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

Pearl Jam and toast

ecd1973 wrote:

I had all of those things the other night (minus the smell) from not sleeping for 48 hours.

And if your driving was erratic and you got pulled over with those symptoms it wouldn't be terribly unreasonable to be tested. Which does beg for an easier way to test for it but doesn't really require it.

skitch wrote:

The one problem i have with a lot of the pro pot arguements is the total lack of self awareness that it seems to bring, now granted i am speaking purely from anecdotal evidence....

They just think they drive as well. Most pot smokers say they drive as well- and in my experience they are almost as bad as drunks- the difference is most drunks acknowledge how bad drunk driving is.

That's completely the opposite of my experience. If you're just speaking from anecdotal evidence it isn't a very fair assesment.

I've got friends that I wouldn't let drive high (maybe 2 or 3) but the vast majority of them actually drive a little better high. They're more careful because they know they should be. It all boils down to personal responsibility.

And alcohol couldn't be more different than marijuana.

Abookamongstthemany

Skitch Patterson wrote:

So did you just choose to ignore the entire part where i said i was speaking from purely antecdotel evidence?

Nope, but that still didn't take away from the point I just made. You can hold that against the people you had the experience with not the whole 'pro pot argument' because when you bring up people who you've never had an experience with then others are going to refute it with their own experiences.

surferdude

Collin wrote:

I don't think many people are complaining that the current law is being applied, I think they're complaining that the current law is insanely ridiculous.

I think you may be right. I think I've been a little bullheaded here.

Like I said I want pot legalized so we can tax it. I just also want an easy to administer driving under the infulence test to be part of the legalization process. Will that test stop people driving while under the influence of prescription drugs or while tired? No. But we owe a duty to society to fix the problems we can, I happen to believe an easy to administer driving under the influence test is a very fixable problem.

Once it's legal, I wonder how much it will gall pot heads to be buying pot from big business?

Pearl Jam and toast

surferdude wrote:

Once it's legal, I wonder how much it will gall pot heads to be buying pot from big business?

Marlboro owns the rights to produce marijuana cigarettes when (yes, when) it becomes legal.

*bum bum bummmm*

gue_barium

Marijuana is only illegal when it's convenient to be illegal.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Drowned Out wrote:

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?

yeap...and there it is.

Every man on this earth was a baby at one point. No man has the right to tell me what I can do. Just some baby shitting his diapers like everyone else.

Some just put their heads down and follow...others lead. Leaders rule.

Skitch Patterson

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

yeap...and there it is.

Every man on this earth was a baby at one point. No man has the right to tell me what I can do. Just some baby shitting his diapers like everyone else.

Some just put their heads down and follow...others lead. Leaders rule.

I am going to preface this by saying i have no problem with standing up against laws, and even breaking them if you are willing to face the consequences that go with breaking them.


but "no man has the right to tell me what i can do" sounds like an insolent 6 year old telling their mother that "you're not the boss of me"

Pearl Jam and toast

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I am going to preface this by saying i have no problem with standing up against laws, and even breaking them if you are willing to face the consequences that go with breaking them.


but "no man has the right to tell me what i can do" sounds like an insolent 6 year old telling their mother that "you're not the boss of me"

No man has the right to tell me what I can't put in my own body.

surferdude

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

No man has the right to tell me what I can't put in my own body.

The government has every right, sorry.

Pearl Jam and toast

surferdude wrote:

The government has every right, sorry.

What the fuck gives them that right?

They gave themselves that "right" and if they think I'm going to honor it they can all go fuck themselves.

surferdude

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

What the fuck gives them that right?

They gave themselves that "right" and if they think I'm going to honor it they can all go fuck themselves.

Relax dude. Puff puff pass.

Every time you ask for a government to regulate anything you've given them the right. Evry time you gave up freedom for security or convenience you gave them the right. When you want government to regulate and monitor water you've given them the right. Unfortunately we all have to live with the outcome of past generations poor decisions.

I seriously think people have next to no idea of the consequences of their actions and what they mean vis-a-vis the government and rights. Much like many of the same people I see so worried about Real ID then go and ask for government intervention in healthcare.

MVP

surferdude wrote:

Relax dude. Puff puff pass.

Unfortunately we all have to live with the outcome of past generations poor decisions.

We only have to live with them if we are spineless or afraid to stand up and push for change...

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

Relax dude. Puff puff pass.

Every time you ask for a government to regulate anything you've given them the right. Evry time you gave up freedom for security or convenience you gave them the right. When you want government to regulate and monitor water you've given them the right. Unfortunately we all have to live with the outcome of past generations poor decisions.

I seriously think people have next to no idea of the consequences of their actions and what they mean vis-a-vis the government and rights. Much like many of the same people I see so worried about Real ID then go and ask for government intervention in healthcare.

Everything is not an absolute. Just because we need government regulations in some aspects of life doesn't mean it's reasonable or logical to have it in every aspect of our lives. That's a silly 'either, or' argument.

Skitch Patterson

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That's a silly 'either, or' argument.

kinda like the either ban alcohol or legalize marijuana argument?

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Everything is not an absolute. Just because we need government regulations in some aspects of life doesn't mean it's reasonable or logical to have it in every aspect of our lives. That's a silly 'either, or' argument.

