Drugs
- Thread starter Danoff
- 900 comments
- 44,471 views
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Marijuana is also a mood alterer. I've had my high friends "jump in my grill" when they were stoned. They weren't stupid enough to do it straight. It's really a test of a straight person's patience when the buddy he outweighs by 40 lbs, and out muscles by at least 20 lbs. gets stoned and wants to box or wrestle.
To the point that it should be within the designated driver's, or resident straight person's, perks to be able to slap the **** out of his or her stoned friend as needed.
The roadside test for marijuana is simple. Have the suspect take the standard head back position, like the finger tip to nose test. Then wave a Twinkie under his nose.
If it is instantly snarfed, You have a stoned individual on your hands.
The one constant I have seen in Pot smokers that I have hung with, is the desire to empty any fridge within a mile straight down their gullet. They'll even eat the stuff in the back of the fridge in the tupperware that you can't remember when you put in there. As long as it isn't growing hair...
To the point that it should be within the designated driver's, or resident straight person's, perks to be able to slap the **** out of his or her stoned friend as needed.
The roadside test for marijuana is simple. Have the suspect take the standard head back position, like the finger tip to nose test. Then wave a Twinkie under his nose.
If it is instantly snarfed, You have a stoned individual on your hands.
The one constant I have seen in Pot smokers that I have hung with, is the desire to empty any fridge within a mile straight down their gullet. They'll even eat the stuff in the back of the fridge in the tupperware that you can't remember when you put in there. As long as it isn't growing hair...
- 10,081
- WFG9
That's pretty much what I told some people in a chatroom a few months back, but I put it in the context of the parent who is incapacitated and thus unable try to stop physical injury or death to the child.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
DGB
I was originally hoping that M5 would pick up on this and use it. Thank you for making a good point. Im happy to address this.
This a very good distinction between guns, cars and knives and drugs. It is also the very reason that nobody on this thread is claiming that it should be legal to drive while under the influence of any drugs. Im not sure people can really claim you shouldnt drive without any of the other things on the list.
It is not, however, a good reason to ascribe blame to the thing doing the mind altering. The blame is instead placed on the person who was willing to take the drug and get behind the wheel. If the person was unable to control his/her ability to prevent him/her self from getting behind the wheel, the blame is placed on the person for taking the drug and putting him/her (I should just say it) self in that position in the first place.
The blame is still on the person.
Because of the fact that alcohol is mind altering, have you decided to go get drunk and drive around? Ill be not. That means that there is a difference between you and a person who does do that. The difference is the decision either not to drive drunk, or not to drink at all. That decision is why you are not to blame for drunk driving problems, and why others are to blame.
I still dont see any way to blame this on an inanimate object that is used incorrectly.
I was originally hoping that M5 would pick up on this and use it. Thank you for making a good point. Im happy to address this.
This a very good distinction between guns, cars and knives and drugs. It is also the very reason that nobody on this thread is claiming that it should be legal to drive while under the influence of any drugs. Im not sure people can really claim you shouldnt drive without any of the other things on the list.
It is not, however, a good reason to ascribe blame to the thing doing the mind altering. The blame is instead placed on the person who was willing to take the drug and get behind the wheel. If the person was unable to control his/her ability to prevent him/her self from getting behind the wheel, the blame is placed on the person for taking the drug and putting him/her (I should just say it) self in that position in the first place.
The blame is still on the person.
Because of the fact that alcohol is mind altering, have you decided to go get drunk and drive around? Ill be not. That means that there is a difference between you and a person who does do that. The difference is the decision either not to drive drunk, or not to drink at all. That decision is why you are not to blame for drunk driving problems, and why others are to blame.
I still dont see any way to blame this on an inanimate object that is used incorrectly.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
M5
I know you were talking to neon, but I thought I would point out that it is not possible for alcohol to not play a part in drunk drving. It is required because a person cannot drunk drive (I don't think I can use it that way) without being drunk in the first place.
Alcohol must play a part in drunk driving or it would be called something else.
I know you were talking to neon, but I thought I would point out that it is not possible for alcohol to not play a part in drunk drving. It is required because a person cannot drunk drive (I don't think I can use it that way) without being drunk in the first place.
Alcohol must play a part in drunk driving or it would be called something else.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Companies will not spike drugs (if they are legally allowed to mass produce them) in ways that will be harmful to individuals. The reason is because they could be held legally accountable for it. The company is afraid of getting sued.
