Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 01:59 pm

"When you smoke pot and drive you're excessively careful and constantly aware" ? You sound like you speak from personal experience. :)

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 02:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Milton Bradley

Isn't ti laready illegal to operate amotor vehicle under the influece?

Ah, I thought so.

So again, more redundant laws that are truly useless, because other lawsalready criminalize the behavior that injured the parties invilved.

Just like all the bogus gun laws, totally unneeded.

Ban the thing that causes the "influence" and there'll be no need for this law of DUI. Wouldn't it be more efficient to ban the root of the problem?

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 02:04 pm

Dunedan> Of course it's the person who was at fault, but if he hadn't had the inanimate object available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to be at fault, would he?

Suburbanite · Jan 28, 2005, 02:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

"When you smoke pot and drive you're excessively careful and constantly aware" ? You sound like you speak from personal experience. :)

yea, i've smoked pot and driven. In fact, I smoked pot and drove 7,000 miles around the United States in a four week period. I smoked pot at least once a day, drank, did other things.... I didn't get into a car accident until I was back in California, sober, and that was because of a car part coming loose and getting me into an accident with the side rail on the freeway, no one was hurt too bad (I was bleeding a lot, but thats all). I am a shitty driver, I've been in about 6 car accidents... all but two were my fault. Not once was I high or drunk or anything, everytime I was sober.

Starboy · Jan 28, 2005, 02:09 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Ban the thing that causes the "influence" and there'll be no need for this law of DUI. Wouldn't it be more efficient to ban the root of the problem?

So that would be people?

Starboy

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 02:12 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Suburbanite

yea, i've smoked pot and driven. In fact, I smoked pot and drove 7,000 miles around the United States in a four week period. I smoked pot at least once a day, drank, did other things.... I didn't get into a car accident until I was back in California, sober, and that was because of a car part coming loose and getting me into an accident with the side rail on the freeway, no one was hurt too bad (I was bleeding a lot, but thats all). I am a shitty driver, I've been in about 6 car accidents... all but two were my fault. Not once was I high or drunk or anything, everytime I was sober.

Lucky you. Look, let's assume that it's inconclusive whether drugs impair your alertness. Why take the risk? Be a responsible driver. Don't drink and drive. Don't smoke and drive.

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 02:13 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Starboy

So that would be people?

Starboy

Can't ban stupid people. So ban the drug. Makes sense, no?

ericsp23 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:18 pm

You seem to be working under the assumption that making something illegal will make it unavailable. It has been demonstrated many times over that this is not the case. Drugs are illegal today, and it is not difficult to get them. Maybe somewhat dangerous, but not difficult.
Making it illegal (or in the case of drugs, keeping it illegal) will only drive it underground, and provide the opportunity for thugs to make a lot of money.

Catch 22 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:19 pm

Quote:

Can't ban stupid people. So ban the drug. Makes sense, no?

No it doesn't becuase people will smoke it anyway. Do you honestly think that during prohibition people stopped drunk driving and didn't drink alcohol? pulllleeeaase. when there's a market for something, there's a market for something. You just can't stop a billion dollar industry with some spy planes and policemen.

tinybear · Jan 28, 2005, 02:21 pm

Well, at least the law should discourage it and make drugs less readily available.

Starboy · Jan 28, 2005, 02:26 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Can't ban stupid people. So ban the drug. Makes sense, no?

No, because stupid people always find a way to be stupid and harm others. If it is not drugs it will be some other dang thing. The problem here is not the drugs but people who lack the brains to behave responsibly. I say that if we can't stop people from being stupid then perhaps we should find ways for them to kill themselves as quickly as possible without harming others. What is the point of valuing freedom and choice if we remove the consequences of either intelligence or stupidity? We might as well all live in rubber rooms.

Starboy

ericsp23 · Jan 28, 2005, 02:44 pm

The law DOES discourage it, and yet the problem doesn't go away.
Let's assume for the moment that the story you posted at the beginning of this thread is true. Whether or not drugs are legal or illegal would make no difference in the outcome of the story.

If you really want to cut down on drug use, here is my plan: Make drugs legal, and tax them. Use the money gained from those taxes to set up addiction treatment programs for anyone who wants it.

Suburbanite · Jan 28, 2005, 03:14 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Lucky you. Look, let's assume that it's inconclusive whether drugs impair your alertness. Why take the risk? Be a responsible driver. Don't drink and drive. Don't smoke and drive.

It isn't my goal. I just smoke and then have to drive, so i drive.

Suburbanite · Jan 28, 2005, 03:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ericsp23

The law DOES discourage it, and yet the problem doesn't go away.
Let's assume for the moment that the story you posted at the beginning of this thread is true. Whether or not drugs are legal or illegal would make no difference in the outcome of the story.

If you really want to cut down on drug use, here is my plan: Make drugs legal, and tax them. Use the money gained from those taxes to set up addiction treatment programs for anyone who wants it.

