SG Broadband Community. Everything you'd like to know about Cable Modems, DSL, Satellite, Networking, Security, Wireless, Routers and more.
https://speedguide.net/forums/
That I do because it doesn't take alot of thinking to recognize that marijuana related deaths will increase drastically under it's legalization or decriminalization. It won't ever touch alcohol numbers, but it would create a massive risk in particular when people drive.YARDofSTUF wrote:And now you apply that case to all pot users, this is reminded me a lot of the school girl that fainted a little while back.
People would still get arrested for driving impaired, what you say makes more sense if it were legalized, but not decriminalized. Older types of people, and those like you tend not to see the difference in decriminalization vs legalization.Roody wrote:That I do because it doesn't take alot of thinking to recognize that marijuana related deaths will increase drastically under it's legalization or decriminalization. It won't ever touch alcohol numbers, but it would create a massive risk in particular when people drive.
Agree to disagree.YARDofSTUF wrote:People would still get arrested for driving impaired, what you say makes more sense if it were legalized, but not decriminalized. Older types of people, and those like you tend not to see the difference in decriminalization vs legalization.
Yup looks like a good time to end this convo, I agree with your ideas on medical use.Roody wrote:Agree to disagree.
I will add though that I don't have issue with allowing it for medical purposes, but even then I would want the Government to require doctors to get signatures from patients agreeing that they won't drive while under the influence.
I've seen quite a few illegal activities done with the use of a legal drug, too. It's called alcohol. You can't justify keeping one drug legalized and another illegalized on the basis of "criminal activity" - otherwise your argument just goes flat.Roody wrote:Because I have personally seen it's use lead to more then a share of criminal activity. I don't have an issue if the Government wants to allow it for medical purposes, but I oppose it's legalization or decriminalization.
To believe it's a stepping stone to other things is foolish.Roody wrote:Been involved in a few situations where marijuana use has killed someone I take it? If not then you would understand why I disagree with your assessment and the idea that just because something else kills more people that it somehow condones the legalization of a drug.
Sorry but I'd like to see clear evidence other than your clearly biased opinion. Is there court evidence that declares this to be the case? Was this person on other substances? At any rate...the same arguments you're making could be made for anything from caffeine to heroin.Roody wrote:Yes it most certainly does. A life was lost that day and it didn't have to happen. In fact had he not been using it it wouldn't have happened. Don't forget this was a buddy of mine so if anything I was biased towards wanting to see him remain on the outside. That said weed led to the death of that girl. He deserved the punishment and it was the right thing to do to put him in jail.
Roody wrote:Been involved in a few situations where marijuana use has killed someone I take it? If not then you would understand why I disagree with your assessment and the idea that just because something else kills more people that it somehow condones the legalization of a drug.
As far as obtaining marijuana, let the government sell what it has been growing for about 38 years now itself.…. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults…..
LINK…. For decades, the federal government has been the nation's only legal producer of marijuana for medical research….
I take it you didn't read my earlier remarks.Paft wrote:I've seen quite a few illegal activities done with the use of a legal drug, too. It's called alcohol. You can't justify keeping one drug legalized and another illegalized on the basis of "criminal activity" - otherwise your argument just goes flat.
You will be waiting for a long time. This is an incident that happened over 18 years ago. At the time it was the only thing he was using. There is nothing biased about my views other then knowledge of something that actually happened.Izzo wrote:Sorry but I'd like to see clear evidence other than your clearly biased opinion. Is there court evidence that declares this to be the case? Was this person on other substances? At any rate...the same arguments you're making could be made for anything from caffeine to heroin.
That's certainly your opinion, but then again I have seen evidence that contradicts your remarks.Izzo wrote:To believe it's a stepping stone to other things is foolish.
So is that a yes or no to personally witnessing the death of another person based on the sole use of marijuana alone?Izzo wrote:I've seen many where poor judgment is involved ....
I did, and it's obvious to me that you're standing on a very biased platform to be saying what you are. Normally you're quite level-headed, but in this argument, you're arguing from emotion and not from a rational standpoint. If you make the argument that marijuana caused your friend to make the poor judgement call to drive, slowed his reaction time, and caused him to kill people - and don't place any of the blame on your friend - then you can't argue from a standpoint where you can think clearly. Your emotions are getting in the way of seeing what actually happened.Roody wrote:I take it you didn't read my earlier remarks.
