I knew that it would not be long until people forgot. Here you go, you asked for it you moron.
Posted on 11/09/2007 8:39:20 AM PST by SubGeniusX
By 57-to-43-percent margin, Denver voters have approved a ballot initiative that instructs police to make possession of marijuana in small quantities (less than an ounce) their lowest law enforcement priority. Denverites already had voted to repeal local penalties for possession of less than an ounce, with no noticeable effect on arrests; police just charged pot smokers under state law instead. Citing this history, the Rocky Mountain News says, "once again, the vote likely means nothing." But Mayor John Hickenlooper has promised to appoint a Marijuana Policy Review Panel to decide how the new ordinance should be implemented. Initiative organizer Mason Tvert says:
Although these officials say adult marijuana possession is already a low priority, it could undoubtedly be lower. For example, the City of Seattle, which adopted a very similar lowest law enforcement priority measure in 2003, handled just 125 cases of adult marijuana possession in 2006, whereas Denver -- a city with fewer residents -- handled nearly 1,400.
Tvert also notes that a similar initivative has had a significant impact in Missoula County, Montana, where the local prosecutor has told police to lay off pot smokers.
Take over?
Speaking of drugs, NEVER DO CRACK.
Sorry, but after reading your hysterical response, I can't help but wonder what is being passed around your bong party about now.
If pot is more important to you than national security, and Islam is our greatest threat, which you don't seem to acknowledge, than a country run by useful idiots will soon have more to worry than Indica/Sativa choices.
But then again, some people have survival skills, some people are 100% morons.
I'm being serious. I want to know about this 'sword of Islam' you mentioned. How is it going to destroy the life of this nation of states. I'm not the one talking about a 'sword of Islam'. You brought it up, tell us how it's going to 'get us'.
Right here, as a matter of fact.
From your earlier post... Could you tell me what studies show that driving high on marijuana is not a major impairment? I would love to see what you are citing.
“Those are the facts. Don’t Shoot the messenger.”
From this post.
If you have valid studies I would like to read them.
Sorry, you got me. I was being a little too creative with my words.
I meant to say 'rusty dull knife' of Islam
< /eye roll in disgust >
I knew that it would not be long until people forgot. Here you go, you asked for it you moron.
“If you have valid studies I would like to read them.”
Post #50 contained references to several of them. Search engines are your friend. :-)
“If I were so inclined to answer your specious argument my refrain would be simple, Jesus drank wine and did not do bong hits. Therefore wine is not to be prohibited.”
I’m always shocked and disgusted to see the hypocrisy spewed by some religious folk. I guess you don’t believe in religious freedom either, since other religions accept cannabis (Jesus never explicitly said anything against it either).
BTW, did Jesus smoke tobacco as well? What’s your argument against tobacco prohibition again?
“I`m simply amazed at the Cheech and Chong stoners that they continually and ironically, habitually confuse Liberty with licentiousness.”
I’m just as amazed that some seem to feel that they have the right to dictate behaviors in others that do nothing to harm them. Fascism and religious oppression lay down that road.
“Libertarians are close relatives to neo-stalinists and marxists of the left, aka the democrat party when in comes to matters of morality.”
You’ve clearly shown your colors. I’ll leave it to the gentle reader to decide which of us has more in common with the “neo-stalinists and marxists”.
“They both assume they have the liberty to be licentious.”
I “assume” I have the freedom to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as long as I’m not harming others. Seems like a pretty good system to me.
Sorry, I only got as far as 24 when my BS meter blew.
You’re absolutley right about search engines. Here is a cut and paste from NHTSA’s Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheet:
Performance Effects: The short term effects of marijuana use include problems with memory and learning, distorted perception, difficultly in thinking and problem-solving, and loss of coordination. Heavy users may have increased difficulty sustaining attention, shifting attention to meet the demands of changes in the environment, and in registering, processing and using information. In general, laboratory performance studies indicate that sensory functions are not highly impaired, but perceptual functions are significantly affected. The ability to concentrate and maintain attention are decreased during marijuana use, and impairment of hand-eye coordination is dose-related over a wide range of dosages.Impairment in retention time and tracking, subjective sleepiness, distortion of time and distance, vigilance, and loss of coordination in divided attention tasks have been reported. Note however, that subjects can often “pull themselves together” to concentrate on simple tasks for brief periods of time. Significant performance impairments are usually observed for at least 1-2 hours following marijuana use, and residual effects have been reported up to 24 hours.
Effects on Driving: The drug manufacturer suggests that patients receiving treatment with Marinol® should be specifically warned not to drive until it is established that they are able to tolerate the drug and perform such tasks safely. Epidemiology data from road traffic arrests and fatalities indicate that after alcohol, marijuana is the most frequently detected psychoactive substance among driving populations. Marijuana has been shown to impair performance on driving simulator tasks and on open and closed driving courses for up to approximately 3 hours. Decreased car handling performance, increased reaction times, impaired time and distance estimation, inability to maintain headway, lateral travel, subjective sleepiness, motor incoordination, and impaired sustained vigilance have all been reported. Some drivers may actually be able to improve performance for brief periods by overcompensating for self-perceived impairment. The greater the demands placed on the driver, however, the more critical the likely impairment. Marijuana may particularly impair monotonous and prolonged driving. Decision times to evaluate situations and determine appropriate responses increase. Mixing alcohol and marijuana may dramatically produce effects greater than either drug on its own.
DEC Category: Cannabis
Seems to be current too :-)
“I knew that it would not be long until people forgot. Here you go, you asked for it you moron.”
