Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: June 04 2010
Location: Terria
Status: Offline
Points: 13298
Posted: September 19 2012 at 20:16
Dayvenkirq wrote:
I would vote for the legalization of the reefer only if I wanted my brain to be even closer to becoming a vegetable, so "No".
I don't want to smoke weed either, but that doesn't mean other people don't. Why do you not want it to be legal? Not wanting to do it is hardly a reason.
If someone wants to smoke weed, it's not hard to get so they will get it. The fact that it's illegal just costs money and puts innocent people behind bars.
And before you say when we legalize it more people will use it, because studies have shown that when weed was legalized for medicinal use in California, use rates actually lowered among youth.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 19 2012 at 19:31
Epignosis wrote:
In principle, I should vote "No."
I am, rather, in favor of the government not telling us what we can and cannot do when the action does not infringe upon the rights, life, or property of another.
That's a good point, Rob, but I find it's generally too pedantic and subtle to be worth making.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
Posted: September 19 2012 at 18:55
Of course marijuana should be legalized, it's a given at this point considering the benefits of both Hemp as a material and medicinal marijuana for those who don't like or are made sick by standard medications. The verdict is in: legalize. Seems like a point any liberty-loving person should embrace. In fact, we should be encouraging growing your own.
I am, rather, in favor of the government not telling us what we can and cannot do when the action does not infringe upon the rights, life, or property of another.
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: September 19 2012 at 15:41
thellama73 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
You can get done for driving whilst tired. There was a case here when a man drove for hours and then drove off the road over an embankment and on to the railway in front of a train. You were saying that DUI shouldn't be illegal and the basis of this is that people who drive stupidly don't get such bad punishments. So what? That doesn't change the fact that driving whilst drunk is very stupid. I would and did argue that they should be punished severely you would argue that they can both do what ever they want. So I agree with you when you say its unjust.
You are misrepresenting what I said. I do think people should be punished for driving in a way that endangers others, but the sheer amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is not a good indication of that. DUI laws are not about driving while drunk, they are about driving after having drunk alcohol. These are not the same thing. People react differently to alcohol. Some may drive perfectly fine after three beers, others may be seriously impaired. It is wrong to punish the two equally.
My point is that if two people were driving in exactly the same way and one was sleepy while the other was drunk, the sleepy person would get a lighter punishment. If both drivers were being reckless, the drunk one will have his license taken away and the sleepy one will get a slap on the wrist. If both drivers were driving safely, the drunk one will get his license taken away, and the sleepy one will not even get a slap on the wrist.
You cannot be arrested for driving tired if your driving is perfectly
fine. You can get arrested for driving under the influence if your
driving is perfectly fine.
It is the quality of the driving that endangers people, regardless of the cause.
But its not just the 'quality' of driving that endangers people. Driving needs good reaction times as well. And even if you think you are ok to drive (which is what it would come down to) your reaction times to the unexpected will be pretty crap. There is no excuse for drink driving there is no need for it and its dangerous. Again I don't disagree with your point about fairness. I guess if your driving is fine then you would be unlucky to be stopped if you had been drinking. But I wouldn't take away the drink driving laws just because it might be unfair.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 19 2012 at 15:03
akamaisondufromage wrote:
You can get done for driving whilst tired. There was a case here when a man drove for hours and then drove off the road over an embankment and on to the railway in front of a train. You were saying that DUI shouldn't be illegal and the basis of this is that people who drive stupidly don't get such bad punishments. So what? That doesn't change the fact that driving whilst drunk is very stupid. I would and did argue that they should be punished severely you would argue that they can both do what ever they want. So I agree with you when you say its unjust.
You are misrepresenting what I said. I do think people should be punished for driving in a way that endangers others, but the sheer amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is not a good indication of that. DUI laws are not about driving while drunk, they are about driving after having drunk alcohol. These are not the same thing. People react differently to alcohol. Some may drive perfectly fine after three beers, others may be seriously impaired. It is wrong to punish the two equally.
My point is that if two people were driving in exactly the same way and one was sleepy while the other was drunk, the sleepy person would get a lighter punishment. If both drivers were being reckless, the drunk one will have his license taken away and the sleepy one will get a slap on the wrist. If both drivers were driving safely, the drunk one will get his license taken away, and the sleepy one will not even get a slap on the wrist.
You cannot be arrested for driving tired if your driving is perfectly
fine. You can get arrested for driving under the influence if your
driving is perfectly fine.
It is the quality of the driving that endangers people, regardless of the cause.
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: September 19 2012 at 14:53
thellama73 wrote:
akamaisondufromage wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Basically, yes. He pointed out that driving in heavy rain is just as dangerous, but that's not illegal. Also, if two people are stopped for reckless driving, and one has been drinking he will get a much more severe punishment despite not having been any more reckless than the sober man, which seems unfair.