With all due respect Paft you are wrong. I don't know how to speak it any clearer. This isn't just the word of me. There was officers and a judge that agreed with this assessment also. My friend was impaired due to his use of marijuana. That isn't opinion. That's not the remarks of someone clouded by emotion. That is an absolute fact. I agree with you that his judgment in even using the stuff in the first place was wrong, but after he did use weed it absolutely did lead to the death of another person. It was both his judgment and the drug itself that did damage that day.Paft wrote:I did, and it's obvious to me that you're standing on a very biased platform to be saying what you are. Normally you're quite level-headed, but in this argument, you're arguing from emotion and not from a rational standpoint. If you make the argument that marijuana caused your friend to make the poor judgement call to drive, slowed his reaction time, and caused him to kill people - and don't place any of the blame on your friend - then you can't argue from a standpoint where you can think clearly. Your emotions are getting in the way of seeing what actually happened.
When a person drives drunk, do we blame alcohol? No, we blame the person for making a poor judgement call - being impared is no excuse for breaking the law and harming others. So it makes no more sense to blame marijuana for your friend's case rather than blaming your friend for making the bad call. It was his fault, not the drug's, for what he did. He killed someone, not marijuana. That's the bottom line.
Don't blame a drug for a person's actions. Blame the person.
No different then alcohol, I know people who buy more beer on the first then food, by the 10th, still plenty ber but no damn foodSava700 wrote:This drug is illegal and ruins lives... money is spent on its enjoyment than for some people spent on their own kids and bills. But its just as important for Congress to fight this as it is to fight for fairness in the BCS Bowl games since a many citizens ( tax paying ones) feel it should be... so I agree with them spending my tax money on these two issues as do many others. You can't argue with that..if you wish to then write them a letter, perhaps they will send you back a reply like YOS got.
I agree. They do need to know not to drink and drive. Current laws though don't seem to be concerning people enough because it's still done quite a bit. Not sure what the answer is, but perhaps tougher laws are in order.YARDofSTUF wrote: Roody, no one is denying that your friend was impaired. Its the exact same thing as a drunk driver crashing and killing someone. They were impaired by the substance and made a poor judgment call. Does that mean alcohol is evil and should be illegal? No. It means people need to know not to drink and drive.
.
Of course not because in the history of the world there may be a handful if that.Roody wrote:So is that a yes or no to personally witnessing the death of another person based on the sole use of marijuana alone?
According to what you said, the person died from a car crash, not from marijuana.Roody wrote:So is that a yes or no to personally witnessing the death of another person based on the sole use of marijuana alone?
YARDofSTUF wrote:Thats funny its 4/19 here.
They died because they were hit by a driver who was using marijuana. The use of marijuana is what led to their slow reaction time thus killing a person in another car. Had my friend not been using his response time would have been fine. That's a big reason why I can't support it's legalization or decriminalization as a whole. If it became open for public use rare circumstances like this would become more prevalent. Sheer math can tell you that. As I said though I have no issues with it's use for medical reasons as long as the user signs consent forms stating they won't drive while under the influence.YARDofSTUF wrote:According to what you said, the person died from a car crash, not from marijuana.
Alcohol has the same effect if not worse and it's legal. It's clear you're letting your emotions get in the way of reason.Roody wrote:They died because they were hit by a driver who was using marijuana. The use of marijuana is what led to their slow reaction time thus killing a person in another car. Had my friend not been using his response time would have been fine. That's a big reason why I can't support it's legalization or decriminalization as a whole. If it became open for public use rare circumstances like this would become more prevalent. Sheer math can tell you that. As I said though I have no issues with it's use for medical reasons as long as the user signs consent forms stating they won't drive while under the influence.
Yes they died because your friend was using a substance that impaired him, and its HIS fault the person died, not the drug's fault, just his and anyone in the car with him that let him drive in that state.Roody wrote:They died because they were hit by a driver who was using marijuana. The use of marijuana is what led to their slow reaction time thus killing a person in another car. Had my friend not been using his response time would have been fine. That's a big reason why I can't support it's legalization or decriminalization as a whole. If it became open for public use rare circumstances like this would become more prevalent. Sheer math can tell you that. As I said though I have no issues with it's use for medical reasons as long as the user signs consent forms stating they won't drive while under the influence.
