I somewhat frequently read of people that have numerous convictions for drunk or impaired driving, yet they keep on driving.
Here (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2012/082012/08222012/720847) is a newspaper article describing a recent case from Spotsylvania County, Virginia.
QuoteA Spotsylvania man with 11 verified convictions for driving while intoxicated was convicted of a 12th Tuesday.
QuoteDavid Maron Apraham, 44, pleaded guilty in Spotsylvania Circuit Court to felony driving under the influence (third within five years), driving on a suspended license and refusing to take a breath test. In exchange for his guilty pleas, prosecutor Tom Shaia dropped a felony eluding police charge.
QuoteApraham will face a maximum penalty of seven years in prison when he is sentenced Nov. 6.
Is he going to get the seven years in prison?
Are his driving privileges revoked?
He was already on a suspended license, so the revokation likely wouldn't matter to him. He needed jail time about 11 convictions ago.
he needs to be propped up in the town square, holding a sign that says "I am the biggest douchebag in the world".
three rotten eggs for a dollar.
Anyone over the age of 25 who is a repeat offender for DUI ought to have their driving privileges revoked permanently.
For people who are young enough (the age of majority for car insurance seems like an ideal cutoff, insurance companies know their shit about these things), we can have lenience with and say "boys will be boys" about this sort of thing to some degree so long as no one ends up getting hurt. But after that we have to expect people to be mature enough that there is no excuse.
It blows my mind that Ohio is the only state to do this...I'm sure there is an official name but everyone here calls them "party plates"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Fpartyplates.jpg&hash=c73b00356f4c688866b486356e488f8d96b42570)
Basically, if your license is suspended or limited after a DUI, you get to sport a pair of these on every car you own.
That's actually a great idea. Public humiliation is a powerful punishment.
Quote from: 6a on August 22, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
It blows my mind that Ohio is the only state to do this...I'm sure there is an official name but everyone here calls them "party plates"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Fpartyplates.jpg&hash=c73b00356f4c688866b486356e488f8d96b42570)
Basically, if your license is suspended or limited after a DUI, you get to sport a pair of these on every car you own.
Minnesota has those too. Those plates have AB1234 (actually in the WX to XC or so series) combinations, not on the standard auto plate with the screened design but rather on an all-embossed baseplate. These are issued to drivers with restricted (drive-to-work only) licenses. I was a little surprised a couple of years ago to see one in a hotel parking lot in Ft. Collins CO.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2012, 09:23:51 PM
Minnesota has those too. Those plates have AB1234 (actually in the WX to XC or so series) combinations, not on the standard auto plate with the screened design but rather on an all-embossed baseplate. These are issued to drivers with restricted (drive-to-work only) licenses. I was a little surprised a couple of years ago to see one in a hotel parking lot in Ft. Collins CO.
Ha, I didn't know MN did that as well, mark me down as corrected. Those things are better than Angie's List when you see one parked in the contractor zone at Lowes, haha.
I totally agree with all the above BUT there is no way to stop a driver with a suspended/revoked license from driving, except jail time<works for me.
I'm not proud to admit this but 30+ years ago I was a repeat offender of driving while suspended/revoked, offender (NOT for DUI). I was so arrogant I drove (with a suspended/revoked license) to the courthouse for my hearing. My 3rd offense the judge gave me 30 days in the state prison, guess who never drove with a suspended/revoked again. I went back and thanked the judge years later because I realized that was the only way to stop me from driving w/out license.
I've heard of drivers with 8 DUIs on their record, thats crazy! We need to get tougher on the impaired driver, you should only be allowed ONE conviction then throw the book at them, I like the Ohio idea, humiliation is a powerful tool! I've lost 4 friends and know 2 others that are crippled for life after being hit by a impaired driver! Its disgraceful to allow a driver with more than one impaired driving conviction to continue to drive but the jails are full and taking their license has no effect on them so what to do, what to do?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 09:47:52 AM
I somewhat frequently read of people that have numerous convictions for drunk or impaired driving, yet they keep on driving.
...
Is he going to get the seven years in prison?
Are his driving privileges revoked?
Daily rounds of electroshock therapy might do the trick. A year of this ought to stop the impulse to do anything for a while.
So what series of judges allowed the previous 11 charges to be...meaningless? Do this in Florida, and by your third conviction, a three-year suspension and jail time; a fourth conviction, your license is permanently revoked, and likely even more jail time.
Quote from: 6a on August 22, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
It blows my mind that Ohio is the only state to do this...I'm sure there is an official name but everyone here calls them "party plates"...
I was wondering what type of plate that was when I saw one a few months back.
Quote from: formulanone on August 22, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
So what series of judges allowed the previous 11 charges to be...meaningless? Do this in Florida, and by your third conviction, a three-year suspension and jail time; a fourth conviction, your license is permanently revoked, and likely even more jail time.
After the third one here one runs the risk of having the *vehicle* seized by the state, not to mention the license.
My friend's brother has totaled at least 5 cars while he was driving drunk. Every time he has gotten a car he has wrecked it within 6 months. I don't think he has a license now, but that doesn't stop him from driving.
Quote from: bugo on August 22, 2012, 10:43:57 PM
My friend's brother has totaled at least 5 cars while he was driving drunk. Every time he has gotten a car he has wrecked it within 6 months. I don't think he has a license now, but that doesn't stop him from driving.
Sounds like an excellent candidate for an extended stay in prison.
sounds like an excellent candidate to get punched in the balls every morning, with a grumbling "are you dead yet, you piece of shit?"
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2012, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 22, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
It blows my mind that Ohio is the only state to do this...I'm sure there is an official name but everyone here calls them "party plates"
[embossed plate]
Basically, if your license is suspended or limited after a DUI, you get to sport a pair of these on every car you own.