Driving in heavy rain is not as dangerous as DUI not in modern cars. The one that has been drinking started driving badly as soon as he got in the car. Whether one is punished more than the other isn't relevant. They both should be punished the degree is up to the courts. If the other is deliberately reckless then it should be the same.
Maybe I would agree if they took out all the seatbelts in cars and then the drink / reckless driver would pay the full cost of his her actions
If you don't like the rain example, then consider driving when very sleepy. It's the same point.
What do you mean the punishment isn't relevant? Of course it is. Two people are exhibiting the same behavior but are punished differently in a systematic way because of the reason for their behavior. That's unjust by almost any definition of the term. That's also part of the reason why I'm against hate crime laws.
You can get done for driving whilst tired. There was a case here when a man drove for hours and then drove off the road over an embankment and on to the railway in front of a train. You were saying that DUI shouldn't be illegal and the basis of this is that people who drive stupidly don't get such bad punishments. So what? That doesn't change the fact that driving whilst drunk is very stupid. I would and did argue that they should be punished severely you would argue that they can both do what ever they want. So I agree with you when you say its unjust.
Edited by akamaisondufromage - September 19 2012 at 14:55
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 19 2012 at 14:20
akamaisondufromage wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Basically, yes. He pointed out that driving in heavy rain is just as dangerous, but that's not illegal. Also, if two people are stopped for reckless driving, and one has been drinking he will get a much more severe punishment despite not having been any more reckless than the sober man, which seems unfair.
Driving in heavy rain is not as dangerous as DUI not in modern cars. The one that has been drinking started driving badly as soon as he got in the car. Whether one is punished more than the other isn't relevant. They both should be punished the degree is up to the courts. If the other is deliberately reckless then it should be the same.
Maybe I would agree if they took out all the seatbelts in cars and then the drink / reckless driver would pay the full cost of his her actions
If you don't like the rain example, then consider driving when very sleepy. It's the same point.
What do you mean the punishment isn't relevant? Of course it is. Two people are exhibiting the same behavior but are punished differently in a systematic way because of the reason for their behavior. That's unjust by almost any definition of the term. That's also part of the reason why I'm against hate crime laws.
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: September 19 2012 at 14:02
thellama73 wrote:
Padraic wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
CPicard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The government has no business telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies. This includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, trans fat and coca-cola.
More: laws against public drunkness and DUI should be repealed.
Agreed, although it took Pat some time to convince me of the second point.
What was the reasoning? Punish bad driving and not mere BAC?
Yep.
* (I'm not the Pat that convinced him)
Basically, yes. He pointed out that driving in heavy rain is just as dangerous, but that's not illegal. Also, if two people are stopped for reckless driving, and one has been drinking he will get a much more severe punishment despite not having been any more reckless than the sober man, which seems unfair.
Driving in heavy rain is not as dangerous as DUI not in modern cars. The one that has been drinking started driving badly as soon as he got in the car. Whether one is punished more than the other isn't relevant. They both should be punished the degree is up to the courts. If the other is deliberately reckless then it should be the same.
Maybe I would agree if they took out all the seatbelts in cars and then the drink / reckless driver would pay the full cost of his her actions
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: September 19 2012 at 13:53
Padraic wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
CPicard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The government has no business telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies. This includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, trans fat and coca-cola.
More: laws against public drunkness and DUI should be repealed.
Agreed, although it took Pat some time to convince me of the second point.
What was the reasoning? Punish bad driving and not mere BAC?
Yep.
* (I'm not the Pat that convinced him)
Basically, yes. He pointed out that driving in heavy rain is just as dangerous, but that's not illegal. Also, if two people are stopped for reckless driving, and one has been drinking he will get a much more severe punishment despite not having been any more reckless than the sober man, which seems unfair.
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: September 19 2012 at 13:42
stonebeard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
CPicard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The government has no business telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies. This includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, trans fat and coca-cola.
More: laws against public drunkness and DUI should be repealed.
Agreed, although it took Pat some time to convince me of the second point.
What was the reasoning? Punish bad driving and not mere BAC?
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Posted: September 19 2012 at 13:40
thellama73 wrote:
CPicard wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The government has no business telling people what they can and can't put in their bodies. This includes alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, trans fat and coca-cola.
More: laws against public drunkness and DUI should be repealed.
Agreed, although it took Pat some time to convince me of the second point.
And how did he convince you that Driving Under the Influence (I assume that is what it is) should be ok?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should marijuana be legalised?
Topic Options
Dayvenkirq wrote:
