perception thing that provides no protections or cover.
I am also not in favor of having ordinary citizens calling in on drivers. As example, where I live, we have this kind of program set up. Come to find out that it has become common practice for young teenage girls to randomly call and report people, simply because they don't like that person. No basis for the call but nothing can be done about it because you can't prosecute the caller for reporting false information. It's a judgement call so how do you enforce or protect citizens?
I'm not going to have arguments about this. You won't change your mind and I won't change mine.
I'll just say this: when my kids asked me about pot, I tell them to stay away from it because it makes you stupid and lazy. I tell them to maintain control of your senses. Anything that has to be smoked or injected, stay the hell away from it. When they ask me if that's so, why would they legalize pot? I tell them because all politicians are complete morons. They are satisifed with that. They are 17 and 19 and clean. Just the way I want it. That's all I care about.
What do you say to them when they mention brilliant musicians, scientists, writers and inventors who smoke it and are obviously not "stupid and lazy"?
"Because all politicians are morons" would be how educated people on the subject would describe status quo before the recent legislation pushed by the voting public (be sure to mention that too). Alcohol is fare more addictive in nature and proven to be more dangerous towards behavior once consumed. Be sure to warn that all politicians/citizens are morons because alcohol was also made into an underground substance as nanny legislation attempted to stigmatize its consumers but resulted in the Mafia style bootlegging that occurred in the 20s. The public decried the wasted LE resources in a losing battle with escalating violence so prohibition was lifted after years of gang style warfare in the cities (NY,AC, Chi, NO, Boston, etc) and rural bootlegging countryside (VA, NC, Tenn, Miiss). The media campaign against Marijuana stems from the vast amount of resources tied in with LE, administration court/judicial fees, for profit prisons, timber industry, alcohol/big pharma, back to initial Mexican immigration in early 20th century/Jazz musicians inner city stigma, etc.
The government saw it was losing an uphill battle it could not win, or they could not dictate moral religious principles on the personal consumption habits of its population despite its greatest efforts. The politically aware citizens of the time decried of the wasted LE resources and felt they could be spent on crime prevention that benefitted its citizens (sound familiar?) instead of trying to prevent a crime that no one considered a legitimate crime outside of the religious conservatives who lived in a dated expectation of society's eagerness for nanny legislation as a way to "protect them from themselves."
A simplified outlook on politics or social issues may work in your circle, but it doesn't apply to a country as large and diverse as the US.
Ya, pot does not make you "stupid and lazy". You make yourself "stupid and lazy".
well go ahead and smoke your joints. Still makes you a loser
pot helps the process just like booze does
It's more of a human rights issue but did laugh when I read that
What about all those amphetamine rigs that Air Force pilots had for long distance missions? Guess they were just losers? D-Day soldiers? Founder of Johns Hopkins? Etc. How many exemptions are you going to give out?
As for the DUI thing, I really think they should have a fairly definitive 'go to jail' stance for even first timers. A week probably, and in a low security place. To drive home the point that it's bad and dangerous. Won't effect the alcholics that much, but might make an impression on others. If not always on first conviction, then second for sure. Same reasons.
Of course, without decent opportunities for treatment and counseling, this would be less effective. It won't really affect the hardcore drinkers, until they finally decide they need the help.
Notable losers: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Aldous Huxley, Ted Turner, basically all the artist of the music you like, and probably more than half of the world.
Punishment and incarceration does work in some individuals but more often not. Treatment and prevention are more cost effective and the cost of alcohol abuse in the USA in over $200 billion per year. Roughly 10% of the population has some form of dependency in their lifetime.
Shock incarceration is helpful esp in people with no prior history of arrests. It's not helpful unless it can be expunged and they get the help they need.