Minnesota has those too. Those plates have AB1234 (actually in the WX to XC or so series) combinations, not on the standard auto plate with the screened design but rather on an all-embossed baseplate. These are issued to drivers with restricted (drive-to-work only) licenses. I was a little surprised a couple of years ago to see one in a hotel parking lot in Ft. Collins CO.
so, basically the only way to get a cool old-style embossed plate from those states is to be a social feces?
Quote from: formulanone on August 22, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
So what series of judges allowed the previous 11 charges to be...meaningless?
The 11 convictions were from 3 different states. I don't know if states share that information with others or if out-of-state convictions count towards a state's accumulation formula.
I have Asperger's. So I think differently than the general population.
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
I don't drink. I don't see any reason to. It has alot of negatives. I watch TV and always see all of the problems that alchol causes in our society, and I think to myself " Why the hell would I want to drink?" Unlike the general population, I am smart enough to learn from other's mistakes. In my view, the general population is nothing but a bunch of stupid sheep that do stuff "just because everybody else does" and is incapable of thinking for themselves.
As for the drunk driving issue, I think we need a tiered penalty system based on how much the driver is over the limit. I have heard a statistic that most of the drunk drivers that cause fatal crashes are at least twice the legal limit. Drivers who travel the wrong way on a freeway are almost always twice the legal limit.
The penalties should be based not only on amount over the legal limit, but the damage done. Rediculous f-ups such as traveling the wrong way on a freeway or striking a building should be automatic minimum one year in prison and loss of lisence for a number of years.
The fact that this is such a big problem just shows you how selfish, trashy, and irresponsible some people really are.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 22, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
Anyone over the age of 25 who is a repeat offender for DUI ought to have their driving privileges revoked permanently.
And this thinking is where the problem lies.
Repeat offenders - especially those in the double digits - already have their privileges revoked. A license is a 2" x 3" piece of paper. The lack of it doesn't prevent you from getting in the driver's seat, starting the engine, and driving away. I'm sure all of us at least one time drove forgetting our license at home, and it didn't prevent any of us from backing down the driveway into the street.
Maybe they should take away the car then, right? Wrong. The lack of a license or a car doesn't prevent a drunk from stealing someone else's car, or from driving a friend's car.
A criminal doesn't care about the law to begin with, so why would anything think a multi-convicted DUIer who just had 6 beers in an hour would care about DUI laws or driving laws now?
The bigger problem in Massachusetts is getting the judges to actually impose the penalites the law calls for. Even when that actually happens, then the defense lawyers will look for any means possible (justified or otherwise) to get the conviction overturned.
We had a case here a short time ago where a drunk driver (who had prior multiple OUIs) hit an off-duty police officer who was returning home from work. The officer, who was in uniform at the time, managed to get the drunk's keys away from him (I recall he was able to just take them out of the ignition) so he couldn't drive off. Upon appeal, the guy's OUI conviction for this incident was overturned by a higher court, who agreed with the defense argument that, because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and still in uniform, taking the drunk's keys constituted an illegal detainment of a person.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
The bigger problem in Massachusetts is getting the judges to actually impose the penalites the law calls for.
Two words: prison overcrowding.
Quote from: Special K on August 23, 2012, 02:24:34 PM
Two words: prison overcrowding.
Point taken. But some judges have been reluctant to even grant license suspensions or revocations for repeat OUIs, let alone not imposing jail time. Further proof that society doesn't really care about addressing the issue.
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Upon appeal, the guy's OUI conviction for this incident was overturned by a higher court, who agreed with the defense argument that, because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and still in uniform, taking the drunk's keys constituted an illegal detainment of a person.
The fuck? This is solid proof of a car culture. You can't drive so you're detained?
Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2012, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Upon appeal, the guy's OUI conviction for this incident was overturned by a higher court, who agreed with the defense argument that, because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and still in uniform, taking the drunk's keys constituted an illegal detainment of a person.
The fuck? This is solid proof of a car culture. You can't drive so you're detained?
and what's wrong with the detention anyway? I had thought the first thing the officer was supposed to do was to call in someone who
is of the local jurisdiction, and let that officer take care of the formal arrest... but as long as that second officer isn't there, it is the first officer's responsibility to keep the suspect detained. he certainly had probable cause, since the guy had crashed into his car drunk!
it's basically an administrative difference, not grounds for tossing a case.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2012, 09:23:51 PM
Quote from: 6a on August 22, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
It blows my mind that Ohio is the only state to do this...I'm sure there is an official name but everyone here calls them "party plates"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbishopdan.com%2Fimages%2Fpartyplates.jpg&hash=c73b00356f4c688866b486356e488f8d96b42570)
Basically, if your license is suspended or limited after a DUI, you get to sport a pair of these on every car you own.
Minnesota has those too. Those plates have AB1234 (actually in the WX to XC or so series) combinations, not on the standard auto plate with the screened design but rather on an all-embossed baseplate. These are issued to drivers with restricted (drive-to-work only) licenses. I was a little surprised a couple of years ago to see one in a hotel parking lot in Ft. Collins CO.
there might be more cars with those 'party plates' on the road in wisconsin than cars without them :cheers: :cheers:
Do we think "house arrest" where the convicted dui driver will wear an ankle bracelet to keep him in the house would work?
But then the problem of going to work arises. Maybe the ankle bracelet could be set to detect at home and work locations .My take is tough sh*t, you made your bed now lie in it!
Punishment needs to be severe so people will fear the punishment and not drive drunk, or commit other crimes. Criminals arent afraid of prison, most of their friends will be there, +3 hots and a cot, cable tv, a/c, guarenteed meals made for you, sound pretty good huh?
Prison overcrowding solutions. 1~Regulate marijuana, 2~if someone is convicted of taking a life by any means, even a convicted dui driver the penalty is death, and not 20 friggin years later, NOW! These two actions will free up alot of prison space for real criminals.
Another thing, while I'm ranting, here's another proposal--if you run from the cops, either in a car or foot the officier has the right to shoot your ass, aiming for a kill shot! /rant
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2012, 02:53:20 PM
and what's wrong with the detention anyway? I had thought the first thing the officer was supposed to do was to call in someone who is of the local jurisdiction, and let that officer take care of the formal arrest... but as long as that second officer isn't there, it is the first officer's responsibility to keep the suspect detained. he certainly had probable cause, since the guy had crashed into his car drunk!
it's basically an administrative difference, not grounds for tossing a case.
See previous comments about lenient judges and defense lawyers. And this case is also an good example of why we need to reform the appeals process. But, as someone once said, an innocent person's lawyer will challenge the charges, whereas a guilty person's lawyer will challenge the procedures.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2012, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 23, 2012, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Upon appeal, the guy's OUI conviction for this incident was overturned by a higher court, who agreed with the defense argument that, because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and still in uniform, taking the drunk's keys constituted an illegal detainment of a person.
The fuck? This is solid proof of a car culture. You can't drive so you're detained?
and what's wrong with the detention anyway? I had thought the first thing the officer was supposed to do was to call in someone who is of the local jurisdiction, and let that officer take care of the formal arrest... but as long as that second officer isn't there, it is the first officer's responsibility to keep the suspect detained. he certainly had probable cause, since the guy had crashed into his car drunk!
it's basically an administrative difference, not grounds for tossing a case.
We had one of those cases here, don't remember if it was DUI or not, but the court said an officer swears an oath and that oath can't see the city limit. They are absolutely allowed to detain you here, especially if it's for something that serious.
Apply "ghaack" to his neck.
As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.
Those things will also prevent a car from starting if mouthwash, aftershave, or anything else with a scent is used. They're unreliable at best.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 27, 2012, 12:43:40 AM
As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.
I agree. I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence. [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I
hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Quote from: deanej on August 27, 2012, 08:55:38 AM
Those things will also prevent a car from starting if mouthwash, aftershave, or anything else with a scent is used. They're unreliable at best.
Too bad. If a driver gets caught (and convicted) of driving under the influence, then that driver should have to deal with the inconvenience of an breath test vehicle interlock.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 27, 2012, 12:43:40 AM
As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.
I agree. I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence. [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]
as a wisconsin college student, i would agree!! :cheers:
the only reason wisconsin actually changed its age from 18 to 21, was because neighboring states had raised it, and 18-20 year olds from those states drove to wisconsin, got drunk, drove back and killed people. the federal government then tied highway funds to the raising of the drinking age, we were blackmailed. but in support of lowering the drinking age, i would have to go to a party to drink, were i dont lknow how i could get home, and i dont know what has been put in the alcohol. but if i could walk into a bar with my friends, and have a responsible sober bartender decide when i have had enough and call a cab for me, it increases saftey while expanding the range of people who can now legaly pay for alcohol, and therefore more people can pay taxes for its sale.
I'd even make the legal drinking age for beer be 16 as it is in Germany. there, it is graduated based on ABV.
I don't know the exact cutoff. I believe it's around 20%, so that most beers and wines can be had by 16 year olds, and liquors are 18.
16 year olds are gonna drink, no matter what. it's best that it be destigmatized, because the most dangerous aspect of youth drinking is that it is emphasized to be a furtive, rebellious behavior. if it were as ordinary as having a glass of wine with dinner, just like your parents... well, how cool would that be? you'd see a whole lot fewer dumbass youths drinking because "it's totally penile, Cousin Broseph. forsooth! LOL-I-238!".
well in wisconsin my parents can take me into a bar, and even before i turned 18 they could buy me a drink(not like they did though), perfectly legal (assuming my parents/legal guardian is 21years old). also someone who is married and 21 or older can buy their spouse who is not 21 alcohol in a bar, i think wisconsin is unique with these laws. correct me if im wrong, but wisconsin and louisiana are the only states with exceptions from strict 21 year old drinking age?
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 27, 2012, 11:43:08 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on August 27, 2012, 12:43:40 AM
As soon as someone is convicted of a DUI, they all should get one of those breathalyzer-ignition interlock devices put on their car, and they pay for it themselves. And it goes on any car they own. you have a touch of alcohol on your breath, car won't start.
I agree. I have seen more than a few injury or fatal wrecks where at least one driver was under the influence. [For the record, I regard claims by MADD that the 21-year-old age for drinking as improving safety as bogus - I think the legal limit for all alcohol should be 18.]
as a wisconsin college student, i would agree!! :cheers:
the only reason wisconsin actually changed its age from 18 to 21, was because neighboring states had raised it, and 18-20 year olds from those states drove to wisconsin, got drunk, drove back and killed people. the federal government then tied highway funds to the raising of the drinking age, we were blackmailed. but in support of lowering the drinking age, i would have to go to a party to drink, were i dont lknow how i could get home, and i dont know what has been put in the alcohol. but if i could walk into a bar with my friends, and have a responsible sober bartender decide when i have had enough and call a cab for me, it increases saftey while expanding the range of people who can now legaly pay for alcohol, and therefore more people can pay taxes for its sale.
Before the Reagan Administration, the age in most states was 18 for beer and wine, 21 for the harder stuff.
While Reagan was in office, the nice folks at MADD convinced Congress (and Reagan) to enact a law withholding federal highway dollars from states unless they set the drinking age at 21 for all drinks for everyone, claiming it would reduce drunk driving deaths (I did not see the correlation).
All it did was make persons who are 18 unable to buy a drink in an eating establishment or bar - but most can still get alcohol someplace else if they want it.
I personally find it
highly offensive that someone can join the U.S. military and be sent to a shooting war in a place like Afghanistan, yet they cannot go to a base club and have a drink.
One of the claims made was that 18-year-old persons were purchasing alcohol for persons under 18, but if that was a valid concern, then Sweden has the right idea, which could be emulated in the United States. Persons between the ages of 18 and 20 cannot make purchases at Systembolaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systembolaget) (literally, the "System Company," the government owned alcohol monopoly, similar to ABC stores in some states), but they
can buy alcoholic drinks at licensed bars and restaurants for "on-premises" consumption.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Yeah sure uh huh. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....
Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.
They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.
See thw URL for the rest.
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Yeah sure uh huh. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....
Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.
They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.
See thw URL for the rest.
Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.
We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Yeah sure uh huh. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....
Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.
They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.
See thw URL for the rest.
Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.
We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.
Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Yeah sure uh huh. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....
Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.
They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.
See thw URL for the rest.
Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.
We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.
Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.
Wanna bet. Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine. People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI. Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.
Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect. Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs. Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.
I don't recommend banning any of them for the over-18 crowd, but there's always going to be those who fail to take or do things in moderation (i.e. doing something/anything too much to the point in which it's a hazard).
Please, I've met plenty of dry-for-the-moment drunks who really have their heads on wrong, and they're usually no more superior nor wise than the pot-heads/fiends I know of.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/off.png) :bigass:
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Wanna bet. Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine. People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI. Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.
Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect. Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs. Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.
So we shouldn't ban robbery, burglery, and murder?
Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society. You won't see them legalized, sorry.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2012, 09:47:52 AM
I somewhat frequently read of people that have numerous convictions for drunk or impaired driving, yet they keep on driving.
Alice (Do you know who I am) Walton. At least 2 DWI's in Arkansas one fatality (hit a pedestrian) and 2 in Texas. Still continues to drive, but I guess wealth has it's privileges.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2012, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:26:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 27, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 27, 2012, 09:39:13 AM
Now if we could just come up with a quick and easy test for the police to screen drivers for being under the influence of THC (marihuana). [For the record, I hate the smell of the stuff, have never used it, but am strongly in favor of making it legal and taxable.]
Yeah sure uh huh. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!
....
Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'
Teenagers who regularly smoke cannabis are putting themselves at risk of permanently damaging their intelligence, according to a landmark study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9426205/Cannabis-smoking-permanently-lowers-IQ.html
Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.
They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King's College London and Duke University in the US.
See thw URL for the rest.
Using that line of reasoning, alcoholic beverages and tobacco products (with or without nicotine) should also be banned.
We tried banning alcoholic beverages once, and it didn't work out so well.
Alcohol and tobacco don't cause those kinds of impacts.
Wanna bet. Nicotine is just as addictive as crack cocaine. People on alcohol kill other people all the time whether in a drunken rage or by DUI. Furthermore, too much alcohol kills brain cells.
Banning anything though seems to have a really bad effect. Without prohibition, we might just rid ourselves of these damn gangs. Oh, wait, we did have prohibition once, we had drive-by shootings, and we have them using automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Looks like we have deja-vu all over again.
ya too much alcohol kills brain cells, but alcohol in moderation is one of the best things a person can consume on a daily basis. im not just talking about red wine either, whiskey has even more anti-oxidants than red wine, and it has other things. dark beers in particular are very good for ones health (in moderation of coarse) basicly anything but large abouts of hard liquor are quite good for you, while inhaling smoke of anykind (tobacco, campfire, and yes Marijuana smoke is still smoke that will coat your lungs just the same. all it doesnt have are the major carcinogens of tobacco smoke, though i might argue that the smoke itself is in fact a carcinogen since it can damage the lungs, and help cause cancer)
Quote from: Beltway on August 28, 2012, 06:12:55 AM
Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society. You won't see them legalized, sorry.
Marihuana, even though it is a vile substance, is not a narcotic, according to scientists. It is classified as a narcotic because of arbitrary (and mis-informed) decisions by elected officials who want to appear "tough on drugs."
Again, the "destroys brains" argument can (and should) be directed at alcohol as well, yet that's not going to get banned, at least not in the United States.
also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it. i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.
Quote from: Beltway on August 28, 2012, 06:12:55 AM
Narcotic drugs destroys brains and makes people useless and has enormous social costs on the rest of society. You won't see them legalized, sorry.
Ditto for tobacco, alcohol, and cigarettes, yet they aren't going to be banned. The reason is that it's culturally acceptable to consume these drugs but not others. Completely arbitrary.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it. i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.
The same can be said for caffeine and alcohol (and yes, caffeine is just as addicting as many of the harder drugs). Again, nobody is proposing to ban these. Your friend made his own choices; the function of the law should not be to protect people from themselves. In fact, the law probably made his problems worse. If these drugs were legal, he could get help. But he can't get help without being arrested and thrown in jail with hardened criminals. The only reason his formerly bright future is no longer bright is BECAUSE of the war on drugs!
he can go to rehab and not get charged with some sort of crime. being high (unless you are driving or something) isnt against the law, possesion of the illegal substance is what is against the law. if he were to get help, he wouldnt get in trouble, whether he tries to get help while being high or not. yes caffine is addicting, but not as much as most drugs are (yes i know that marijuana isnt 'addicting', but it seems to me that it is 'extreamly "habbit forming"') caffine also isnt as dangerous as drugs, alcohol or tobacco.
the gateway drug is oxygen
if you quit oxygen cold turkey, I'll guarantee you you won't be trying anything else
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it.
So did I. I was considered a deviate (by many of the potheads) because I wanted nothing to do with marihuana.
But I think marihuana is a "gateway" drug
only because it is illegal.
And many dope fields (consider Rush Limbaugh as an example) are also tobacco users. So is tobacco also a "gateway" drug? I think it is.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.
I reject that assertion as a reason to outlaw marihuana (and understand that I
hate the stuff and have
never used it and will
never use it).
Unless and until alcohol and tobacco are outlawed (and they won't be, even though tobacco is a nicotine (
drug) delivery substance and alcoholic drinks are a way to deliver alcohol, also a
drug). Those are also "gateway" drugs to abuse, either of tobacco or alcohol, or other controlled or illegal drugs.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
I reject that assertion as a reason to outlaw marihuana (and understand that I hate the stuff and have never used it and will never use it).
what's wrong with it?
I'm not a big fan of "stoner culture" but I don't hate the stuff, nor do I have a 100% record of abstinence. (3 times in the last ~10 years)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
also dont forget the gateway aspect of marijuana use. i had a few friends in highschool that used marijuana alot, and were big advocates of it.