Are you fucking kidding? Stop taxing shit and stop making everything the government's business! I think thats a horrible idea. There are tons of treatment programs already anyways. If anything, make it legal, and cut down the POLICE force and all the money put to use against pot into education. The money saved from legalizing marijuana would be so much that college wont have to cost everyone so damn much, and public schools wont suck.

ericsp23 · Jan 28, 2005, 04:56 pm

There are not nearly enough drug treatment programs to support the demand for them. The free programs are always having to turn people away due to lack of beds.
I think it is unreasonable to say that drugs are not a burden on society. Most people can use them responsibly, but there are always some who get addicted and let them ruin their lives. These people are a burden on society. They invariably end up unemployed and on welfare.
The taxes would be used to help these people to get treatment if they want it, and to help educate the ones who don't about what they are doing to themselves and to their loved ones. The added cost will be a disincentive to new users as well.
I don't think that criminalizing drug use is productive, but at the same time, I think it is society's best interest to minimize it as much as possible.

Scribbler1 · Jan 28, 2005, 06:38 pm

If the only options are legalizing drugs and then taxing them or keeping the same ridiculous and expensive status quo, I'll go for the legalize and tax option.
Those are the only real world options because taxes aren't going away anytime soon. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen and I prefer to support a flawed but possible solution than a noble yet idealistic dream.

**Chris the Chees** · Jan 28, 2005, 06:39 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

It seems everyone and everything is blamed, except the drinks and the drugs. They're innocent. We have a right to take them as and when we feel like it, no? And if some tragedy occurs, it's some person's fault. No, no, it's not the fault of the drinks and drugs. Perish the thought.

Drink and drugs are not to blame. Idiots who drink and drive, or take drugs and then drive are responcible.

Catch 22 · Jan 29, 2005, 02:06 pm

Quote:

If the only options are legalizing drugs and then taxing them or keeping the same ridiculous and expensive status quo, I'll go for the legalize and tax option.
Those are the only real world options because taxes aren't going away anytime soon. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen and I prefer to support a flawed but possible solution than a noble yet idealistic dream.

Dunno how idealistic a world without drugs is. There’s nothing wrong with a whole host of psychoactive substances . Drugs like marijuana can be used in a safe manner making the user happy without putting him or her at risk for any serious health problems.

Scribbler1 · Jan 29, 2005, 02:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Catch 22

Dunno how idealistic a world without drugs is. There’s nothing wrong with a whole host of psychoactive substances . Drugs like marijuana can be used in a safe manner making the user happy without putting him or her at risk for any serious health problems.

Idealism is not defined by the use, or non use of drugs. I've been on both sides of the coin and to be honest, I like them both and I don't think my sense of idealism has been affected either way.
I agree with the rest of your post though.

Zeebadee · Jan 29, 2005, 03:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

I received this in my e-mail recently. I wonder if the story's true? Anyway, true or not, I think I ought to post it here and share it. Those who think smoking pot is a victimless crime, would you like to re-consider?

See: http://www.snopes.com/glurge/jenny.htm

Jan 28, 2005, 02:18 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	You seem to be working under the assumption that making something illegal will make it unavailable. It has been demonstrated many times over that this is not the case. Drugs are illegal today, and it is not difficult to get them. Maybe somewhat dangerous, but not difficult. Making it illegal (or in the case of drugs, keeping it illegal) will only drive it underground, and provide the opportunity for thugs to make a lot of money. Economic Left/Right -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarion -4.41 Last edited by Catch 22; Jan 28, 2005 at 02:23 pm.

Jan 28, 2005, 02:44 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	The law DOES discourage it, and yet the problem doesn't go away. Let's assume for the moment that the story you posted at the beginning of this thread is true. Whether or not drugs are legal or illegal would make no difference in the outcome of the story. If you really want to cut down on drug use, here is my plan: Make drugs legal, and tax them. Use the money gained from those taxes to set up addiction treatment programs for anyone who wants it. Economic Left/Right -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarion -4.41

Jan 28, 2005, 04:56 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
ericsp23 Pragmatic liberal Posts: 421	There are not nearly enough drug treatment programs to support the demand for them. The free programs are always having to turn people away due to lack of beds. I think it is unreasonable to say that drugs are not a burden on society. Most people can use them responsibly, but there are always some who get addicted and let them ruin their lives. These people are a burden on society. They invariably end up unemployed and on welfare. The taxes would be used to help these people to get treatment if they want it, and to help educate the ones who don't about what they are doing to themselves and to their loved ones. The added cost will be a disincentive to new users as well. I don't think that criminalizing drug use is productive, but at the same time, I think it is society's best interest to minimize it as much as possible. Economic Left/Right -5.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarion -4.41

Jan 28, 2005, 01:59 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,108	"When you smoke pot and drive you're excessively careful and constantly aware" ? You sound like you speak from personal experience. :)

Jan 28, 2005, 02:04 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,108	Dunedan> Of course it's the person who was at fault, but if he hadn't had the inanimate object available to him, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to be at fault, would he?

Jan 28, 2005, 02:21 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,108	Well, at least the law should discourage it and make drugs less readily available.

Jan 28, 2005, 06:38 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	If the only options are legalizing drugs and then taxing them or keeping the same ridiculous and expensive status quo, I'll go for the legalize and tax option. Those are the only real world options because taxes aren't going away anytime soon. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen and I prefer to support a flawed but possible solution than a noble yet idealistic dream.