Prop 19: Marijuana Legalization Gets its Number in California

MrBishop said:
Has very little to do with harm from the substance in particular, but rather the decision to operate a vehicle while under the influence of said substance.

The exact same dangers can be had while driving a vehicle after a 12-14 hour work shift, or even after switching to a later shift if you do shift-work. Lower reflexes etc..
Click to expand...
Larger bullets carried and concealed in a fire arm is only governed by the choices of the individual carrying them.

The same could be said for well sharpened pencils.
 
MrBishop said:
Has very little to do with harm from the substance in particular, but rather the decision to operate a vehicle while under the influence of said substance.

The exact same dangers can be had while driving a vehicle after a 12-14 hour work shift, or even after switching to a later shift if you do shift-work. Lower reflexes etc..
Click to expand...

My question on the subject tho, is ... will being stoned on pot encourage or inhibit exactly this sort of activity? When someone is exhausted ... they're not looking forward to driving. They're doing it because they feel compelled to be somewhere ... usually home and in bed ... but sometimes it's a financial compelling. I've yet to meet anyone who wanted to get behind the wheel exhausted. I've heard repeatedly that a little pot makes you feel good. Better than without for that matter. That, frankly, scares the fuck outta me. I'd rather legalize a drug that completely immobilized the user for the duration of influence, knowing that it'll kill 20% of the users inside the first year.
 
In general, I'd say that pot would discourage this kind of activity. When people smoke up, they want to enjoy the buzz..not go for a drive...unless the depanneur (convenience store) is too far to walk. The person is more conscious of their inability to drive than when under the influence of alcohol or tired for that matter.

Now, cocaine users are a whole other problem.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Larger bullets carried and concealed in a fire arm is only governed by the choices of the individual carrying them.

The same could be said for well sharpened pencils.
Click to expand...

moot to the topic at hand...I know this is OTC, but do try and stick to the conversation, eh

*I, not unlike Prof, think that the general populace is too stupid to be trusted with certain things... loaded guns IMHO fit into that category quite nicely.
 
So why would there be anything wrong
with your teenage daughters going through
their high school and college years in a pot induced haze?
 
First off, it would make them stupid and kill future dreams, like WestPoint.

They've been inoculated for it. It is expected that they may "inhale" at some point but
I firmly believe they have the uncommon sense and knowledge to know both when and how often is appropriate. My kids have seen the destruction dope does their entire life, they've watch families destroyed and too many people die from it.

They know more real facts about dope than spike does. :bgtup:
 
ResearchMonkey said:
31 might be more appropriate for pot.

Still, my/your argument should also stand for guns as well, an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to forget about the first part of that sentence..the one about the militia being important.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Want to bear arms? Join a militia.

Perhaps age on consent should apply to bearing arms as well.
 
MrBishop said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

2ndhn.jpg


"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

James Madison, June 8, 1789
Click to expand...
It helps if you understand the nomenclatures of the era.

Seems your focus is more about well regulated as opposed to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
 
Yup...well regulated. Registered and controlled through channels of rank by the state for it's own defense in the case of invasion by another state, country or a hostile takeover of the elected GVT by secessionists or insurrectionists.

As opposed to 'any yahoo can own a gun just in case someone tries to accost him on the street or in his home'
 
We used to call that nat'l guard before it was nationalized.

However, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
 
Awesome. You trying to get them to close their eyes and tap their thumbknuckle instead of taking up meth or something?

Good luck.
 
They should be in a continual pot and alcohol induced stupor
while having lots of unprotected promiscuous sex.

It is the Left’s recipe for success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top