So did I. I was considered a deviate (by many of the potheads) because I wanted nothing to do with marihuana.
But I think marihuana is a "gateway" drug only because it is illegal.
And many dope fields (consider Rush Limbaugh as an example) are also tobacco users. So is tobacco also a "gateway" drug? I think it is.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
i would debate them over its use, and when i would bring up the "gateway drug" argument, they would deny that it was at all a "gateway drug". before the year ended, one of them began experimenting with harder drugs, first cocaine, then perscription, and acid. he also admits to heroin and a few others. once aain debating them on the topic, i used the gateway drug argument again, and again it was denied by one person, when the other guy who had started using harder drugs steped in to my surprise and said, "actually Jordan was right, if i never started using marijuana, i never would have tried any harder drugs." its a proven gateway drug, and my friend becoming a hardcore drugie, being kicked out of his house, and losing his job, when he HAD a bright future and was a smart kid has really hit me as convincig reason for why marijuana should not be legalized, except for in a limited capacity for medical use. even then, any tom, dick, or harry shouldnt be able to go to their doctor, claim to have a headache, and ask the doctor to sign a medical marijuana card, the system needs more restrictions, and regulations.
I reject that assertion as a reason to outlaw marihuana (and understand that I hate the stuff and have never used it and will never use it).
Unless and until alcohol and tobacco are outlawed (and they won't be, even though tobacco is a nicotine (drug) delivery substance and alcoholic drinks are a way to deliver alcohol, also a drug). Those are also "gateway" drugs to abuse, either of tobacco or alcohol, or other controlled or illegal drugs.
you say that unless tobacco and alcohol are outlawed, marijuana should be legalized, but why? by your line of thinking 2 wrongs (actually 3 wrongs) would make a right. you are saying that 3 "bad" things should be legal instead of leaving the two that have been legal as they are, and continuing to ban the third harmful substance. whats next, cocaine? heroin? meth and other amphetamines? why stop with legalizing marijuana? your 3 wrongs makes a right line of thinking would also continue to say we should legalize all drugs, or make all of them including alcohol and tobacco illegal. i do not support tobacco, i have never smoked anything, legal or illegal. but alcohol (in moderation as i mentioned above) has great health benefits. whiskey is better at fighting cancer cells than red wine, and beer (especially dark beers) are great for a persons health.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2012, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
I reject that assertion as a reason to outlaw marihuana (and understand that I hate the stuff and have never used it and will never use it).
what's wrong with it?
The smell of the stuff is
vile (in my
opinion).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2012, 12:18:06 PM
I'm not a big fan of "stoner culture" but I don't hate the stuff, nor do I have a 100% record of abstinence. (3 times in the last ~10 years)
I don't care for the "stoner culture" either, but to each his (or her) own.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 12:46:32 PM
you say that unless tobacco and alcohol are outlawed, marijuana should be legalized, but why?
No, but following the line of reasoning from persons claiming that they want to keep marihuana illegal, then alcohol and tobacco should also be outlawed. I don't smoke or use other forms of tobacco, and I am a very moderate consumer of alcohol, but I sure don't want to see either of them made illegal (and as I stated above, I believe the drinking age should be 18, not 21).
But for some unfortunate members of U.S. society, tobacco and alcohol
are "gateway" drugs to other, "harder" substances, and by the reasoning of persons in favor of keeping marihuana illegal (because it serves as a "gateway" substance), then tobacco and alcohol should be outlawed for the same reason.
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 12:46:32 PM
by your line of thinking 2 wrongs (actually 3 wrongs) would make a right. you are saying that 3 "bad" things should be legal instead of leaving the two that have been legal as they are, and continuing to ban the third harmful substance. whats next, cocaine? heroin? meth and other amphetamines? why stop with legalizing marijuana? your 3 wrongs makes a right line of thinking would also continue to say we should legalize all drugs, or make all of them including alcohol and tobacco illegal. i do not support tobacco, i have never smoked anything, legal or illegal. but alcohol (in moderation as i mentioned above) has great health benefits. whiskey is better at fighting cancer cells than red wine, and beer (especially dark beers) are great for a persons health.
Yes, in a perfect world, those other substances would also be made
legal (with the exception of PCP and probably LSD). Legalization would put criminal drug gangs (in the U.S., Mexico, Nigeria and elsewhere) out of business
instantly, and would permit better government regulation of who consumes that stuff.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2012, 02:54:35 PM
The smell of the stuff is vile (in my opinion).
I don't think it smells bad at all.
then again, I like skunk, so what do I know.
(my least favorite commonly encountered smell is bleach. it's not a coincidence that it's one letter away from "blecch"!)
it wont put them out of buisiness. hypotheticaly if they made them all legal, they would put big taxes on these substances yes? if they tax it heavily(which they would) it would then still be cheaper to go underground and go back to the same street dealer they got their stuff from to begin with. i had alot of friends who smoked in highschool, well before they turned 18, they got it illegaly. im not 21, and i drink and my parents arent always aware of my doing so (making it illegal). my point here is being underage was no hinderance to accuiring these substances illigaly, so if the other drugs were made legal, the illegal underground (taxless) market will survive. the cartels and gangs will probably take a hit, and profits will likely lower, but im sure that their suppliers will keep supplying, because when you regulate these things, and say a person can only buy so much a month, these people who are addicted will need more, and have to get it illegaly again. perscription drugs are a good example of this( assuming harder drugs would become available for purchace in a perscription style so it can be controled)
You do realize that illegal drugs have over 1000% profit margin, right? The government would have to put a very high tax for legit businesses to not be able to out-compete the cartels.
how will most of these drugs be produced and distributed? i havent looked into it much, but south and central america is the only place i know of that makes cocaine. it cant be comercialy grown here in the US in a big enough amount to meet the demand, so it would still come from south america, where the cartels still control it all. they probably wouldnt give up their monopoly of the drug industry without a fight. now instead of fighting the cartels black market, the government will be fighting the cartels corporate monopoly. im sure that if the government were to tax these drugs, the cartels and gangs will be able to lower their price to compete with the government sanctioned drugs.
