6 ms·

If you were the only person using the public roads, I wouldn't see a problem with it; the problem is that other people are using the roads too, and at that poin

If you were the only person using the public roads, I wouldn't see a problem with it; the problem is that other people are using the roads too, and at that point, you're putting those people at risk.

sliverstorm 17y ago
Exactly. No surprise there. That's my point. I'm sorry if I take a bit of a negative attitude towards it all, I just get tired of people who completely overlook the impacts their own actions may have on other people.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  Right. Everytime I light up a joint, God causes a drunk driver to hit someone.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    You think using mj has no impact or risk on other people? How about driving baked? It's probably not as bad as driving drunk, but when you're on the same road as me piloting a 2-ton missile around me, 'not as bad as wasted' isn't quite good enough. This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      I don't drive when high. And if I did, it would still be a DUI even if marijuana was legal. DUI laws are not whats under debate. You're confounding the issue. And on a side note, I agree it's less harmful than driving drunk and alcohol is legal to possess.
      - sliverstorm 17y ago
        i'm not. the parent i first replied to suggested we should remove all regulations, and DUI laws are a regulation.
- dantheman 17y ago
  If you break the law or cause damage while under the influence you should be held accountable for your actions. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
  - yters 17y ago
    We have that law currently and it doesn't stop drunk driving. Until people become rational actors (which they manifestly are not), we cannot just stop at prohibiting outcomes, but also must prohibit means to some degree.
    - orangecat 17y ago
      So people will ignore laws against drunk driving, but will obey laws against drinking in the first place. Interesting theory, if only we had some historical evidence to see if that would be likely to work...
      - sliverstorm 17y ago
        He's saying they don't anticipate the damages they will cause driving drunk, so there are laws against drunk driving (the 'means') I don't think anyone is arguing mj should be outlawed because of driving, or that alcohol should be either, the point is there are careful considerations that must be made and you can't just remove all regulations and expect things to go swimmingly

If you were the only person using the public roads, I wouldn't see a problem with it; the problem is that other people are using the roads too, and at that point, you're putting those people at risk.

sliverstorm 17y ago

Exactly. No surprise there. That's my point. I'm sorry if I take a bit of a negative attitude towards it all, I just get tired of people who completely overlook the impacts their own actions may have on other people.

metamemetics 17y ago
Right. Everytime I light up a joint, God causes a drunk driver to hit someone.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  You think using mj has no impact or risk on other people? How about driving baked? It's probably not as bad as driving drunk, but when you're on the same road as me piloting a 2-ton missile around me, 'not as bad as wasted' isn't quite good enough. This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    I don't drive when high. And if I did, it would still be a DUI even if marijuana was legal. DUI laws are not whats under debate. You're confounding the issue. And on a side note, I agree it's less harmful than driving drunk and alcohol is legal to possess.
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      i'm not. the parent i first replied to suggested we should remove all regulations, and DUI laws are a regulation.
dantheman 17y ago
If you break the law or cause damage while under the influence you should be held accountable for your actions. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
- yters 17y ago
  We have that law currently and it doesn't stop drunk driving. Until people become rational actors (which they manifestly are not), we cannot just stop at prohibiting outcomes, but also must prohibit means to some degree.
  - orangecat 17y ago
    So people will ignore laws against drunk driving, but will obey laws against drinking in the first place. Interesting theory, if only we had some historical evidence to see if that would be likely to work...
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      He's saying they don't anticipate the damages they will cause driving drunk, so there are laws against drunk driving (the 'means') I don't think anyone is arguing mj should be outlawed because of driving, or that alcohol should be either, the point is there are careful considerations that must be made and you can't just remove all regulations and expect things to go swimmingly