It's a silly arguement except for the fact that it takes into account how governments work in reality.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I am going to preface this by saying i have no problem with standing up against laws, and even breaking them if you are willing to face the consequences that go with breaking them.


but "no man has the right to tell me what i can do" sounds like an insolent 6 year old telling their mother that "you're not the boss of me"

Ok. So explain to me what puts one man above the other? I would love to hear this.

Abookamongstthemany

surferdude wrote:

It's a silly arguement except for the fact that it takes into account how governments work in reality.

I just don't get how needing a fire dept invites a police state, that's all. Government within reason and held accountable by the people can work without overstepping.

Abookamongstthemany

Skitch Patterson wrote:

kinda like the either ban alcohol or legalize marijuana argument?

Nope...don't ban either.

Skitch Patterson

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Ok. So explain to me what puts one man above the other? I would love to hear this.

you know who else subscribes to the "no man can tell me what to do" theory?

Dick Cheney.

Drowned Out

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. A cop sees a car swerving at 1 in the morning, i have no problem with them taking 10 minutes to check to make sure the person isnt a threat.. like someone said before, whats wrong with making them work a little??.

That was me
Sure, swerving at one in the morning, check them for sure. They're probably drunk. If all you did that evening was smoke, you're probably sleeping

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Yes. That IS the point. I brought up the fact a minority of people will benefit from the legalization of marijuana, and then you brought up the irrelevant stat that 70% of people have tried it- that has nothing to do with the fact most people do not smoke on a regular basis

and most first time or occasional pot smokers dont get tossed in jail. In fact, id be willing to bet that of your 70% of your people that have tried it, less then half of them has actually ever held onto pot other than when the bowl or bong or joint was in their hand. Most people that "try" it, or used it occasionally have probably either chipped in to a friend that has already bought it, or taken a hit at a concert, or just shared with others around.

You're not replying to the double standard aspect of this. All 70% broke a federal law...and you don't want to hunt them down like the criminals that they are. Why not? There are too many! It's impossible. So it's a selective double standard....that's not cool when it comes to law, no?

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I am part of the 70% that has tried it, a couple of times- but guess what, if i would have gotten caught, i wouldnt be complaining how much bullshit the law is, or how much of an asshole the cop was- when i smoked, i was totally willing to accept the consequences that went with it. The people that are in jail for it have either habitually been caught, been dealing or some other stupid activity involving it....

First - I have a hard time believing you would just accept the consequences...you'd probably be pleading your case to the cop, that you NEVER do this, etc...Then, if you were just passing someone elses joint and still got charged, I bet you'd think the cop was an asshole for busting a bunch of you for half a joint (and you'd be right). then you'd probably fight it with every penny you had available...if you had lots of pennies, you'd get off. If you didn't, you would have a criminal record and a lot of headaches to deal with for years. Or maybe you'd just say, "hey...it's the law and I'm going to accept the consequences". I don't know you, maybe you would...but most occasional smokers wouldn't react the way you say you would, and rightfully so.

Skitch Patterson wrote:

Im reminded of a friend who was walking home alone drunk from a party when he was 19. He got a Minor in Possession ticket.... We all know he did something else to draw attention to his condition- he obviously wasnt just walking... the same, in a lot of cases, goes for people that get caught smoking or possessing marijuana--- you have be doing something pretty dumb to get caught.

Not the point. You should be getting busted for being dumb. Not for carrying some dried up plant in your pocket.

Skitch Patterson wrote:

I dont think they are excessive in most cases- as the ones that are in prison or jail have repeatedly broken a law to the point where they got caught over and over, or went far beyond the idea of just smoking a little for personal use.

This drives me nuts. How does the supply chain work? Someone HAS to have more than that at some point up the ladder, right? Eliminate them and NO ONE can get weed (funny thought). Again, impossible.
People demonize pot dealers and growers to the point that even smokers believe it! I always hear people talking about how stupid their dealers and growers are, what fuckin hypocrites! Don't smoke it if you think your dealer is an idiot...or grow your own. But don't sit there smoking a joint calling some weed-only dealer stupid for selling it to you! It's risk and reward... thanks to prohibition, the risk is high, and so is the price. It's hugely lucrative if treated like a business. Which, in most cases only organized crime have the 'nads and connections to pull off.

(and no, I'm not a dealer )

Skitch Patterson wrote:

The couple hundred people a year should not have to sacrifice their freedoms just so you (or others) can legally get high. Sorry, even if it was just one persons convienance id feel the same way. That doesnt mean it shouldnt ever be legalized, but if its already illegal, its irresponsible to legalize it without addressing those concerns. If it was already legal, i wouldnt say to make it illegal because of the same issue... but as it stands- marijuana is illegal- and all concerns should be addressed before you make it legal- especially if those concerns involve safety and could potentially affect people that have no desire to smoke.

This was the question:
What is more irresponsible, locking up half a million non-violent people at a cost of $5 Billion a year, or making a couple hundred people a year have to waste a couple hours?
Sounds like you're saying you'd keep those 500,000 in jail, and keep locking up more, even if it was one person inconvenienced, until they found a better road side test? wow...harsh.
So your concern over this test, and your need to address the issue, trumps the concerns of half a million inmates, and how many million lives affected by criminal records?