Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 1) 342

This is what I'm talking about. Look, resources are limited. THERE IS OTHER, REAL CRIME. Lets put resources into fighting THE WORST and most popular crimes. Lets not waste resources and time going after offenders that probably cause .01% of car accident deaths. Its just common sense: don't waste time trying to find and police things that aren't worth the effort. More people are killed by second hand smoke than a stoned driver. More people are killed by tripping and falling than intoxicated cannibis drivers. I'm not saying they're ok, I'm saying IT ISN'T WORTH THE MONEY, it will not be effective, and the courts are going to destroy these efforts. But you go ahead on your cruscade against nothing.

Comment Re:Federal Funding is not contingent on speed limi (Score 1) 525

Safety, of course, is obvious: accidents at high speed causes higher fatality. But the reason for the national speed limit had nothing to do with safety... it was about conserving fuel. Over 55mph, and you have diminishing fuel economy due to friction. Did we solve the energy crisis? Awesome.

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 1) 342

If you're going to spend money on R&D to create technology to go after these offenders, then you are incorrect. Money is money. Before a government spends it, to create a policy they want before that techology exists... idk what that is. That's throwing money in the toilet. The data exists. We have the medical records of every intoxicated driver that ever got into an accidnent. They were usually drunk. There is simply no data anywhere that would reveal that cannibis intoxicated drivers are causing any accidents. They're there, but they're not killing anyone, regardless of their law-breaking and impaired driving. We don't need to waste resources going after these offenders because resources are finite, and drunk drivers are killing people, as well as sober gun-owners being the only group that is shooting people. We need to be careful with money, and use it wisely. The worst most popular crimes should get the most attention, not the crime that isn't hurting anyone. IF they get caught and fail the sobriety test, charge them. But don't make taxpayers pay for vaporware that will never work, in order to go after a crime that has NO VICTIMS.

Seriously, you want intoxicated pot drivers charged before the violent criminally offending assholes?

The responsibilty lies squarely with whatever coward racist came up with the idea: "cannibis causes car accidents and kills people" --- fucking prove that!! IS IT A PROBLEM? IS THIS REAL? If so, move forward. If not, go to hell, you fucking racist!

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 1) 342

I don't need the data to know when something has the potential for danger

Respect appreciated! However, you absolutely do because you're simply wrong, and the data PROOVES that. Sleepy drivers, old drivers, and new drivers will cause more accidents than your average cannibis user. Driving with a gun in the car is a potential for danger, but there's no way you could outlaw guns in cars unless there was data to show that potential is reality.

I agree we should not keep giving chances to drunk drivers. How many drunk drivers killed someone after getting a DUI, and getting back on the road? MANY. You get caught drunk driving a vehicle in Germany, you'll never legally drive again. That's how it should be because ALCOHOL KILLS PEOPLE.

Cannibis, by all the data in the US of all car accidents, does not, and its a big issue to medical cannibis patients because of how the drug lingers, beyond its psychoactive effects. A breathalizer cannot tell you if someone is stoned, only if they have pot on their breath.

The reason it is ludicrous, and anathema, is that we have a rather large population that is prescribed drugs like Xanax (which is a good drug for those that need it, I'm just using it as an example). You think Xanax isn't abused, Xanax intoxication doesn't cause accidents? Xanax has been legal a long time... where the fuck are the Xanax breathalizers??

This singling out of cannibis by these police is rooted in racism. Really. Learn history, and you will find that your very own negative opinions have thier roots in racism. If you can live with that, ok. I cannot.

Reiterating: intoxicated driving is bad. No, we don't need to single out cannibis users with technology and spend any resources going after these offenders that cause no harm... I'm not saying they're good, I'm saying it is a tremendously poor distribution of resources to go after the least offenders the hardest.

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 4, Insightful) 342

Have data that cannabis intoxication causes accidents before you make laws attempting to prevent these accidents. Don't assume. The facts are in stark opposition to the actions of these authorities. For every 10K alcohol related accidents, you may see one cannabis related accident. Seriously, its not even on par with texting, but likely on par with crashing because someone had their high beams in your face. Don't be afraid of the unknown, and don't make up things that make you afraid and pretend they are real. The scourge of cannabis induced car accidents is fiction. That being said, intoxicated driving is intoxicated driving, should still be illegal. But to spend God-knows-what on some technology for law enforcement to use when it certainly is not clear its necessary is really stupid. They're not going to prevent a single accident (because stoned drivers so so so rarely get into accidents), and they will have blown a bunch of money for nothing. What happened to hold your head back and touch your nose... walk a straight line? If you beat the sobriety test, you beat it! If that's not good enough, then wtf was it doing there to begin with? Police don't need a breathalizer to do their job... they just need to stfu and do their damn job: stop crime! Stop making up bullshit and costing taxpayers for no reason.

