The New Economics of Pot.

[DinoDoc]

stuff

This is going around in circles. 3 points then I'm done. 1) I made a point responding to rah's post about how stoners claim they drive when high. 2) You make a post in response to me stating that you'd rather stoners be on the road than other groups of people you see as posing a danger to the roadway. 3) I respond trying to find out what that has to do with the point I made and you get offended. I've still yet to get a response to that btw.

If the discussion continues along the circular path, you can declare yourself the winner because I'll have better things to do.

[DinoDoc]

Well, ..

I assume the process would be similar to that faced by microbreweries, would it not? At least I don't see any significant differences between the two. As for demand, how much demand is there for microbrews? I wou.ld imagine 'shine should have at least as much.

[Ming]

2) You make a post in response to me stating that you'd rather stoners be on the road than other groups of people you see as posing a danger to the roadway.

Again... and maybe you will understand this time... please point out where I say I'd rather have stoners on the road. I "stated" no such thing, but you keep claiming I did. Didn't they teach you to read properly in school?

And I'm sure you have better things to do than actually admit you are wrong.
So feel free to run away... no real surprise.

[DinoDoc]

Again... and maybe you will understand this time... please point out where I say I'd rather have stoners on the road. I "stated" no such thing, but you keep claiming I did.

That they drive more carefully when stoned because they know they have to pay more attention.

I've seen those people too. They drive 20 miles an hour in city traffic.

I'd rather that then seeing somebody texting, reading a newspaper, putting on makeup, eating, or talking on a cell phone while driving... and going 50 MPH.

[Ming]

Hmmm... still doesn't show where I said it's OK to drive while stoned. Try again.

Another classic example that you lack reading skills.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Squirm Ming squirm.

Considering the statement that caused this fracas in no way implied an intent to ascribe to you the position "Its' Ok to drive stoned", merely why the existence of one set of morons on the road is justification for an additional set of morons. Those two positions are extremely disimilar.

Strawman attributions are not becoming.

[giblets]

WHY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE SET OF MORONS ON THE ROAD JUSTIFIES THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER SET

by gribbler

If driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than driving while stoned, and cell phones shouldn't be illegal, then road safety alone is not enough to justify making marijuana illegal. Road safety is a stronger argument for banning cell phones than it is for banning marijuana. In order for banning marijuana but not cell phones to make any sense, additional justification is needed.

[rah]

There is a problem with pot smokers driving.
Each person responds a bit differently.
Some stoners realize they're stoned and pay more attention (a few may drive slower and for the record, I have no problem with them driving)
But some don't realize how stoned they are and drive like it. These people should not be allowed near cars after smoking. I don't believe there is any type of test that will distinguish these different types.

[Ecofarm]

It is easy to distinguish the types. All we need is one more question on the driver's license process:

Have you smoked regularly for over a year?

If yes, driving should not be affected and you get a special stamp.

[rah]

As stupid as that sounds, it people didn't lie, it would probably be better than any scientific test.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

WHY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE SET OF MORONS ON THE ROAD JUSTIFIES THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER SET

by gribbler

If driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than driving while stoned, and cell phones shouldn't be illegal, then road safety alone is not enough to justify making marijuana illegal. Road safety is a stronger argument for banning cell phones than it is for banning marijuana. In order for banning marijuana but not cell phones to make any sense, additional justification is needed.

The arguement above is rather mooted by the fact that numerous local and state ordinances have been enacted to prevent driving and cell phone usage. Likewise stupid driving behaviors such as no hands driving, receipt of oral sexual favors etc. carry the penalty of reckless driving. Thus all these behaviors are illegal if the situations warrant that they are deemed unsafe.

All that being said the areguement of illegality wasn't even broached earlier. Merely why one group exists should be rationale for another group. I suppose mass murderers are worse than one off murderers. Both exist. The existence of one has no impact on the other.

[Wezil]

Thus all these behaviors are illegal if the situations warrant that they are deemed unsafe.

The "situation" doesn't deem it unsafe - the legislators did.

Plenty of people can talk and drive at the same time (plenty cannot). The laws protect those that can't and penalise those that can (and try).


Most jurisdictions have "careless driving" laws that would already more than cover cell phones (and your other examples).