eh, I'm pretty sure there's a drug cartel or two that the CIA would love to get in bed with.
if America wants cocaine, America will get cocaine.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2012, 05:29:43 PM
eh, I'm pretty sure there's a drug cartel or two that the CIA would love to get in bed with.
if America wants cocaine, America will get cocaine.
lol
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 05:35:38 PM
lol
fascinating insight. how much did the Chicago Tribune pay you for that brilliance?
lOl
Quote from: Jordanah1 on August 28, 2012, 05:19:48 PM
how will most of these drugs be produced and distributed? i havent looked into it much, but south and central america is the only place i know of that makes cocaine. it cant be comercialy grown here in the US in a big enough amount to meet the demand, so it would still come from south america, where the cartels still control it all. they probably wouldnt give up their monopoly of the drug industry without a fight. now instead of fighting the cartels black market, the government will be fighting the cartels corporate monopoly. im sure that if the government were to tax these drugs, the cartels and gangs will be able to lower their price to compete with the government sanctioned drugs.
I don't know the states of cocaine, but marijuana can grow very easily in California, and it has a much higher demand.
Some conspiracy theorists also claim that the CIA is growing opium in Afghanistan.
Quote from: deanej on August 28, 2012, 05:57:39 PM
Some conspiracy theorists also claim that the CIA is growing opium in Afghanistan.
thus explaining our imperial tendencies towards that country...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmimg.ugo.com%2F201104%2F0%2F3%2F0%2F185030%2Fcuts%2Fdale-gribble_480_poster.png&hash=67ee98e744744e261623b6635a07d6d315247bf6)
considering that the CIA has been raiding and burning poppy fields in afghanistan, i doubt that. but i have never looked into it, so it certainly could be a possibility.
Force repeat DUI offenders to watch instructional videos by Carl Rogers. That'll scare 'em straight...
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 28, 2012, 07:24:33 PM
Force repeat DUI offenders to watch instructional videos by Carl Rogers. That'll scare 'em straight...
no, it'll just drive them even deeper into the bottle.
(1) I think pot smoke smells better than cigarette smoke. I think pipe smoke smells better than either one. This has no bearing on what I think should be legal.
(2) I also like the smell of skunk (a certain "agent" is apparently my Doppelgänger).
(3) I don't care at what age it's legal to drive and buy alcohol, as long as the age is not the same for both (way too much freedom granted at the same time).
(4) I like the idea of a graduated drinking age, increasing by alcohol content in the beverage.
(5) I think it's retarded that I can take my four-year-old son into the liquor store and buy alcohol; yet, if I were to go with a 19-year-old friend, they would card him and kick us both out.
(6) Ignition interlock devices don't prevent a sober person from starting the drunk driver's car for him; yes, this happens a LOT.
(7) The legal blood alcohol limit for driving should be zero.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(7) The legal blood alcohol limit for driving should be zero.
I disagree. I drive perfectly fine after a beer. that is about .02, given my body weight.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2012, 10:09:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(7) The legal blood alcohol limit for driving should be zero.
I disagree. I drive perfectly fine after a beer. that is about .02, given my body weight.
So do I. Well, actually, I hate beer. I drive perfectly fine after a glass of wine. Usually, depending on the size of the glass. Anyway. I just think it's too easy to have a little too much drink and not have planned another way home. It's too easy to just say, "oh, well, I'm probably not over the limit", and get in the car. With a legal limit of zero, we (myself included) would plan an alterante way home ahead of ordering the first drink.
The level where people get impaired is .05. For an idea of how broken our drinking laws are, the legal limit is .08. Yes, it's legal to drive while impaired by alcohol as long as you don't exceed the magic number set by a politician who doesn't actually want to do anything about DWIs except save face with the voters.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(1) I think pot smoke smells better than cigarette smoke. I think pipe smoke smells better than either one. This has no bearing on what I think should be legal.
In order of my dislikes of smoke (from most-disliked to least-disliked):
Marihuana
Tobacco cigarets
Tobacco cigars
Tobacco in a pipe
Agreed that the like or dislike of the smell should not mean anything regarding legal or illegal.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(2) I also like the smell of skunk (a certain "agent" is apparently my Doppelgänger).
Yuck.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(3) I don't care at what age it's legal to drive and buy alcohol, as long as the age is not the same for both (way too much freedom granted at the same time).
In the U.S., it was long 16 to drive and 18 for beer and wine. That's fine with me.
Alternatively, in Sweden, it's 18 for both, but you have to be 20 in order to purchase alcohol for off-premises consumption.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(4) I like the idea of a graduated drinking age, increasing by alcohol content in the beverage.
I prefer 18 for everything, but could be persuaded to go back to 18 for beer and wine and 21 for hard(er) stuff.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(5) I think it's retarded that I can take my four-year-old son into the liquor store and buy alcohol; yet, if I were to go with a 19-year-old friend, they would card him and kick us both out.
Agreed.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(6) Ignition interlock devices don't prevent a sober person from starting the drunk driver's car for him; yes, this happens a LOT.
Agreed.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(7) The legal blood alcohol limit for driving should be zero.
As long as it is enforced
fairly and
uniformly (and what's confusing about a limit of zero?), that's fine by me.
Sweden has a alcohol limit of 0.02% (compare and contrast with 0.08% in most U.S. states) and "aggravated" drunk driving is blowing over 0.10%. A first-time offender convicted of breaking that 0.02% limit can get as much as 6 months in jail, the punishment for "aggravated" drunk driving is as much as 2 years in prison - plus hefty fines.
Finland's limit is 0.05%, aggravated drunk driving is over 0.12%, penalties are similar to Sweden, including severely high fines.
Police in both countries conduct frequent and visible sobriety checkpoints, and the police
do not need probable cause to stop a driver and demand that they submit to a portable breath test for alcohol.
