[Boripiomi]

In the 70's we used our knees to steer when we were drinking beers, but that's frowned upon now.

I always frown on the 70s.

[outdog]

I'd rather that then seeing somebody texting, reading a newspaper, putting on makeup, eating, or talking on a cell phone while driving... and going 50 MPH.

Maybe I'm odd in as much as I'd rather none of those people (stoners and the people you listed) be driving? Perhaps you can explain to me how the presence of one danger on the road means I should be comfortable with all of them being on the road.

[Yfclciak]

Maybe I'm odd in as much as I'd rather none of those people (stoners and the people you listed) be driving? Perhaps you can explain to me how the presence of one danger on the road means I should be comfortable with all of them being on the road.

And where did I say I was comfortable with or I wanted stoners on the road... I did say that given a choice, I'd rather see somebody driving at 20 MPH in city traffic because they were high vs morons who were paying more attention to something else while doing 50 MPH. But my statement NEVER condoned getting high and driving.

[Draftcasino.com]

stuff

I fail to see the relevence of your response to me then. Do you like killing bits just to see your name on a forum?

[cingularring]

Are you two high?

[Catieliecutty]

This is some what unrelated but the other thing I would like to see if for the Feds to legalize home distilling of liquor. In 1978 when the Federal government legalized the home brewing of beer we saw a rush of home brewers brewing beer they did not find in the market place and could not buy in the US market. Much of it were type of beers found in Europe but which weren't made in the US given the strangle hold national breweries had on the market and the strict distribution laws of the states. Never the less private enterprise worked and soon there were huge numbers of new start ups offering new and interesting types of beer. Many of these start ups became quite large and now employ hundreds of people (thousands if you include the bottle makers, can makers, packing companies, and distribution companies) so it ended up being a great thing economically.

Why can't we do the same thing with liquor? Why can't we have boutique whiskey, vodka, brandy, etc... Companies operating all over the country? It would seem like a great new local business if the Feds would just get out the way. These are manufactured goods so its a good way to increase American manufacturing at a time when imports are killing American manufacturing.

[icedrakona]

Are you two high?

Gee... a great response when you have been proven to be totally wrong.

Learn how to read. Your "assumptions" were totally wrong, yet you try to deflect it by asking if people are high. At least people who actually think can see how wrong you were.

When you want to have a real discussion, try to do so without looking like a total idiot.

That might not be possible considering your response, but try it for a change.

[parishilton]

When given to people that appear to be gibbering morons, it certainly is.

Since you were the one making crap up... you seem to be the gibbering moron here.

You started this discussion with an idiotic response to me commenting on a post made by what is apparently the intelligent brother comparing the dangers of stoned drivers to other distracted drivers as if that were at all relevent. It's not may fault that your hangers on decided to join in. Again... learn to read. You used your usual lack of reading skills to see something that wasn't in my post. Again, please point out where I said driving stoned was ok or that I approve of it.
I guess anybody with a brain that disagrees with you is considered a "hanger". I notice nobody has bothered to agree with your moronic post. Gee, I wonder why not

[Queueftof]

Assuming your .later stated purpose, your response to me makes little sense because I was commenting on the ability of stoned people to drive under the influence. The fact other people may or may not pose a danger on the road is irrelevent to that point. The faster you can grasp that apparently complex point that I wrongly thought was simple and uncontraversial the better.
I don't care. Argumentum ad populum isn't evidence of anything.

No surprise that something didn't make sense to you... since it seems little ever does. It's also not surprising that others could understand it and you still don't.

Again, since you have never done so yet... please show us all where I said that I think it's OK to drive stoned... OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU CAN'T, because I never did.

So maybe you should think again about who is the one making sense here. It's obviously not you.

[itepearce]

stuff

This is going around in circles. 3 points then I'm done. 1) I made a point responding to rah's post about how stoners claim they drive when high. 2) You make a post in response to me stating that you'd rather stoners be on the road than other groups of people you see as posing a danger to the roadway. 3) I respond trying to find out what that has to do with the point I made and you get offended. I've still yet to get a response to that btw.

If the discussion continues along the circular path, you can declare yourself the winner because I'll have better things to do.

[alenbarbaf]

2) You make a post in response to me stating that you'd rather stoners be on the road than other groups of people you see as posing a danger to the roadway.

Again... and maybe you will understand this time... please point out where I say I'd rather have stoners on the road. I "stated" no such thing, but you keep claiming I did. Didn't they teach you to read properly in school?

And I'm sure you have better things to do than actually admit you are wrong.
So feel free to run away... no real surprise.

[GitaraMoya]

Hmmm... still doesn't show where I said it's OK to drive while stoned. Try again.

Another classic example that you lack reading skills.

[Dokescoonse]

WHY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE SET OF MORONS ON THE ROAD JUSTIFIES THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER SET

by gribbler

If driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than driving while stoned, and cell phones shouldn't be illegal, then road safety alone is not enough to justify making marijuana illegal. Road safety is a stronger argument for banning cell phones than it is for banning marijuana. In order for banning marijuana but not cell phones to make any sense, additional justification is needed.

[Taunteefrurge]

It is easy to distinguish the types. All we need is one more question on the driver's license process:

Have you smoked regularly for over a year?

If yes, driving should not be affected and you get a special stamp.

[Waymninelia]

WHY THE EXISTENCE OF ONE SET OF MORONS ON THE ROAD JUSTIFIES THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER SET

by gribbler

If driving with a cell phone is more dangerous than driving while stoned, and cell phones shouldn't be illegal, then road safety alone is not enough to justify making marijuana illegal. Road safety is a stronger argument for banning cell phones than it is for banning marijuana. In order for banning marijuana but not cell phones to make any sense, additional justification is needed.

The arguement above is rather mooted by the fact that numerous local and state ordinances have been enacted to prevent driving and cell phone usage. Likewise stupid driving behaviors such as no hands driving, receipt of oral sexual favors etc. carry the penalty of reckless driving. Thus all these behaviors are illegal if the situations warrant that they are deemed unsafe.

All that being said the areguement of illegality wasn't even broached earlier. Merely why one group exists should be rationale for another group. I suppose mass murderers are worse than one off murderers. Both exist. The existence of one has no impact on the other.