Marijuana nearly doubles the risk of collisions

What Albert said, plus racism.

Back when it was outlawed, it was the drug of black jazz singers, and our precious white teenagers didn't need corrupting by that filth.

Important part bolded. I don't dispute that it was outlawed for shitty reasons, and I don't think it should be outlawed now, but I think we need to sit down and have a reasonable conversation about what constitutes impairment while driving and how to measure that with marijuana. Otherwise we're just replacing the tyranny of the majority with a tyranny of the minority, where a select group of individuals have the right to threaten our safety with impunity. Unfortunately, Uncle Albert, as usual, is so displaced from reality that he doesn't even understand what the argument is.

1) Eat my fucking ass.

2) No, I understand perfectly well that procedural hangups over shit that doesn't involve me are standing in the way of my rights. I'll let that affect me as much as I always do, which is to say I'll be annoyed by it in passing and continue ignoring it.

Your rage is delicious, it fuels me. FIGHT ME KEYBOARD WARRIOR, SHOW ME THAT YOU ARE ALIVE!

That would seem to be "case closed", to me.

I thought it was funny. What Tamar said makes prefect sense, I didn't get that impression when reading your posts. If I misunderstood you, I'm apologize. Also, call me when Whitney's toxicology report comes back with Weed being the drug responsible for her demise.

But you see, things are different now, because *shrieking sound of a whistle made out of sliced ham*

They are different, unless you're somehow going to argue to me that we should go back to 1930's era punishments for driving intoxicated.

I'm thinking the ham wallet reference was too subtle.

Were there even laws about DUI back then?

The first laws regarding intoxication were made in 1938, which specified that the legal maximum BAC was 0.15, but the penalties were pretty weak. From what I understand, if you were to kill someone drunk driving, you were more likely to get sent to a mental institution for a while rather than to jail.

Aside from flat out negating it, and forcing you to back peddle to a different tact altogether, no it doesn't detract from your point at all.





Again, the lack of a high-o-meter isn't the reason pot became/is illegal.

How does that negate it? I made no claims about the historical causes of anti-cannabis laws, and you're reading way too much into an offhand comment. Unless you somehow think the ghosts of William Randolph Hearst and Harry J. Anslinger are preventing it from becoming legal, or that DuPont is still working its spin machine to fight the legalization of pot. That may have been why it was made illegal in the first place (a point which you only partially pointed out) but it's certainly not why it is still illegal.

In any case, you're assuming a level of concern for this topic that I just don't have. I couldn't care less if it was legal, as a matter of fact, I'd very much like to try it if it was. However, as the original article points out, there are public safety issues still at hand, and unlike alcohol, there exists no device that can determine one's level of impairment stemming from cannabis use. Until that happens, I can no more support the legalization of marijuana than I can support the removal of DUI laws or controlled substance laws (even though the latter represents an extreme pain in the ass whenever I need to get my adderall script refilled). The right to engage in an activity ends at the point where it threatens the life and safety of others, even libertarians recognize that idea.

All very good points, IMO.

The Defender disagrees: I thought your inability to grasp simple points in debates about atheism stemmed from obtuseness, but I see that extends to all debates.[/QUOTE]

• You - Marijuana is illegal because of X.
• Me - Marijuana is illegal because of Y.
• You - You're right, marijuana is illegal because of Y, yet marijuana is illegal because of X.
• Me - Uh, no.
• You - You're dumb. Let's talk about atheism.

Now all you've left are insults.

Simple really.

nm

Sounds like a good idea.

So: Does a stoner atheist have doubts about his atheism when he is really high? Conversely, does a devout believer who also tokes (just enjoying the wonders God has put in creation, of course!) still believe in God as firmly after the seventh hit of the day?

Why do people always talk about New Mexico? Why not Idaho? or Kansas? or Alaska?

What have you got against Alaska?!?! Do you still hate Sarah Palin?

• You - Marijuana is illegal because of X.
• Me - Marijuana is illegal because of Y.
• You - You're right, marijuana is illegal because of Y, yet marijuana is illegal because of X.
• Me - Uh, no.
• You - You're dumb. Let's talk about atheism.

Now all you've left are insults.

Simple really.[/QUOTE]

I have no desire to talk about atheism, least of all with you. And insults are all that is left when your opponent ceases to accept basic facts.

Yes-or at least many are open to the notion of things greater than man in nature. You can sometimes get them to concede the potential of an "intelligent" universe.

I believe so. While he might question the Word as presented by church and man, his belief in creation is reinforced. I think it causes many to challenge themselves to live up to a gentler interpretation of Christ by setting kinder and altruistic goals.

^ The straight dope (sorry about that one...) from someone who knows!

Well you brought it up, so I guess that was just a distraction from the discussion.

I disagree and I'll prove it by not insulting you. Instead I'll simply use repetition - the lack of a high-o-meter isn't the reason pot became/is illegal.

See no insult necessary.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just fun, you sniveling nancy.