Quote from: deanej on August 28, 2012, 10:39:06 PM
The level where people get impaired is .05. For an idea of how broken our drinking laws are, the legal limit is .08. Yes, it's legal to drive while impaired by alcohol as long as you don't exceed the magic number set by a politician who doesn't actually want to do anything about DWIs except save face with the voters.
That is incorrect, at least in some states.
If a police officer a vehicle being driven in a way that causes the officer to suspect that the driver is under the influence, the driver can be charged with DWI even if the blood alcohol level is under the limit.
Quote from: kphoger on August 28, 2012, 10:03:32 PM
(2) I also like the smell of skunk (a certain "agent" is apparently my Doppelgänger).
Other way around.
Quote
(3) I don't care at what age it's legal to drive and buy alcohol, as long as the age is not the same for both (way too much freedom granted at the same time).
I believe that the age of majority should be uniform. 18 to drink, vote, serve, rent a car, etc. Anything over 18 should be illegal. Anything under 18 is a privilege. That said, I do believe in drivers' licenses under the age of 18, which would support your point.
Quote
(4) I like the idea of a graduated drinking age, increasing by alcohol content in the beverage.
Fuck that. How do you learn about alcohol if you can't drink enough to get drunk until you're old enough to do damage with it? Responsible parents can teach responsible consumption such that at 18, the young adult will not endanger himself or others. Without parenting, no matter what you do with drinking, the young adult will be irresponsible with any percentage alcohol he can get. (And it will probably be high - at parties, for example. How do you say "beer only at 18, beer and wine at 21, vodka at 24, Everclear at 26" at an event with all ages?)
Quote
(5) I think it's retarded that I can take my four-year-old son into the liquor store and buy alcohol; yet, if I were to go with a 19-year-old friend, they would card him and kick us both out.
Agreed. As long as someone of the age of majority is in there, it should be okay for that person to buy. However, the store owner is free to turn around and note to the police that someone suspiciously
seems to be supplying underage drinkers.
Quote
(7) The legal blood alcohol limit for driving should be zero.
Oh, hell no. I drive better after 3 drinks than on 0 - less aggressive and smoother. Now, 5 drinks, I won't even think of driving. Every person has a different limit, but I can say this - having one drink with dinner should not mean everyone has to take a cab. I wouldn't go a step below 0.08 - most trouble starts well over that level in the 0.15 to 0.20 range.
Quote from: Steve on August 29, 2012, 12:28:43 AM
Fuck that. How do you learn about alcohol if you can't drink enough to get drunk until you're old enough to do damage with it? Responsible parents can teach responsible consumption such that at 18, the young adult will not endanger himself or others. Without parenting, no matter what you do with drinking, the young adult will be irresponsible with any percentage alcohol he can get. (And it will probably be high - at parties, for example. How do you say "beer only at 18, beer and wine at 21, vodka at 24, Everclear at 26" at an event with all ages?)
Agreed. My Dad would give my brother and I beer with pizza long before we were 10 years old. I don't think either of us liked beer that much (at that age), but it was definitely not a mystery!
I'm glad to see that I am not the only person here who has never tried pot, not even once. I have also never smoked a cigarette. I am proud of both of those things.
Pot smoke gives me a headache. I can't be around it, and one of the reasons I quit going to concerts was because of the smell.
I also don't like cigarette smoke and hate going into a building where people smoke, and coming out stinking.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I also don't like cigarette smoke and hate going into a building where people smoke, and coming out stinking.
Try having to be in one for seven hours a day. You REALLY stink then. :ded:
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 29, 2012, 09:43:10 AM
Try having to be in one for seven hours a day. You REALLY stink then. :ded:
BTDT. My first job out of college was in a small office with two smokers, one of whom was a chain smoker. My second job was also in a non-smoke-free office, until the boss found out that smoke was harmful to the computer equipment and banned smoking in the building.
I hate going to casinos because even the smoke-free areas aren't really smoke-free.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 10:30:47 AM
I hate going to casinos because even the smoke-free areas aren't really smoke-free.
Yeah, it's like having a swimming pool with a peeing section. That's why I'm all for public smoking bans. People can cry about their "freedom", but what about my freedom to not breath their stench?
Cigarettes smell like burning paper. At least stuff like cigars and weed smell like leaves burning. Not that I wouldn't want pot smokers to conform to public smoking bans. I love going to bars and coming home not smelling like an ashtray.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I'm glad to see that I am not the only person here who has never tried pot, not even once. I have also never smoked a cigarette. I am proud of both of those things.
Pot smoke gives me a headache. I can't be around it, and one of the reasons I quit going to concerts was because of the smell.
I also don't like cigarette smoke and hate going into a building where people smoke, and coming out stinking.
i have never smoked pot or cigarettes either, nor have i done any other drugs.
being that im not 21, i woun't drive know matter how much or how little i have had, because blowing anything on a brethalizer without haveing a bottle of mouthwash in my car that i could point at would be an arrest and a hefty ticket for underage drinking. im not quite sure about how these laws work because i have never expreriaced them myself, but i believe if you dont blow the .08%, but fail the field sobriety, they will give you an 'uncuffed' ride in the back of thier car, either to your home or wheerever, or to the police station. you wont get booked, because you arent over the legal limit, but if you are too impaired they wont let you drive either. i could see this happening to alot of women, because the amount of alcohol that would impair most women is significanly less what would impair most men. i wrote this as a "boat sober" comercial was on TV...
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I'm glad to see that I am not the only person here who has never tried pot, not even once.
I was
definitely considered a "freak" by the dopeheads in high school, and at one job while I was in college, where one of my co-workers was
addicted to marihuana and hashish. He would smoke one or the other in a bong in the break room at work, and made the mistake of leaving it out in the open one Saturday when I had to work. His bong ended up under one of the tires of my truck (I put the resulting shards back on the table where he had left the bong). This guy's habit was
so bad that he stopped paying his vehicle insurance to "save money," and promptly wrecked his expensive Datsun Z-car (yes, he was high at the time) after the insurance had expired.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I have also never smoked a cigarette. I am proud of both of those things.