Dear God Izzo you simply aren't reading this thread in it's entirety. Until you do spare me the remarks about how you think my emotions are getting in the way.Izzo wrote:Alcohol has the same effect if not worse and it's legal. It's clear you're letting your emotions get in the way of reason.
The problem is your allowing people to use the drug or alcohol as a scapegoat, and that is wrong.Roody wrote:Dear God Izzo you simply aren't reading this thread in it's entirety. Until you do spare me the remarks about how you think my emotions are getting in the way.
If you had read the thread you would know that I have also stated I have no issues with treating alcohol abuse in the same manner.
There again allowing a substance that has a proven history of slowing down a persons reactions into greater widespread use would only increase the odds of more instances like the one I experienced happening. It serves no purpose to allow for it to be legalized or decriminalized other then medical reasons. What it can do however is fill those jails you are trying to empty with people who get into similiar circumstances that my friend did because of their use of marijuana.YARDofSTUF wrote:Yes they died because your friend was using a substance that impaired him, and its HIS fault the person died, not the drug's fault, just his and anyone in the car with him that let him drive in that state.
Allow me to make this point clear. Stop trying to put words in my mouth based on what it is you think is going on in my mind. It makes Izzo and you look foolish in the process.YARDofSTUF wrote:The problem is your allowing people to use the drug or alcohol as a scapegoat, and that is wrong.
And how would the decriminalization of personal use allow that?Roody wrote:There again allowing a substance that has a proven history of slowing down a persons reactions into greater widespread use.
I'm not talking about whats going on in your mind, I'm talking about what what you have said and what the reactions/implications would be if we followed though based on them.Roody wrote:Allow me to make this point clear. Stop trying to put words in my mouth based on what it is you think is going on in my mind. It makes Izzo and you look foolish in the process.
Clearly you aren't because I have said over and over that it was my friends decision to use marijuana. If we put marijuana out there in widespread use it only increases the likelihood of comparable cases. Forgive me if I don't think marijuana should be allowed in such an environment just so alot of people can get the thrill of getting high.YARDofSTUF wrote:I'm not talking about whats going on in your mind, I'm talking about what what you have said and what the reactions/implications would be if we followed though based on them.
While I can understand you wanting people to sign forms, I’ve had to sign forms for some medications I have received in the past, stating I would not drive or operate heavy machinery.Roody wrote:....... As I said though I have no issues with it's use for medical reasons as long as the user signs consent forms stating they won't drive while under the influence......
The two will lead to the same result. If you decriminalize it's use because you want to free up more jail space it will ultimately lead to more examples like the one I showed within this article except those sentences will last a greater amount of time.YARDofSTUF wrote:And how would the decriminalization of personal use allow that?
That's completely up to the choice of the individual whether or not they want to disregard that form. If they do though there would be consequences.RoundEye wrote:While I can understand you wanting people to sign forms, I’ve had to sign forms for some medications I have received in the past, stating I would not drive or operate heavy machinery.
I would be out-right lying if I said I never drove while taking them.
Smart man. It's a waste of time if it's use is for recreational purposes which is what I suspect most people would be doing if it's use wasn't controlled.Randy wrote:I don't smoke weed
clean pee 4 sale
You've said a lot, including that pot smokers should be treated like murders because it leads to that. I don't think pot should be made available to the masses legally either, but decriminalizing it wont do that, it would still be illegal to sell/distribute it, and states could put a bill in motion to confiscate it as a controlled substance, but not jail the person.Roody wrote:Clearly you aren't because I have said over and over that it was my friends decision to use marijuana. If we put marijuana out there in widespread use it only increases the likelihood of comparable cases. Forgive me if I don't think marijuana should be allowed in such an environment just so alot of people can get the thrill of getting high.
But if the sale of the drugs is still under attack by law enforcement how will the use of the drug balloon up?Roody wrote:The two will lead to the same result. If you decriminalize it's use because you want to free up more jail space it will ultimately lead to more examples like the one I showed within this article except those sentences will last a greater amount of time.