It’s a far cry from 3,000 people perishing in a single incident to our country being subjugated. Early on after 9/11 President Bush gave a speech where he used the line “if we allow the terrorists to change our way of life they’ve won”. If that’s indeed the criteria then they’ve in fact already won (I note he hasn’t come back to that theme since). Don’t give in to the fear mongers.
“They that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
” more addictive than heroin”
‘Exagerration trumps ad hominen.’
I don’t base that statement on my own experience, but I knew an ex Special Forces guy that was in Nam. He brought back a kilo of China White heroin, and used it all himself. He said it was much easier kicking that habit than it was quitting cigarettes. Granted, anecdotal evidence isn’t the best.
“As long ago as 1942 there was significant medical evidence that nicotine is an addictive drug. That body of evidence has subsequently grown, and today it is a reasonable medical certainty that nicotine is addictive; so much so that it has been compared to heroin, alcohol and barbiturate addiction.”
http://www.ash.org/papers/h1.htm
Sorry for the slight exaggeration. It pales compared to the hyperbole you’ve thrown around on this thread. ;-)
“Seems to be current too :-)”
It seems that most of that is theoretical, as opposed to the cited studies which tested actual driver performance in the real world.
Given that cell phones have been shown to be as much of a detriment to driving as drunkenness (and thus significantly more than of a hazard than cannabis), do you support banning cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle? How about smoking tobacco while you drive? Eating? Carrying on a conversation with other passengers? Do you think remotely operated cameras in cars for government surveillance are a good idea? After all, they’d work better than the officers trying to peer through the window from another vehicle.
Personally I can’t wait for self-driven cars, but they look to still be a decade or so away. Actually flying cars and automation are a match made in heaven - no pedestrians and three dimensions to spread out the traffic.
Pictures....in lieu of an argument. The last bastion of one who has no argument of course. What does that have to do with this dreaded 'sword of Islam' of which you speak? And why do you need to worry about it? Isn't the reason we're fighting 'them' over 'there' so they won't come over 'here'? By your own logic the 'sword of Islam' you're apparently afraid of shouldn't exist since 'they' are all over 'there'.
Here you go, you asked for it you moron.
Tsk, tsk, tsk....name calling again are we? Let's go back to your original post shall we?
I have, but what good is smoking pot if the sword of Islam is at your throat?
The image of sword at the throat insinuates some threat of finality. Also your willingness to bypass any curtailment of liberty in this quest of yours is quite telling. I'm still wondering where this 'sword of Islam' is that you're afraid of, not a one-off attack by 19 Saudis.
BTW, don't go shopping, your government told you not to. Leaves more stuff for those of us that aren't looking for a 'sword of Islam'. The imaginary you lot come up with....
Pfft. People ruin their lives all the time in ways like that. It’s called making poor choices. Maybe we should outlaw those while we’re at it.
As for your examples of cell phones etc. it is a false argument. All those things are stupid and contribute to accidents but do not impair your ability to drive. Ingesting chemicals whether through smoke, drink, or needle impair the driver. End of story. All else is BS. Put the phone down and you are fine. Put the joint and the bottle down and you still can’t drive.
I also don’t agree with the nanny state of self drive cars or big brother cameras. Nor do I subscribe to the libertarian line of “Whatever I want to do is fine.” I subscribe to personal responsibility for your own actions.
“I subscribe to personal responsibility for your own actions.”
As do I, which is why penalties should be applied for actual driving violations, as opposed to the chemical content, activities, or mental state of the driver. Trying to monitor those is what’s led us to the current situation of cops peering into private vehicles, trying to determine if the individuals inside need “nanny state protection”.
BTW, as one article pointed out, fatigue is a significant contributor to traffic accidents. Do we need a “fatiguealyzer” to be used at traffic checkpoints as well? Perhaps a device should assess your fatigue level, reaction times, eyesight and so on before you’re allowed to start your car...that could be independent of chemical content at least.
I’m pretty sure the senior crowd would scream bloody murder though. ;-)
“It sounds like you just don’t feel like the laws should apply to you.”
How do you reconcile your statement with: “As do I, which is why penalties should be applied for actual driving violations, as opposed to the chemical content, activities, or mental state of the driver.”
That is not a denial of the law, just an expression of what it should be, and how it should be enforced. I think you should re-examine your positions, they’re rife with inconsistency. For instance, it doesn’t matter that you can put a cell phone down and not be impaired. The issue is with the large number of accidents that’re caused while people are using them.
My point is that many people can talk on a cell phone, or drive while mildly stoned, and still outperform many other completely ‘unimpaired’ drivers. Vehicle law enforcement should be based on driver performance, nothing else.
OK, Folks! Smoke that grass. But don’t you dare light up a cigarette!
“Should be enforced.” You have no practical knowledge of this. If you do, you first have to show how your idea is better than the existing system. So far you are unimpressive in your reasoning.
Your point that law enforcement should be based on driver performance, nothing else, is completely without merit. My positions are consistent, regardless of what you label them. Driving distracted is against the law. That was covered by the careless and reckless violations I mentioned. Driving chemically impaired is against the law.
Your unproven assertion that ‘mildly’ stoned drivers can outperform unimpaired drivers is meaningless. I’ll leave you with this fine example as I head off into the night:
He was driving fine stoned on coke until he was distracted by the officer’s red lights and ran off the road. He killed the officer and injured the people in the car the officer had stopped for speeding.
Insert marijuana, alcohol, cell phone, and they are all still against the law.
Bend yourself into a pretzel all you want. Drive stoned-go to jail. It is against the law. Drive drunk- go to jail. Drive distracted by a cell phone and change lanes without signaling? Get a ticket. The state has the right and the duty to police the roads. Game. Set. Match.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.