So we should ALL follow CA?! Because they do everything perfect, right?? Yup, rBST is a horrendous product, good thing it was taken off the market starting in CA. Way to go!! thumb up
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Yea, used to.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We HAVE TO HAVE speed limits, otherwise the people who drive the heaviest, largest trucks would walk away from almost every crash. Oh wait, that already happens!! Imagine if 16 yr old kids were to have cars with no speed limits. How many do you think would ever pay attention to a ‘safe speed’?? How many tragic deaths would result?? Come on DBC, we need speed limits. Next you’ll tell me we don’t need an infrastructure for water, sewer and the like.
As for DUI’s, the penalties are almost non existent currently. A slap on the wrist IMHO. Instead of the current situation, how about your license is pulled after a single one?? Where is the drawback in that?? Sorry but I have never gotten a DUI because I have been responsible and find rides before I get hammered. Often the drunk will walk away from a fatal car crash. Why do you suppose that is?? How is that fair to the family of the victim if the drunk can ever walk this earth again as a free man?? Yet this is a side discussion.
So driving stoned is different than driving drunk?? I will admit the speeds are lower in a wacky tobacco crash, yet all of your senses are still significantly slowed down in both. Just because a person doesn’t feel ‘that drunk/stoned’ means NOTHING about their true body chemistry being hampered. Plus then you argue for smoking weed in your house, do you really think people will only light up at home and never drive, anywhere?? Sorry man, I won’t even stretch that far and I’m a 6’7" gimp!!
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t think we need speed limits either. Most people, if there were no speed limits, would still drive at a safe speed anyways. Maybe some would drive beyond a “safe” speed, but most of those people probably aren’t letting the speed limit stop them anyways. We might see an increase in single-car accidents on empty stretches of highway where the driver was traveling at an excessive speed, but like I have stated repeatedly: it is NOT the govt’s job to make sure that those people don’t endanger themselves. It is the individual’s job.
And if you kill someone in a DUI-related crash, you are charged with negligent homicide and I do believe that here in California you cannot get a driver’s license when you are released. I agree that the penalties for DUI’s are way too low. We have tens of thousands of people dying each year in America due to drunk driving. I know a few people who have literally had dozens of them, but they all occurred decades ago. In California the penalties for DUI’s have gone up dramatically, but they should be much higher.
Driving drunk and legalizing weed are two entirely different issues though. When you drive drunk, you are a clear-cut danger to people around you, not just yourself. And it is all but inevitable that you will seriously hurt or kill someone besides yourself if you drive drunk on a regular basis over a long period of time. The same cannot be said about smoking weed in the privacy of your own home.[/quote]
[/quote]
For your argument to have validity, you need to first prove that more people would be driving stoned if it were decriminalized/legalized. Where are the case studies and evidence? (you are still talking about the thread subject right or just speed limits?)
Because the laws are now just being passed in the USA, case studies would be hard to find, I would think. However I can talk about the things I know. Of the people killed on motorcycle accidents here at MMI, ~90% test positive for marijuana. The second point, you are challenging me so the burden of proof falls on you. And please try to find somewhere besides the internet because any stoner can post anything they want on the world wide web [ =
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
For your argument to have validity, you need to first prove that more people would be driving stoned if it were decriminalized/legalized. Where are the case studies and evidence? (you are still talking about the thread subject right or just speed limits?)[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
We HAVE TO HAVE speed limits, otherwise the people who drive the heaviest, largest trucks would walk away from almost every crash. Oh wait, that already happens!! Imagine if 16 yr old kids were to have cars with no speed limits. How many do you think would ever pay attention to a ‘safe speed’?? How many tragic deaths would result?? Come on DBC, we need speed limits. Next you’ll tell me we don’t need an infrastructure for water, sewer and the like.
As for DUI’s, the penalties are almost non existent currently. A slap on the wrist IMHO. Instead of the current situation, how about your license is pulled after a single one?? Where is the drawback in that?? Sorry but I have never gotten a DUI because I have been responsible and find rides before I get hammered. Often the drunk will walk away from a fatal car crash. Why do you suppose that is?? How is that fair to the family of the victim if the drunk can ever walk this earth again as a free man?? Yet this is a side discussion.
So driving stoned is different than driving drunk?? I will admit the speeds are lower in a wacky tobacco crash, yet all of your senses are still significantly slowed down in both. Just because a person doesn’t feel ‘that drunk/stoned’ means NOTHING about their true body chemistry being hampered. Plus then you argue for smoking weed in your house, do you really think people will only light up at home and never drive, anywhere?? Sorry man, I won’t even stretch that far and I’m a 6’7" gimp!!
