In all fairness, at this point, it kind of goes without saying that anyone spouting idiotic garbage like this is obviously a shill, especially since it's regarding copyright.

Yeah, only a few services like first class mail, the overwhelming bulk of non-spam mail.

The internet of things has toasters.

If you are at the point where most of what you are doing is mainly muscle memory and rote memorization, you are probably playing lousy or at least uninteresting music. Improvisation and communication with the rest of the band and the audience are going to be where most of the work goes.

I can drive (both on the street and the track) and play the Guitar... but never at the same time (only have one pair of hands).

You need to step up, then, I can play bongos while driving, and I've seen guitarists play alright using only one hand.

No, there is such a thing as an action having worse results than doing nothing, which is why 'first, do no harm' is something that's considered very important for doctors.

If you see someone having a heart attack, and the first thing you do is grab the defibrillator that you have no idea how to properly use, you probably will end up making things worse.

If being a responsible adult were as simple as just deciding to do so, there would be no need for rehab, and really no need for any government at all. We'd just be responsible adults all the time and that would be the end of it. However, reality is a bit more complicated than that.

It's not that the taxpayers have a duty to shell out anything, it's just that paying for rehab is more cost effective since it actually reduces recidivism. You don't have to have as many cops, judges, public defenders, etc.

In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public.

That seems like a pretty harsh sentence. Why not just deter stoned people from driving or operating heavy machinery, which is a situation in which they could actually be a threat?

A field sobriety test is the mother of all qualitative tests, really. Even if it is administered in view of the camera on the car (or a body camera if the police officer is wearing one) it is still not a robust test and they are often challenged in court on a number of grounds. A field sobriety test for pot would be at least as bad.

Field sobriety tests are very qualitative in the middle ground of moderate impairment, but if you clearly pass or clearly fail, it's pretty objective. If someone stumbles across a line or falls down immediately while standing on one leg, they are clearly not in a condition to safely drive. If they can juggle while standing on one leg reciting the alphabet in reverse, they are clearly fit to drive.

If pro-pot people really want pot treated the same as alcohol they should be behind this as well, rather than treating it like some magical faultless cure for everything.

The problem is that all tests devised so far run an extreme risk of false positives and don't accurately assess the mental state of the driver. If an accurate test could be created, it might receive a different response, but until that point, it should not be embraced as having any utility.

So, by a 'test along these lines', you really mean a test that actually works. That's a pretty big difference, and given that the current evidence suggests that any purely objective chemical test would be unreliable. Fortunately, a field sobriety test actually tests how fit you are to drive, which is what is already relevant.

You just keep screaming that there are studies that show that being high can impair your driving. That doesn't mean that blood tests can be reliably used to determine whether or not a driver is impaired.

Actually, he addressed your entire argument. If there were a test that accurately determined one's level of intoxication and inability to drive from cannabis, it would be hard to not get behind it. However, the test proposed has not been shown to be scientifically accurate, making it have no advantage over a field sobriety test, which actually tests the motor and cognitive skills required to drive. You are peddling pseudoscience, which is why you are drawing ire.

And none of that suggests that there is a reliable relationship between THC or other cannabinoid levels in the blood or on the breath in a manner similar to BAC and breathalyzer . I don't think there's any claim that it's not possible to be too high to drive for at least some people.

We don't really need to have a one-size-fits-all power generation supply. Geothermal is great if you are in Iceland or certain parts of the Ring of Fire, but for the most of the world, it's not an option at all. Solar power is going to work better in places with lots of sunlight, wind power in places with lots of wind, etc.

In this context, safety and security are much more hollow. Cops kill more people than terrorists, and we are so bad at stopping terrorists that their own idiocy is more effective than throwing countless billions and manpower at it.

A slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if it cannot be demonstrated that the slide down the slope isn't inevitable or at least highly likely. This progression of using terrorism and protecting children has been demonstrated to be true on numerous occasions, so it isn't a fallacy.