AmScray 355 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Glock 18's are fully automatic (and insanely rare)The media's ignorant use of "automatic weapon" for essentially any gun is probably the culprit. Off chance someone had a converted Glock 17 (not easy), but virtually zero chance of any crime gun being a factory Glock 18. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Marijuana nearly doubles risk of collisionsI'd believe that's true. If you think that's bad, though, you should see what Vodka or Cel Phones can do to collision risk. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'd believe that's true. If you think that's bad, though, you should see what Vodka or Cel Phones can do to collision risk.It may be possible that being abnormally tired is worse than all of the above. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 What if you are abnormally tired, on your cell phone, while trying to load your Glock magazine, with a joint hanging out of your mouth dangerously close to needing to be ashed?I guess we need to let people smoke all the pot they want and drive, since there are worse things.... Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Glock 18's are fully automatic...Well I learned two things today.A Glock 18 is full auto, and the gun used in the Giffords shooting was a Glock 19. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Marijuana nearly doubles risk of collisionsTwo separate studies in the US recently came to the opposite conclusion. At the time of the first one (if anyone cares to look it up) I said it seems like an implausible result and definitely requires more research. Then a second one confirmed it, and I went hmmmmm..... Now we get this one, and the evidence swings back, although this line:And Asbridge's conclusions are based on observational studies, meaning there were no controlled conditions imposed to look at the effects of marijuana.makes me wonder.No, it doesn't make sense to legalize impaired driving without stronger evidence (strong enough to outweigh the common sense derived from talking to a stoned person), and studies like this one are shown to be un-reproducible. Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 is there a way to test how high someone is? I don't know how pot works, okay? I'm fairly sure there will be no breathalyzer equivalent.I'm just saying, impaired driving is gonna be illegal and punishable similar to alcohol (as it should--driving is serious business) and it'd be nice to know if the DD is gonna get nailed for having trace amounts due to hanging out with potheads.I'm sure cops will have some discretion if no breathalyzer or lab test exists, which is what bothers me. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 is there a way to test how high someone is? I don't know how pot works, okay? I'm fairly sure there will be no breathalyzer equivalent.I'm just saying, impaired driving is gonna be illegal and punishable similar to alcohol (as it should--driving is serious business) and it'd be nice to know if the DD is gonna get nailed for having trace amounts due to hanging out with potheads.I'm sure cops will have some discretion if no breathalyzer or lab test exists, which is what bothers me.Turn on a Radiohead song, if they know the words...they're stoned. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I guess we need to let people smoke all the pot they want and drive, since there are worse things....No one's proposing legalizing driving under the influence,.They're proposing legalizing a recreational inebriant that's profoundly more benign than what's already legal.To free up billions of dollars worth of police manpower, courtroom space and prison beds for people who really deserve to be there (same blacks, but we get to arrest them for violent stuff and send them off to prison for LONGER periods of time, when we aren't letting lazy ass cops get away with low-hanging-fruit-farming and wasting a week's worth of 8 hour shifts hunting for Pookie and the dimebag) In a meritocratic world, alcohol would be illegal before marijuana, but we live in a political world, not a meritocracy. There's no basis in logic for learning the lessons we learned after prohibition, but applying the same tired failings to another, less potent substance. If you're one of those cats who wants your own personal Sharia and wants to see both alcohol and pot banned, your position is garbage, but you deserve consideration on the basis of intellectual consistency.To advocate banning one but not the other is dumb, and not worth consideration. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you want to legalize pot because there are worse things? Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you want to legalize pot because there are worse things?No, I want to legalize pot because it's not that bad, especially compared to any number of things that are already legal.What we pay to criminalize it is absurd. We'd be better off criminalizing Twinkies or Rock and Roll music.Criminalization offers no benefit to society whatsoever, but does cost society a goddamn fortune and harms individual people who are good people.Great ****ing policy there. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The cost to society -- in terms of lives, dollars, and standard of living -- of making something illegal should not be higher than just letting people do it. The Insane War on Drugs fails on this most basic test of legal sanity. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 No, I want to legalize pot because it's not that bad, especially compared to any number of things that are already legal.What we pay to criminalize it is absurd. We'd be better off criminalizing Twinkies or Rock and Roll music.Criminalization offers no benefit to society whatsoever, but does cost society a goddamn fortune and harms individual people who are good people.Great ****ing policy there.Arguing that alcohol is bad and legal, therefore pot should be legal since it's less bad, is faulty.Unless you want to allow me to argue that alcohol should be illegal because it's much worse the pot and give me equal credit for the strength of the argument.Also saying that keeping pot illegal is not cost effective/too hard is a bad reason to argue for its legality.Just because there is difficulty in maintaining a law is no reason to argue to just quit making it illegal. The whole 'cost to criminalize it' it false also. If/when pot is legal, we will not be firing half the police force and socking away the savings into Obamacare. There will be no closing of prisons, and there will be no days of closing the courts because of a lack of trials to hear. The budgets spent on law enforcement will not be reduced. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The whole 'cost to criminalize it' it false also. If/when pot is legal, we will not be firing half the police force and socking away the savings into Obamacare. There will be no closing of prisons, and there will be no days of closing the courts because of a lack of trials to hear. The budgets spent on law enforcement will not be reduced.Who do you think we'd be throwing in jail, jaywalkers?Also, I was referring to the destructive effects on neighborhoods and law enforcement, too. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Who do you think we'd be throwing in jail, jaywalkers?If only...law breaking scum. Get em off the streets..literally!Also, I was referring to the destructive effects on neighborhoods and law enforcement, too.That's a two sided street..with pot smokers jay walking back and forth...... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 In 2001 there were a total of 63 persons in jail for simple possession at the federal levelAt the state level, only 1.6% were in jail for possession only.This study shows that the inflated numbers of the 'legalize it' group are false. And these numbers in this study were from a while back, when pot was less accepted so it's probably lower now.Caution PDF download. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Arguing that alcohol is bad and legal, therefore pot should be legal since it's less bad, is faulty.Unless you want to allow me to argue that alcohol should be illegal because it's much worse the pot and give me equal credit for the strength of the argument.Also saying that keeping pot illegal is not cost effective/too hard is a bad reason to argue for its legality.Just because there is difficulty in maintaining a law is no reason to argue to just quit making it illegal. The whole 'cost to criminalize it' it false also. If/when pot is legal, we will not be firing half the police force and socking away the savings into Obamacare. There will be no closing of prisons, and there will be no days of closing the courts because of a lack of trials to hear. The budgets spent on law enforcement will not be reduced.I'm not making the argument that alcohol is bad and legal, therefore pot should be legal since it's less bad.I'm making the argument that pot is not bad all all, period, and that people should be allowed to make the decision for themselves what they put into their own body, in terms of benign, recreational substances. We have effectively two options here. Prohibition or legalization. Once upon a time, we put the ideas of people like you into action and decided that for the benefit of society, we should ban these substances, so we did. Marijuana, alcohol, various narcotics- all banned. We then had a decade or so of prohibition to learn from, and we did. It's an abysmal policy that creates more trouble than whatever 'social ills' its supposed to solve. Ironically enough, it was all in response to an extremely isolated group of moralists, not a bona-fide addiction problem. There was a time when you could buy Heroin over the counter, yet Heroin use was colossally lower then than it is now. Once we came to our senses, we eventually undid these dumb laws. The catch, obviously, was that in the 1930's, there was no significant marijuana use, so there was nobody to lobby for its legalization when booze was made legal.You're promoting the standard prohibition mentality- a demonstrably failed mentality- then shucking and jiving, arguing semantics with some anti moral-relativism position when people point out the absurd hypocrisy and illogic. Like I said. If you're just for banning it all- beer, pot, coffee- OK, you get points for intellectual consistency, but either way, total prohibition or just pot prohibition but legal alcohol, you still look like a total dumbass who doesn't think things through. Your characterization of the cost issue is equally dumb. It's a human resource issue. We are currently wasting an insane amount of human resources on marijuana offenses, from police and support personnel, to judges, juries, attorneys, court reporters, bailiffs, jailers, prisons, all associated services. It's a full fledged 'industrial complex', which itself has some grotesque implications.Whether decriminalizing marijuana actually shrinks government or simply releases the existing government facilities to pursue meaningful crime, either way, the only possible result is a total positive... and if your objective is to shrink government, that would be a good start. Of course, the 'conservative' delusion isn't really about 'small government' when it comes to prisons, military, police forces, etc. You ****ers really do have a huge hang-up about control. One day, science will isolate the part of the brain responsible for this and hopefully, with gene therapy and/or abortion, we can eliminate it. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 In 2001 there were a total of 63 persons in jail for simple possession at the federal levelAt the state level, only 1.6% were in jail for possession only.This study shows that the inflated numbers of the 'legalize it' group are false. And these numbers in this study were from a while back, when pot was less accepted so it's probably lower now.Caution PDF download.I don't have time to read it all, but 63 incarcerated persons who are now in federal prison for simple marijuana possession is ****ing appalling. I don't know what "1.6%" means, but if it means "1.6% of the inmates at the state level", that is a gigantic figure... of human beings... locked away in cages, away from their families and lives... for possessing a harmless plant... because people like you don't understand it, fear it. Yeah. This has got to end. The article seems to attack the false narratives that a lot of decriminalization proponents use- in that regard, it's probably right. People on both sides are apt to employ narratives that don't accurately characterize reality. If anything, it's a good primer for 'the other side', since this is one of those issues where reality is good enough to win the argument, without having to resort to any hysterics or hyperbole. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 1.6% of state prisoners has got to be over 50,000 people total....at least....locked up for possession of marijuana. lol. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 You have to remember that without prohibition, all those people locked up for the other drug crimes, such as selling drugs (rather than possession) would not be in jail. Approximately 50% of our law enforcement resources go to the Insane War on Drugs. After all the trillions of dollar spent, it has had ZERO affect on usage.When people point to the billions spent on the Department of Eduction with no result, conservatives applaud and demand the DoE go away.When people point to the billions spent on the IWoD with no (positive) result, conservatives hem and haw and peddle irrelevant statistics.Billions of dollars for NO effect on usage = Stupid.Billions of dollars for no effect on usage and loss of respect for law enforcement, invasion of privacy, turning neighborhoods into war zones = Insanity.This is going to be an issue in this upcoming presidential election, because Gary Johnson is going to be pushing it hard and the Republicans are determined to run someone that no sane person could vote for. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you are for stopping all welfare since the insane war on poverty started under LBJ has had no effect on poverty rates? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 1.6% of state prisoners has got to be over 50,000 people total....at least....locked up for possession of marijuana. lol.State's don't run prisons, those are federal, state's run jails, or minimum security club housings.And most states have clear requirements for possession to rise to incarceration level.A guy with a joint doesn't. A guy with less than an ounce caught next to a school does.Obfuscation is your best strength in the 'insane' war on drugs. So continue as begun though. Link to post Share on other sites
AmScray 355 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 State's don't run prisons, those are federal, state's run jails, or minimum security club housings.What. The. ****?The depth of your lack of understanding just blew my mind. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you are for stopping all welfare since the insane war on poverty started under LBJ has had no effect on poverty rates?I am all for stopping all *federal* welfare programs, as these have caused far more harm than good, including the interruption of the decline in poverty rates. I think local poverty programs can be effective, and are useful and viable. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Nobody can believe any of these sentences help society in any way. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now