RoyTheHammer;4403944 said:
lol
Differences in intent meaning what? When you smoke marijuana.. what is the harmful intent there? Should it even matter?
If you smoke marijuana, the most that will usually happen is that by getting high you can damage some brain cells.. although its been proven to be less harmful to you and others then cigarette smoke, which is perfectly legal. Unless you get in a car to drive, the risk of hurting others is minimal at best.
If you speed, the risk of hurting others is at least equal, if not greater.. although i know we all think we're great drivers.
So again, what is the big difference? You could make a very reasonable argument that speeding is a worse infraction than smoking a little marijuana based on the risk of what consequences could come of both actions. Because one is perfectly "normal" and accepted in our society and the other is frowned upon doesn't make one more right than the other.
Not so fast...as you attempt to explain away rather than delve into ramifications. The intent of the person using drugs, at onset, is to break the law. Responsibility expands into immediate support of illegal activities. As described in thread, speed alone does not carry that inhibition, unless where prohibited by a speed limit.
But your association as the 'guilty' party being limited to the user, is from the start....wrong. It takes the illegal business and organized element to provide the product from it's onset. OR, you are admiting to a much more serious and criminal offense of growing your own. Allowed ONLY by a licensed facility.
Who do you attempt to fool here?
By condoning a current toker, one is at the same stroke legitimizing The Zeta and it's cross border murders, crime, and corruptions reaching up all the way to every major city in the Country. To include NEW YORK CITY.
One is still responsible for his own actions. Even if by omission. He should resonably know the attached considerations as well...at least at law.
Speed alone, doesn't involve mass corruption. There is danger ONLY when speed includes hazardous conduct. Not all speed, as noted, is a criminal event, or hazardous beyond one's self. Unlike illicit drug use.
It was shown that speed alone is not always against law. It is when additional, and expanded environmental factors are included, that endangerment to others enter the picture..and subject to a punitive type of control.
If speed alone was by nature, dumb enough to be inherently an aspect of intent for criminal action, then why has Europe operated without a speed limit on highways/autobahns.....for decades. Why? They are too far beneath American standards?
Holland as well as medicinal use of marijuana may have legal standing, but there are criminal actions in any outside of legalized purposes. Blackmarket still hits behind bars there as well.
The two aren't the same in either intent, or in application of merit for severity of damage.
Reckless driving is another story, and that can occur at much lower speeds and for many more diverse incident specific causes than just speed.
Speed alone doesn't injure or cause harm. Want completely uncontrolled and world breaking speed? Find a salt flat...speed still isn't against the law there.
Nor is there an associated criminality in it's execution. The same can NOT be stated for maijuana and it's use against a sanctioned use. Football players wanting to go into the NFL NOWHERE are protected by such a stance.