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 5, Insightful) 342

See the fallacy being presented! They are putting the cart before the horse. Before a government implements policy to go after stone drivers to prevent accidental death, it needs to be shown that stoners cause accidents! You can't just assume that. There is tons of data for alcohol related accidents. But there is hardly any for cannabis induced accidents... because there are so few, if any, documented cases of a person who is intoxicated ONLY with pot causing an accident. This is fear-mongering, pure and simple, and they're using their fear-mongering to set up controls that are inappropriate. You don't have to be afraid of the unknown... just admit to yourself that you don't know, and suspend judgement until you do.

Comment Re:is it really bad in the first place? (Score 1, Troll) 342

...be able to drive?

That's the wrong question. The question needs to be "where are all these car accidents caused by stoners?" The nanny-staters are INVENTING this problem without data (because there is none... pot doesn't cause car accidents like alcohol will... and if it did, there'd be bodies everywhere), because crime solving and the prevention of violence is too difficult. But them stoners are easy pickings! SO lets inflate the non-problem to blind everyone from the fact that police are ineffective at stopping crime, so are instead driving their own economy by milling stoners into criminals. "No, you didn't do anything wrong... but you might!" wtf.

God, what a world it might be if the police got their damn priorities straight! (Its not the officers, its their racist, fear-filled bosses).

Comment Re:Academics inferior to sports for admission (Score 2) 233

Its business. Schools make BIG BIG money from the slave labor of their athletes. But a student getting straight-As and being bright doesn't earn the district anything. So its a simple solution: make it illegal for an educational institution to profit from sports, cap the salaries of the coaches. Done. No more football, no more injuries, and you won't need to feel bad anymore for being smart.

Comment Re:Tort System (Score 3, Insightful) 233

I'm afraid not. Your counter-argument "no one is required to play football," unfortunately, falls short of negating my argument. Here is my argument: unfair deals are unfair. Football, as an institution, is unfair to the players, regardless of no requirement to play. A student injured in HS in a football game may very well have that injury, pain and suffering, for the rest of their lives... might be the first thing they're aware of every day they wake... 35 years on... the old injury is what wakes them up. With pain. But lets go ahead and say that doesn't matter because they weren't required to play. Students have been killed on the field. But its their fault, they weren't required to play?

Except that's not how logic, morality, law and fairness works. Continue to be obtuse if you wish, but you're not persuading anyone with stupidity.

Comment Re: But will it hold? (Score 1) 138

Ah, perhaps you didn't know, that Yucca idea was political fiction from start to finish, though the scientists that did the work did not know. The Federal government had no intention of letting nuclear waste be transported on such a massive scale. Harry Reid was involved, but hardly a one man tour de force! It was politicians in Nevada, and it was the nimbi politicians... the entire idea was all a pageant.

Its ok, no one pro nuke will admit the obvious facts that Yucca was NEVER SERIOSLY CONSIDERED by ANYONE but you guys.

Comment Re:Timeline? (Score 1) 78

Ah, no. Where have you been? We decided to take efforts to save all the minorities, (Why? Blues. Jazz. Hip Hop. Dub Step. Morgan Freeman. etc.) and kill all the racist idiots, slowly and painfully. See, racists have never contributed anything to society, ever, so its really a method of survival that we cull this pointless group from our herd.

Best possible scenario for you: if you get a chance, you should kill yourself immediately.

Comment Re:Plans made by politicians not working out? (Score 1) 78

Should we take over Western Africa? Probably - if we want the situation to improve. But that is a huge commitment in time and money and has a lot of sticky morality issues attached.

Excuse my hyperbole, but this is a great idea, not just for West Africa, but Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America... and why not? The World, too. Imperialism is not a bad idea for the US... we sort of do it already, but then we abandon the people and natural resources for some reason and just pay for everything. But if we would annex what we want, we would make the place better, safer, healthier, the people better educated, will live longer, be happier... and we can keep the natural resources to finance what is known as Manifest Destiny.

Comment Re:Tort System (Score 4, Insightful) 233

At the HS level, its all sports and all injuries, not just football and concussions. The problem is not weak bones or weak athletes... the strongest are the first and most severly injured! The problem is the deal: "You're a good athlete! Come play for our high school team, and it may pay for your college, and lead to a lucritive sports career! But if you are injured in anyway, you have to cover your own health costs. No, we don't pay you anything, ever, unless you sue us. Yes, the district benefits massively from the slave labor of athletic minors! Hooray!" Basically, you are wrong, your argument is wrong headed, and I hope to God you never have children.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...