Getting Busted for Pot Can Cost Your Right to Vote...and more

Skitch Patterson

inmytree wrote:

um....you're ok with people using "deomcratic rights", yet a person who uses those rights is "retarded"....

go figure....:rolleyes:

i think he's saying its retarded to bitch about the consequences of breaking the law... when you know full well that you are breaking the law.

Collin

There won't be any tests like that as long as it's illegal.

surferdude

Skitch Patterson wrote:

i think he's saying its retarded to bitch about the consequences of breaking the law... when you know full well that you are breaking the law.

That's what I was trying to say. Thanks Stitch

Collin

Skitch Patterson wrote:

i think he's saying its retarded to bitch about the consequences of breaking the law... when you know full well that you are breaking the law.

Would you bitch if you had to go to jail for jay walking? Would you think that's retarded?

Skitch Patterson

Collin wrote:

Would you bitch if you had to go to jail for jay walking?

Yes. Because "jaywalking" is a crime i know does not often result in jail time. IN fact i bet it NEVER results in jail... (other factors discovered while jaywalking- outstanding warrents, drugs on you, etc may have). Just like going 6 miles an hour the speed limit isnt going to result in jail time on its own. Its a tiered system of laws... some crimes you get a warning, others a ticket, others arrested and released, others get you jail time.

Most people that smoke marijuana know going to jail is a possibility (regardless of whether or not it is fair) if they get caught with it... so to complain when it happens is ridiculous- the law is being enforced- regardless of whether or not you find the law just or not.

inmytree

surferdude wrote:

That's what I was trying to say. Thanks Stitch

Ok, how about this one...the stiff sentences that are often given to those arrested for breaking marijuana laws are entirely too harsh....I feel marijuana should be decriminalized, and if caught, perhaps a simple fine rather than jail time....

tell me, am I bitching or using my "deomcratic rights"....?

Skitch Patterson

inmytree wrote:

Ok, how about this one...the stiff sentences that are often given to those arrested for breaking marijuana laws are entirely too harsh....I feel marijuana should be decriminalized, and if caught, perhaps a simple fine rather than jail time....

tell me, am I bitching or using my "deomcratic rights"....?

you are free to feel that way... but i cant support decriminalized use until they come up with an instant non invasive test for it.

and we get it. he made a typo. lets continue to put it in quotes to draw attention to it.

inmytree

Skitch Patterson wrote:

you are free to feel that way... but i cant support decriminalized use until they come up with an instant non invasive test for it.

and we get it. he made a typo. lets continue to put it in quotes to draw attention to it.

um...you didn't answer my question....

surferdude

Collin wrote:

Would you bitch if you had to go to jail for jay walking? Would you think that's retarded?

I'd think I was retarded for jay walking. I may also think the law is retarded and work to change the law.

Skitch Patterson

inmytree wrote:

um...you didn't answer my question....

Discussing that you think the laws should be changed is clearly your democratic right.

know1

Collin wrote:

Would you bitch if you had to go to jail for jay walking? Would you think that's retarded?

If I knew the penalty for jay walking was jail time, I wouldn't do it. If I knew it was a $5 fine, I might take my chances.

Collin

know1 wrote:

If I knew the penalty for jay walking was jail time, I wouldn't do it. If I knew it was a $5 fine, I might take my chances.

It wouldn't bother you that there shouldn't be a penalty at all?

know1

Collin wrote:

It wouldn't bother you that there shouldn't be a penalty at all?

Maybe, but at the same time I'm not going to be stupid enough to risk going to jail just to jay walk. I might lobby to have the law changed, though.

Pearl Jam and toast

hippiemom wrote:

It's beyond ridiculous that we put people in prison for marijuana. What a waste.

^ ^

Drowned Out

surferdude wrote:

I want it legalized and taxed just as much as booze. But I only want it legalized if they also implemement an easy to administer driving under the influence test and limit.

I'm all for people using their deomcratic rights to try to change the laws. More power to you. But while pot is still illegal you have to be retarded to be bitching about the consequences of getting caught with it. You know the consequences but will still do it. Pretty much makes you an addict right there. When getting high becomes more important than all the possible consequences if you get caught you have a problem.

ok, well in the meantime, I want all drugs that impair your driving outlawed until they come up with roadside tests for them. Maybe we can find a way for the police to monitor how rested we are as well. And whether we have something going on in our lives that might affect how focused we are on driving.
I think it's retarded that this single aspect of the "big picture" regarding the drug war seems to be the one thing that anti-legalization people cling to.

The legality of the drug won't change people's opinion about driving high. If they want to do it, they will whether the drug itself is legal or not.