That is why Duke said that this was an argument in favor of legalization.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
M5
My claim is that legalizing drugs is the same thing as legalizing alcohol (which is legal for good reason). This quote is part of your
concept. That if a small number of individuals break the law in some way, that somehow means that more rights need to be restricted. Every law made will be broken, even if only for the sake of breaking that law. It doesn't mean that its a bad law or that more laws need to be made. It means that police need to enforce and that your bad apple will serve as an example to aspiring future bad apples.
Laws being broken comes with the territory of having a country with lots of people in it.
My claim is that legalizing drugs is the same thing as legalizing alcohol (which is legal for good reason). This quote is part of your
concept. That if a small number of individuals break the law in some way, that somehow means that more rights need to be restricted. Every law made will be broken, even if only for the sake of breaking that law. It doesn't mean that its a bad law or that more laws need to be made. It means that police need to enforce and that your bad apple will serve as an example to aspiring future bad apples.
Laws being broken comes with the territory of having a country with lots of people in it.
- 3,194
I think if Neon's idea was implemented (double the penalty if controlled substances are inn your system), people would think twice about taking their addictions away from their home.
Unfortunatley it's the same with everything,... people have to be responsible. The speed limits are never higher than 70,... yet every car built these days can do at least 100,... to me, the drug legalization is a similar concept,... allowing people to have fun, hoping they do it in a responsible mannor. JMO
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Plus, with simple drug manufacture, distribution, and use decriminalized, there are more resources available for enforcement of "acceptable use" laws for those who were not deterred.
Truth be told, some types of people will drink turpentine, eat sterno, inject dissolved mothballs, or inhale Scotchgard if they think it will get them high. All of these things are documented. So why not decriminalize real drugs and get some realistic control over them?
After all, nobody shoots at the Budweiser driver when he pulls up to make a delivery.
- 2,732
I think any drug that you can smoke should be banned. I'm in favour of alcohol, but in moderation. I know I'll drink when I'm older. It probably won't be beer though, but more along the lines of wine and the such. I don't support bars too much, mostly it's because they're usually filled with so much smoke it literally hurts my eyes when I wear contacts.
The main problem is: for every drug made illegal, there will be two more drugs that show up, legal or not, to take its place....
The main problem is: for every drug made illegal, there will be two more drugs that show up, legal or not, to take its place....
- 606
- New York
- Mind_R1ot
I haven't read 100% of the posts, but I think I have the gist of things. First off, I agree with Neon Duke. Drugs ARE banned, and we have the pointless "War on Drugs" as the result. There is far too much public demand for altered consiousness for this to ever go away. To the best of my knowledge Amsterdam, Holland doesn't have a major problem with acts of public intoxication, et al. Sure, things happen, but that's what the Police is there for. (Do what you want, but be prepared for the results.) It is my understanding that most people only indulge on a recreational basis. Others get high once or twice, then lose intrest. The point is that drugs are legal and commonplace there, so it's not a big deal.
The FDA has stringent guidelines for the certifications of pharmacies who already sell MANY narcotics. Surely they can impliment a plan for selling "recreatoinal" narcotics over the counter.
I love all these new commercials for these wonder drugs. The first half tells you how great it is, the other tells you of all the wonderful side affects. ALL drugs have side affects. That is why they are plainly explained to us on T.V., on the side of the box with a toll-free # to call. And any Pharmacist is bound by law to fully explain ANY medication (drug) to a customer. What it is, how it works, etc.
It's not a perfect world, I don't think it's supposed to be. But drugs and alcohol are not going away.
The FDA has stringent guidelines for the certifications of pharmacies who already sell MANY narcotics. Surely they can impliment a plan for selling "recreatoinal" narcotics over the counter.
I love all these new commercials for these wonder drugs. The first half tells you how great it is, the other tells you of all the wonderful side affects. ALL drugs have side affects. That is why they are plainly explained to us on T.V., on the side of the box with a toll-free # to call. And any Pharmacist is bound by law to fully explain ANY medication (drug) to a customer. What it is, how it works, etc.
It's not a perfect world, I don't think it's supposed to be. But drugs and alcohol are not going away.
We're just days away from declaring that war won.
They call them different things in different states.
Driving Under the Influence, in most states, has been broadened to 'Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance' so it can involve drugs also. 'Driving While Intoxicated' is broad enough so as to involve drugs anyway.
- 606
- New York
- Mind_R1ot
It's not about blaming someone or something. You are right that it's totally the persons fault and not the object but the object contributes to the way they make decisions.
When someone does any kind of drug they don't usually think "I'm going to get waisted and drive". Usually what happens is that they get waisted and then reasoning get's thrown out the car window. They don't think rationally and they decide to drive.
If drugs were legal then there is just more of a chance of a person thinking irrationally and killing someone on the road.
Reguardless of who or what is to blame the person that is dead is still dead and nothing can bring them back. Is it worth it?
- 6,977
- old-guy64
To expand that just a bit. You wouldn't (I hope) get drunk and go to the pistol range. You should lock up your own keys, freely, when the alcohol starts to flow.
As for the drug issue:
It may be a good idea to legalize them. The drugs will bne produced and packaged under stringent guidelines.
The government will get their "cut" in taxes.
And perhaps, through attrition, we will lose the more "intellectually hindered" drug users. That is not to say that I believe any "illicit" drug use is intelligent.
In my profession, we go to great lengths to insure that legal controlled substances, such as Codiene, Vicodin/Lortab, and Oxycontin are indeed controlled and accounted for at the beginning and end of every shift.
There is a HUGE market for those drugs and many others that are legal, but being used illegally.
How can we, in good conscience, legalize the "bad" stuff, when we can barely control addictions, and the "black market" for the "good" stuff?
As for the drug issue:
It may be a good idea to legalize them. The drugs will bne produced and packaged under stringent guidelines.
The government will get their "cut" in taxes.
And perhaps, through attrition, we will lose the more "intellectually hindered" drug users. That is not to say that I believe any "illicit" drug use is intelligent.
In my profession, we go to great lengths to insure that legal controlled substances, such as Codiene, Vicodin/Lortab, and Oxycontin are indeed controlled and accounted for at the beginning and end of every shift.
There is a HUGE market for those drugs and many others that are legal, but being used illegally.
How can we, in good conscience, legalize the "bad" stuff, when we can barely control addictions, and the "black market" for the "good" stuff?
- 606
- New York
- Mind_R1ot
Like I was saying, Gil. If someone wants it, they're gonna get it. So we may as well regulate it. Let the exicse taxes support the education and rehabs. Not the Education and Medicaid budgets. Local law enforcement, as well.
I might also add that people share your views- and strongly - relating to guns, alcohol, motorcycles, SUVs and sports cars. You and these people are not necessarily worng. There are inherent dangers and benefits to all of them. It's all a matter of the individuals' choice to partake in any of these things.
I might also add that people share your views- and strongly - relating to guns, alcohol, motorcycles, SUVs and sports cars. You and these people are not necessarily worng. There are inherent dangers and benefits to all of them. It's all a matter of the individuals' choice to partake in any of these things.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
All true, RB,
But I've been on the range with a drunk that was shooting quals with an M-14, 12 ga. and .45cal ACP.
I've been witness to stupidity and motorcycles being mixed together. Yes, it was a bad plan that required over 100 sutures to fix.
I understand that there are benefits to going out and playing with fast cars, large guns and motorcycles. All things that shoot or go "Vroom" have one thing in common. They are not to be mixed with drugs or alcohol.
If, like Milefile, they can stay at home and light up a spleef, or have a drink with "Mr. Daniels"...More power to 'em. But please, keep it at home.
- 7
Drugs for recreational use should stay illegal coz they can be a root of many crimes, as the users won't be able to think clearly on what they're doing. 
- 3,052
MrktMkr's 9 FACTS About Drug Legalization
- The United States has made a lot of progress in fighting drug trafficking and use. Abandoning all efforts now would be disastrous.
- Prevention, law enforcement, and treatment and rehab programs are instrumental in the fight against drugs.
- Illegal drugs are illegal not only because they are harmful, but they pose societal risks as well.
- Smoking marijuana is NOT the same as medical marijuana (Marinol).
- Drug control spending is a minor portion of the US budget at least in comparison to the social costs.
- Legalization will lead to INCREASED use and INCREASED levels of addiction. Legalization HAS been tried before in the United States and it has FAILED MISERABLY.
- Drugs, violence and crime are ALL inextricably linked.
- Europe's more LIBERAL drug laws cannot and will not work in the United States.
- Most non-violent drug user get treatment, not jail time.
Limited to these facts, I dare someone to argue with me.
