A big decision...

It is fucked up. But, the supreme court or the legislative branches of our government could do something about it.

I believe that all things should be illegal. All men must wear a white mantle with a blue cross from neck to foot, and all women must wear a blue dress with red cross neck to knees. Also, nothing that is not a fruit, vegitable, or meat should be consumed, including dairy. All fors of intoxicant or addicting anything is illegal and worthy of death penalty. All previous illegal activities apply, and are worth death penalty. Also, no football, football is gay.

It is fucked up. But, the supreme court or the legislative branches of our government could do something about it.

They could, but they shouldn't really have to. The DEA shouldn't be making laws in the first place. It's akin to if the police made the laws. You don't want the people who are enforcing and profiting off of the laws to be the same people writing the laws. There's a serious conflict of interest there. It is in the DEA's best interest for substances to be controlled because it gives them a purpose and keeps them their jobs.

They could, but they shouldn't really have to. The DEA shouldn't be making laws in the first place. It's akin to if the police made the laws. You don't want the people who are enforcing and profiting off of the laws to be the same people writing the laws. There's a serious conflict of interest there. It is in the DEA's best interest for substances to be controlled because it gives them a purpose and keeps them their jobs.

I never really looked at it like that. That makes a shit-ton of sense.

I'm glad my thread has served a purpose. I'm going to try and do that more often.

They could, but they shouldn't really have to. The DEA shouldn't be making laws in the first place. It's akin to if the police made the laws. You don't want the people who are enforcing and profiting off of the laws to be the same people writing the laws. There's a serious conflict of interest there. It is in the DEA's best interest for substances to be controlled because it gives them a purpose and keeps them their jobs.

Which is basically the entire story of Alcohol prohibition being defeated, and the war on 'Drugs' beginning aka marijuana. They actually gave Ganga a spanish name to make white people more afraid of it, because they knew how to perpetuate stereotypes. Clever!

They could, but they shouldn't really have to. The DEA shouldn't be making laws in the first place. It's akin to if the police made the laws. You don't want the people who are enforcing and profiting off of the laws to be the same people writing the laws. There's a serious conflict of interest there. It is in the DEA's best interest for substances to be controlled because it gives them a purpose and keeps them their jobs.

I definitely don't disagree, just saying that the entire government is to blame. It's the same as the FCC deciding they have the right to rule over the internet.

Sure, until you realize that THC is a depressant, much the same as alcohol. Nothing like delayed reaction to make something like operating a car go from simple to dangerous.

Driving while texting is more dangerous than if you have THC in your system. Maybe the penalty for that should be higher.

Having driven drunk and driven stoned on multiple occasions, I can say with certainty that driving drunk is more difficult and more dangerous. On top of that, I'm pretty sure the mythbusters showed that talking on a cell phone while driving is as bad or worse than drunk driving. Which should be obvious to anyone on the road.

Anyway, everything is relative, and that is why writing laws is not necessarily easy. I would tend to say they should enforce after the fact, but most people will disagree with this because people may die in the process. Who is to say when I become too impaired to drive? BAC tests are unreliable because intoxication relative to BAC varies a lot from one person to another. Some seasoned alcoholics can be at 0.20 BAC and seem sober, while some teenage girl might seem shit-faced at 0.08 BAC. Some people might be able to drive and talk on their phone at the same time without killing people. Some people might be able to smoke a joint and still drive fine. I could possibly even take this further and say that some people might be able to speed and not injure others. When should speeding, drunk driving, cell-phone-talking, etc. be considered crimes? I would say they should be considered crimes once it can be shown that the person in question harmed another person by doing one of the above.

WTF am I talking about?

You're like that bing commercial where somebody says one thing and then they ramble on about compltely something unrelated.

Well, to be honest though your proof is fairly anecdotal, I do agree with you to a point. In my personal experience I've found the opposite to be the case. Give me a little sticky and there's no way in hell I can drive as well as after a few beers. It all depends on the individual person though, as you mentioned with alcohol.

I can't say I agree with your idea to completely eliminate preemptive punishments though. It would be, in essence, the same as eliminating punishment for conspiracy to commit murder. Sure, no one was actually hurt, but intent was there. That's where laws can get tricky. Surely nobody who goes out driving high or drunk INTENDS to hurt anyone, but it can happen much easier while inebriated in some fashion. I know it's a much different case with my example, but in principle its not that much different. Someone is punished before they are able to harm or kill someone.

I do believe people should refrain from using cellphones while driving, though. I can't count the number of times I've nearly been clipped, rear ended, side-swiped, etc. by some dimwit blathering on their cell about how "Ray and Shaniqua are TOTALLY getting it on, There's no way you can't tell me they aren't, SHUT UP! NO YOU SHUT UP!"

At the end of the day, the laws in place today are a mixture of those to punish those who would harm others as well as protect people from being harmed preemptively.


As far as the FCC comment goes, I'm inclined to agree so far as the censorship and "decency" bullshit they rail into everyone with the "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" ideology. As far as the "rule the internet" thing, I'm pretty sure that's the RIAA, not the FCC.

Well I can drive while texting better than I can high or drunk, should there be special penalties for peolpe that are better at it? Lulz