They can do roadside sobriety tests (walking lines, reaction time testing, etc.) already...what's wrong with letting the cops do a little work?

another thing....your suggestion is that no one should smoke until the laws are changed? Breaking the law and challenging it is the most effective way of changing it. By this logic, slaves didn't have a right to complain if they tried to flee and got caught? They should have just shut up cause they knew the consequences?

Collin

surferdude wrote:

I'd think I was retarded for jay walking. I may also think the law is retarded and work to change the law.

You'd work to change the law, that means first of all let your voice be heard but that's what you called bitching and complaining.

surferdude

Collin wrote:

You'd work to change the law, that means first of all let your voice be heard but that's what you called bitching and complaining.

Let me clarify for you. Pro-actively voicing your opinion and working to get laws changed is great and part of what makes democracy great.

Getting busted then complaining about the consequences is retarded and just mindless bitching. Voicing an opinion that a friend/partner/work buddy has been treated unfairly by the system when all the system has done is applied the law is retarded and just mindless bitching.

Working to change a law is great in my books. Complaining about the consequences of having a current law applied is just mindless bitching in my books.

Pearl Jam and toast

Pot and driving...

Anyone who knows any goddamn thing about marijuana will tell you that, for most people, pot doesn't really impair your driving ability at all (especially not compared to alcohol).

This is the way it should be handled..

The vast majority of pot smokers can drive high easily and safely. If you drive high and are safe about it, no crime. You obviously are in a condition which you can drive under, whether or not it's an altered condition.

The point behind DUI laws isn't (or shouldn't be) that you're fucked up, it's that your ability to drive is compromised. Pot usually doesn't do that. If you think it does, you obviously have no fucking idea what pot does to you.

If you drive high and hit someone, run a red light, break any kind of traffic law or cause harm to others,.. tack on a stiff DUI to whatever that person did.

That way safe drivers aren't penalized and those who aren't safe drivers high are held responsible.


And before you say "this is encouraging people to drive high" think about it.. People are going to do it anyway. All this is doing is using the same logic most people use before they or one of their friends drives high.

Skitch Patterson

Drowned Out wrote:

ok, well in the meantime, I want all drugs that impair your driving outlawed until they come up with roadside tests for them. Maybe we can find a way for the police to monitor how rested we are as well. And whether we have something going on in our lives that might affect how focused we are on driving.
I think it's retarded that this single aspect of the "big picture" regarding the drug war seems to be the one thing that anti-legalization people cling to.

The legality of the drug won't change people's opinion about driving high. If they want to do it, they will whether the drug itself is legal or not.

They can do roadside sobriety tests (walking lines, reaction time testing, etc.) already...what's wrong with letting the cops do a little work?

another thing....your suggestion is that no one should smoke until the laws are changed? Breaking the law and challenging it is the most effective way of changing it. By this logic, slaves didn't have a right to complain if they tried to flee and got caught? They should have just shut up cause they knew the consequences?

You seem to have a misconception of why i want a quick, instant test first... its not for the people that ARE getting hot and driving... its for those that ARE NOT getting high and driving. The current tests are piss and blood... both of which require a little bit of time to process. Blood is invasive, You dont always have to piss

If im driving and swerve to avoid hitting a dog, and a cop pulls me over and suspects im drunk- i take a breathalyzer, pass, get maybe a ticket for what he pulled me over in the first place, and i can continue on to my destination.

If i have to take a piss test because he no longer needs probable cause to assume im high (because its a legal everyday substance), all of a sudden, even though i dont smoke pot, i have to either wait, go to the station or lord knows what- but none of it results in me getting to my destination.

Additional inconvience to the general public just so a small minority can get high is not a trade off I want to make. Id be trading some of my freedoms so you could have yours.

Pearl Jam and toast

Skitch Patterson wrote:

You seem to have a misconception of why i want a quick, instant test first... its not for the people that ARE getting hot and driving... its for those that ARE NOT getting high and driving. The current tests are piss and blood... both of which require a little bit of time to process. Blood is invasive, You dont always have to piss

If im driving and swerve to avoid hitting a dog, and a cop pulls me over and suspects im drunk- i take a breathalyzer, pass, get maybe a ticket for what he pulled me over in the first place, and i can continue on to my destination.

If i have to take a piss test because he no longer needs probable cause to assume im high (because its a legal everyday substance), all of a sudden, even though i dont smoke pot, i have to either wait, go to the station or lord knows what- but none of it results in me getting to my destination.

Additional inconvience to the general public just so a small minority can get high is not a trade off I want to make. Id be trading some of my freedoms so you could have yours.

Excellent point.