What's new
By:

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

squareinthecircle said:
I know this has already been touched on but this quote has been running around in my mind whenever I see this thread.


"In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Martin Luther King Jr
Click to expand...

So now we have to get 300 Million people to agree on what's just and what's unjust, but that's the easy part.
 
One Brow said:
I'm confident that no matter how many times it is offered to you that there is a difference between "don't have the supplies/knowledge to do this now" and "it can't be done", you will continue to affirm the NHTSA affirmaiton of the former as evidence of the latter. It brings a smail to my face very time.
Click to expand...

and this brings one of these to my face:

:-)
 
SaltyDawg said:
That was my position all along.
Click to expand...

It was part of your position.

SaltyDawg said:
I never said nor implied that for the remainder of man's time on planet earth nobody will ever be able to test for THC impairment at any point.
Click to expand...

I agree you did not make that claim. You claimed that THC levels in heavy smokers who were not high were on a par with, or higher than, THC levels in in light smokers who were high, and that this was the reason testing testing didn't work. That was the claim I questoned.
 
One Brow said:
It was part of your position.



I agree you did not make that claim. You claimed that THC levels in heavy smokers who were not high were on a par with, or higher than, THC levels in in light smokers who were high, and that this was the reason testing testing didn't work. That was the claim I questoned.
Click to expand...
In the end, my point was correct- you can't test for THC impairment. You disagreed with that, and you were wrong.

Now you're going to argue about this? lol
 
SaltyDawg said:
In the end, my point was correct- you can't test for THC impairment. You disagreed with that, and you were wrong.
Click to expand...

Except we don't know that we can't test for impairment. Based on our current knowledge, it is very likely we will be able to test for imparirment (at least, to the same degree we can test for alcohol impairment). We just don't know how to right now. So, you point was unjustified, which was my point.

However, if you want to believe that you were right when, based on a wrong understanding, you made a blanket claim about a permanent state of affairs, that turned out only to be correct temporarily, then you would indeed be SaltyDawg.

Edit to add: feel free to take the last word. I'm done with this discussion.
 
One Brow said:
Except we don't know that we can't test for impairment. Based on our current knowledge, it is very likely we will be able to test for imparirment (at least, to the same degree we can test for alcohol impairment). We just don't know how to right now. So, you point was unjustified, which was my point.

However, if you want to believe that you were right when, based on a wrong understanding, you made a blanket claim about a permanent state of affairs, that turned out only to be correct temporarily, then you would indeed be SaltyDawg.

Edit to add: feel free to take the last word. I'm done with this discussion.
Click to expand...
Again, we can't test for it. The NHTSA says they can't test for it, end of debate. I am not saying they will never in a million years have a way to test for it. I am saying that right now it is not possible. And yes, I am correct in that, and you were wrong when you disagreed.

So this is how you admit you were wrong, lol. Whatever. It doesn't matter, as the point is now made. We can't test for current marijuana impairment. So while some people may think it's a good idea to legalize marijuana and a bad idea to drive after smoking marijuana, you either have to legalize both, make them both illegal, or make people forfeit their driver's license if they indulge in marijuana.

My point was that I don't think driving under the influence is a big enough deal to make it illegal. Mostly because there is no way to test for it, but also because I don't think the average pot smoker adds much of a danger on the roads. Add to that the fact that driving like an idiot or being dangerous on the roads is already illegal.
 
SaltyDawg said:
Again, we can't test for it. The NHTSA says they can't test for it, end of debate. I am not saying they will never in a million years have a way to test for it. I am saying that right now it is not possible. And yes, I am correct in that, and you were wrong when you disagreed.

So this is how you admit you were wrong, lol. Whatever. It doesn't matter, as the point is now made. We can't test for current marijuana impairment. So while some people may think it's a good idea to legalize marijuana and a bad idea to drive after smoking marijuana, you either have to legalize both, make them both illegal, or make people forfeit their driver's license if they indulge in marijuana.

My point was that I don't think driving under the influence is a big enough deal to make it illegal. Mostly because there is no way to test for it, but also because I don't think the average pot smoker adds much of a danger on the roads. Add to that the fact that driving like an idiot or being dangerous on the roads is already illegal.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the statement in bold there: It can still be illegal just extremely difficult to prove, similar to sex crimes.
 
squareinthecircle said:
I disagree with the statement in bold there: It can still be illegal just extremely difficult to prove, similar to sex crimes.
Click to expand...
So how do you think it should work? For example, someone gets pulled over, has a legal marijuana card (or whatever), obviously tests positive for marijuana, but claims they haven't smoked any since the night before?
 
SaltyDawg said:
How would you do a sobriety test though? It's not like weed makes you unable to walk a straight line.
Maybe it would really be a tell a joke and see how long they laugh, lol.
Click to expand...

I'd bet my last nickel that the majority of the people here will disagree with that.
 
Ya, based on this thread, I think salty was sold pencil shavings and oregano a lot as a teen.
 
SaltyDawg said:
So while some people may think it's a good idea to legalize marijuana and a bad idea to drive after smoking marijuana, you either have to legalize both, make them both illegal, or make people forfeit their driver's license if they indulge in marijuana.
Click to expand...

This simply isn't true.

There are so many things that can hinder the ability to drive with full attention, that are perfectly legal, that I'm not going to even bother making a list.

To state flatly that something must be either fully illegal or fully unregulated is ridiculous.
 
TroutBum said:
I'd bet my last nickel that the majority of the people here will disagree with that.
Click to expand...

GVC said:
Ya, based on this thread, I think salty was sold pencil shavings and oregano a lot as a teen.
Click to expand...

So do you guys think Charles Oakley was lying when he said most of the NBA players were high during games? Or do you think they could play NBA basketball, but couldn't walk a straight line?

Trout, I'm wondering if you have ever even smoked weed. Maybe you have, but it was laced or something. Wild hallucinations, can't walk a straight line, these are not things your average pot smoker will experience.

GVC, do you really have trouble walking a straight line after smoking or was that just a good time for a joke?
 
SaltyDawg said:
So do you guys think Charles Oakley was lying when he said most of the NBA players were high during games? Or do you think they could play NBA basketball, but couldn't walk a straight line?

Trout, I'm wondering if you have ever even smoked weed. Maybe you have, but it was laced or something. Wild hallucinations, can't walk a straight line, these are not things your average pot smoker will experience.

GVC, do you really have trouble walking a straight line after smoking or was that just a good time for a joke?
Click to expand...

Maybe you just thought you were walking a straight line because you were high?
Ever watch someone else that is high, while you are not, try to walk a straight line? That would be the question.
 
Bronco70 said:
This simply isn't true.

There are so many things that can hinder the ability to drive with full attention, that are perfectly legal, that I'm not going to even bother making a list.

To state flatly that something must be either fully illegal or fully unregulated is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess it could just be one of those symbolic laws that never gets enforced like putting on makeup while driving and those other things that are perfectly legal but illegal to do while driving. In that case, why bother?

I remember when they outlawed talking on a cell phone while driving in Utah (or at least SLC). They flat out said they had no intentions of pulling anyone over for it. They said they would only try to enforce it if you got in a wreck or something and they could prove a cell phone was distracting you at the time. I wonder if anyone has ever been convicted of it.
 
JazzSpazz said:
Maybe you just thought you were walking a straight line because you were high?
Ever watch someone else that is high, while you are not, try to walk a straight line? That would be the question.
Click to expand...
Plenty of times. I haven't been high in many years, but I have friends that get high every day.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure if half the NBA can play NBA basketball when high, most people could probably walk a straight line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top