DWI/DUI repeat offenders

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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)

[Jordanah1]

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.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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. 

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

[agentsteel53]

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"!)

[Jordanah1]

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)

[vdeane]

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.

[Jordanah1]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Jordanah1]

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

[agentsteel53]

lol

fascinating insight.  how much did the Chicago Tribune pay you for that brilliance?

[NE2]

lOl

[vdeane]

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.

[agentsteel53]

Some conspiracy theorists also claim that the CIA is growing opium in Afghanistan.

thus explaining our imperial tendencies towards that country...

[Jordanah1]

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.

[Scott5114]

Force repeat DUI offenders to watch instructional videos by Carl Rogers. That'll scare 'em straight...

[agentsteel53]

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.

[kphoger]

(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.

[agentsteel53]

(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. 

[kphoger]

(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.

[vdeane]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

(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.

(2) I also like the smell of skunk (a certain "agent" is apparently my Doppelgänger).

Yuck.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[Alps]

(2) I also like the smell of skunk (a certain "agent" is apparently my Doppelgänger).

Other way around.

(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.

(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?)

(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.

(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.