I have tried cigarets (did not especially like them) and cigars (ditto), but not for over 30 years, and I was never "hooked" on them. Tried chewing tobacco
once and nearly passed-out from the nicotine rush!
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
Pot smoke gives me a headache. I can't be around it, and one of the reasons I quit going to concerts was because of the smell.
I don't think it has that impact on me - I just think it stinks, that's all.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I also don't like cigarette smoke and hate going into a building where people smoke, and coming out stinking.
I don't especially like the smell of tobacco smoke (I once had a boss who smoked
four or five packs of Marlboro Reds
every working day), and it's clearly not good for the human lungs, but because it is a
legal substance, the whole "smoke-free" thing bothers me. Not in hospitals and other health care facilities, but I think bars and restaurants should be allowed to have smoking rooms if their owners desire same (perhaps with ventilation that is
proven to be effective in a test and certified by a government building inspector).
BTW NOBODY calls it "pot" anymore outside the prohibitionists.
Also off-topic, does anyone else think of singing the Establishment song when you see cannabis spelled "marihuana?"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgWrGf.jpg&hash=2b5875f22d2d6245e3ca6d7e5b8e322400f5e43e)
Quote from: bugo on August 29, 2012, 11:42:27 AM
BTW NOBODY calls it "pot" anymore outside the prohibitionists.
I usually call it "dope" or "marihuana."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
Quote from: bugo on August 29, 2012, 11:42:27 AM
BTW NOBODY calls it "pot" anymore outside the prohibitionists.
I usually call it "dope" or "marihuana."
Wacky Tobaccy.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
I usually call it "dope" or "marihuana."
I call it "marijuana" (and spell it with the "j", which I thought was the accepted form).
Dope, gank, grass, weed, spliff, blunt, pot, endo, buzz, smoke, breeze, cloud, green, tree, kronik...
Quote from: Special K on August 29, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
Dope, gank, grass, weed, spliff, blunt, pot, endo, buzz, smoke, breeze, cloud, green, tree, kronik...
how does everyone keep track??
"yo, G-Funk Era, let's score us some
cloud, bro-segmentation"
"uh... which one is that again?"
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2012, 11:28:41 AM
...but because it is a legal substance, the whole "smoke-free" thing bothers me. Not in hospitals and other health care facilities, but I think bars and restaurants should be allowed to have smoking rooms if their owners desire same (perhaps with ventilation that is proven to be effective in a test and certified by a government building inspector).
I agree with this. I only occasionally use tobacco (I have the urge for a cigar or cigarette maybe once a year), so it doesn't bother me when others smoke. I think it comes from so many people I've known (parents, friends, coworkers, ex-girlfriends, etc) who are/were smokers.
The problem with zero as a limit is that things like mouthwash will give you a reading greater than zero. In Connecticut, the legal limit for drivers under 21 is 0.02. This allows for that.
Nonetheless, even that is getting a little stringent. One beer will take some people above that, and nobody is particularly impaired by it. And I've driven after having had the equivalent of two and a half and found that I was putting a lot more effort into looking out for hazards and was generally a lot more alert and paying a lot more attention to driving, as opposed to my typical sober state where after two minutes I often kinda stop thinking about what I'm doing and operate semi-instinctively. Though, admittedly, alcohol affects everyone differently and this won't happen to everyone.
I'm fine with keeping the limit at 0.08. Especially since, who has access to a breathalyzer and can really say at any given point what exactly their BAC is? What my capability of driving at any point (which determines whether I am dangerous) is is far easier for me to determine that what my BAC is (which determines whether I can get in trouble). For this reason I like having some buffer space, and knowing the limit is 0.08 making sure I don't drive when I estimate myself to be above 0.05, to play it safe.
This is a common trend for me: I usually worry about getting in trouble for something far more than I worry about physical danger. I know myself and what my limits are, and I am confident in my ability to control my car and my discretion to stop driving if I cannot. But the police are unpredictable and I have no control over them. And getting in trouble is statistically far more likely than causing an accident, besides.
Your comments about being more focused on hazards etc. are reminding me of a ride I got once from a drunk driver. The whole way, he kept watching out for cops, making sure he was between the lines, making sure he wasn't speeding–all while going at less than 15 mph! What a ride.... I've been driving after one or two drinks before when I thought I was fine, but then a situation came up when I realized my reflexes weren't what they should have been, or I just started zoning out; I've pulled over before and had my wife drive in situations like that. I maintain that just thinking you're OK to drive doesn't mean you actually are.
I was under the impression that Poland had a legal BAC limit of zero, but apparently it's .02%. Hungary and the Czech Republic, though, have a zero limit.
That story was from the time I was working in NYC but still living in CT. I had developed a policy that if I went out after work I could have three drinks, and then after the hour-long train ride back to CT I would be good to drive home from the train station. Well, one night I ended up having a fourth... I hung around a little later at the bar afterwards and I sat in my car for about 20 minutes after getting off the train before I started it. I was at that point a bit above where I wanted to be but, doing the math, definitely still under 0.08 (no way I would have driven off if I weren't certain of that).
I drove slightly slower than normal but I wasn't going 15.
Fortunately, my commute no longer involves the use of a car, so this is now a non-issue for me.
Quote from: Special K on August 29, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
Dope, gank, grass, weed, spliff, blunt, pot, endo, buzz, smoke, breeze, cloud, green, tree, kronik...
...
pakalolo (the Hawaiian term)...
Quote from: hm insulators on September 12, 2012, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: Special K on August 29, 2012, 01:01:32 PM
Dope, gank, grass, weed, spliff, blunt, pot, endo, buzz, smoke, breeze, cloud, green, tree, kronik...
...pakalolo (the Hawaiian term)...
Choom (the term President Obama used back when he smoked.)
...ganja...