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t think we need speed limits either. Most people, if there were no speed limits, would still drive at a safe speed anyways. Maybe some would drive beyond a “safe” speed, but most of those people probably aren’t letting the speed limit stop them anyways. We might see an increase in single-car accidents on empty stretches of highway where the driver was traveling at an excessive speed, but like I have stated repeatedly: it is NOT the govt’s job to make sure that those people don’t endanger themselves. It is the individual’s job.
And if you kill someone in a DUI-related crash, you are charged with negligent homicide and I do believe that here in California you cannot get a driver’s license when you are released. I agree that the penalties for DUI’s are way too low. We have tens of thousands of people dying each year in America due to drunk driving. I know a few people who have literally had dozens of them, but they all occurred decades ago. In California the penalties for DUI’s have gone up dramatically, but they should be much higher.
Driving drunk and legalizing weed are two entirely different issues though. When you drive drunk, you are a clear-cut danger to people around you, not just yourself. And it is all but inevitable that you will seriously hurt or kill someone besides yourself if you drive drunk on a regular basis over a long period of time. The same cannot be said about smoking weed in the privacy of your own home.[/quote]
[/quote]
Sorry pal, fish ain’t biting with the bait you’re using.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Because the laws are now just being passed in the USA, case studies would be hard to find, I would think. However I can talk about the things I know. Of the people killed on motorcycle accidents here at MMI, ~90% test positive for marijuana. The second point, you are challenging me so the burden of proof falls on you. And please try to find somewhere besides the internet because any stoner can post anything they want on the world wide web [ =
[/quote]
Just because they ‘tested positive’ for THC in their systems doesnt’ mean they were high at the time. THC stays in your system for ~1 month, or so I’ve heard.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Because the laws are now just being passed in the USA, case studies would be hard to find, I would think. However I can talk about the things I know. Of the people killed on motorcycle accidents here at MMI, ~90% test positive for marijuana. The second point, you are challenging me so the burden of proof falls on you. And please try to find somewhere besides the internet because any stoner can post anything they want on the world wide web [ =
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
For your argument to have validity, you need to first prove that more people would be driving stoned if it were decriminalized/legalized. Where are the case studies and evidence? (you are still talking about the thread subject right or just speed limits?)[/quote]
[/quote]
Err… you were the one implying more people would drive stoned if weed were legal…
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Because the laws are now just being passed in the USA, case studies would be hard to find, I would think. However I can talk about the things I know. Of the people killed on motorcycle accidents here at MMI, ~90% test positive for marijuana. The second point, you are challenging me so the burden of proof falls on you. And please try to find somewhere besides the internet because any stoner can post anything they want on the world wide web [ =
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
For your argument to have validity, you need to first prove that more people would be driving stoned if it were decriminalized/legalized. Where are the case studies and evidence? (you are still talking about the thread subject right or just speed limits?)[/quote]
[/quote]
out of curiosity, where did you gtet this 90% ? Also look at the types that ride bikes , I am that typeand the others I know like me smoke weed , just an observation
Walk into the front office and talk with one of the hot secretaries and ask them which department head is available. Then ask the head and see what they say jajaja. The type that rides bikes vs what?! Scooters?? Come on man, ALL bikes loose the fights when tangled with cars that weigh at least 5 times as much.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
out of curiosity, where did you gtet this 90% ? Also look at the types that ride bikes , I am that typeand the others I know like me smoke weed , just an observation[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Walk into the front office and talk with one of the hot secretaries and ask them which department head is available. Then ask the head and see what they say jajaja. The type that rides bikes vs what?! Scooters?? Come on man, ALL bikes loose the fights when tangled with cars that weigh at least 5 times as much.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
out of curiosity, where did you gtet this 90% ? Also look at the types that ride bikes , I am that typeand the others I know like me smoke weed , just an observation[/quote]
[/quote]
I agree , but what is your point ?
Really?! Seriously?? Do I need to hold your hand?! I know you have more intelligence than say sa or mak. The people who die on motorcycles at a trade school for the mechanics of motorcycles test around 90% for THC. Now this happens while the school has a zero tolerance policy for drugs of any sort. I know a high number of people are so bored they do these type of drugs to pass time. At least that’s why I did it when I was in hs. And I have never said they were stoned while crashing. However the high percentage of fatal crashes are involving people who regularly consume the narcotics, and you want me to reach for the fact it’s just chance?? Come on man, even at 6’7" I won’t reach that far!! LOL
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree , but what is your point ?[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
And I have never said they were stoned while crashing.[/quote]
Then your point is sensationalism. Don’t hold your breath waiting for people to agree with you.
^ proof provided above