Ron Paul Debates Steven Baldwin on Marijuana

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#22
^^^ LOL, oh man.

Well that really didn't answer the question. What about the scientific study that shows an increase in potential accidents based on passengers?

Plus that particular study was concerned with BPM of a song, not the volume.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#23
^^^ LOL, oh man.

Well that really didn't answer the question. What about the scientific study that shows an increase in potential accidents based on passengers?

Plus that particular study was on effect of the BPM of a song, not the volume.
That is bizarre. I really wish I had an answer for that, but I dont.

How in the hell did they even come to the idea that should do that study???

The passenger one is also a mystery. I do not know why that would be, unless people were talking amongst each other and distracting the driver...which i could see with "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" kids....
 
Nov 10, 2006
2,124
2
0
48
#24
I always thought it was stupid to put on a seatbelt....becuase really, it only affects me negatively in a car crash.
Years ago I brought this up to a police officer while getting a ticket, and his response was since the government must medically tend to the uninsured, it is quite cheaper to give medical care to an accident victim who was wearing a belt.
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,360
113
44
#26
Right but see my problem is that is has also been scientifically proven that listening to certain types of music in a car can negatively impact driving



Similarly, studies have shown that passengers in cars increase the risk of an accident.



http://www.iih.usyd.edu.au/events/l...obile-phones-contribute-to-road-accidents.cfm

So now by your logic, listening to certain types of music and having two or more passengers should be illegal because they have been scientifically shown to cause accidents at a much higher rate?


EDIT: Sorry I missed your latest reply while I was replying lol


not to mention drowsiness, and all sorts of emotions, good and bad, that can distract one from the action at hand.
 
Mar 24, 2004
2,008
43
48
#28
Government gotta get their money somehow, I mean shit, you get a ticket for j-walking, or if you're a kid you get a ticket for riding a bike with no helmet. They make these laws so they have the right to fuck with us for any little reason.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#29
the two common themes i see with vice crimes is religion and taxation.

drugs, prostitution, gambling

there would be no way to enforce taxation on these practices consistently

and then youve got the people duped by religion as a secondary means of enforcing the first aspect
 
Aug 19, 2004
391
77
0
#30
Government gotta get their money somehow, I mean shit, you get a ticket for j-walking, or if you're a kid you get a ticket for riding a bike with no helmet. They make these laws so they have the right to fuck with us for any little reason.
Because if there were no laws against j-walking more people would just be running/walking through traffic. Sure, pedestrians have the right of way as it is, but can you imagine the gridlock with people just through traffic all day?
 
Aug 19, 2004
391
77
0
#31
^^^ LOL, oh man.

Well that really didn't answer the question. What about the scientific study that shows an increase in potential accidents based on passengers?
Maybe they rationalize that it's unrealistic to stop people from car pooling, or taking someone to the hospital, or your driving your kids to school etc. Most of those things are almost a necessity, regardless if it increases the likelihood of an accident.
What purpose or need does it serve to drink alcohol and then drive impaired, besides you wanting the freedom to do so?
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#32
facts: at any given moment at any given time the human response mechanism do not have 24/7 controls. As much as you would like to think you are in complete control of your bodily function you don't. It takes years to improve or have some routine functionality, as to why we question "why i did or did not do it that way instead?"

different body type, time, place, food/drug/air/consumption, life event priorities/issues/failures, memory flashbacks, etc. will succumb to LIFE.

the body while functioning must suppress certain functions from other parts of the body to have a 100% functionality to play video games, cook, drive a car, poop, have sex, shower, speak (fido) etc.... although we want to pinppoint a substance a reason for failure or dysfunction yet forget other aspects for reaction and timing levels of life we are not anyway near ready put on trial one drug as a wrong to an adult life.
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#33
i think it is an accomplishment to have individual know of a drug that could provide happiness to your life. One does not question why one is happy, but is happy that person is happy instead of wanting to kill a person....seperation of actionss....

smoking vs killling, which do you choose?

smoking vs driving to kill a person, which do you choose?

smoking vs hating a person, which do you choose?

growing a marijuana plant vs thinking about making weapon, which do you choose?
 
Jul 21, 2004
465
0
0
#34
the length of time a person to accomplish a thought, to reason, to action is one for the trial books...

intent vs environments

does anyone ever wonder why, who, what, when, where, and how?

does the thought escape you even without any food today?

could a person words effect your whole day? what about a smell, taste, a memory....

hmmmmmm...could it be?! does it mean just about anything on the face of this planet and universe can cause severe lack of wonder and thoughts or is it the opposite it transform the very greatness of our mind to learn and make decision for ourselves?
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#35
facts: at any given moment at any given time the human response mechanism do not have 24/7 controls. As much as you would like to think you are in complete control of your bodily function you don't. It takes years to improve or have some routine functionality, as to why we question "why i did or did not do it that way instead?"

different body type, time, place, food/drug/air/consumption, life event priorities/issues/failures, memory flashbacks, etc. will succumb to LIFE.

the body while functioning must suppress certain functions from other parts of the body to have a 100% functionality to play video games, cook, drive a car, poop, have sex, shower, speak (fido) etc.... although we want to pinppoint a substance a reason for failure or dysfunction yet forget other aspects for reaction and timing levels of life we are not anyway near ready put on trial one drug as a wrong to an adult life.
i think it is an accomplishment to have individual know of a drug that could provide happiness to your life. One does not question why one is happy, but is happy that person is happy instead of wanting to kill a person....seperation of actionss....

smoking vs killling, which do you choose?

smoking vs driving to kill a person, which do you choose?

smoking vs hating a person, which do you choose?

growing a marijuana plant vs thinking about making weapon, which do you choose?
the length of time a person to accomplish a thought, to reason, to action is one for the trial books...

intent vs environments

does anyone ever wonder why, who, what, when, where, and how?

does the thought escape you even without any food today?

could a person words effect your whole day? what about a smell, taste, a memory....

hmmmmmm...could it be?! does it mean just about anything on the face of this planet and universe can cause severe lack of wonder and thoughts or is it the opposite it transform the very greatness of our mind to learn and make decision for ourselves?
Man....what the FUCK are you talking about????
 
Mar 24, 2004
2,008
43
48
#38
Because if there were no laws against j-walking more people would just be running/walking through traffic. Sure, pedestrians have the right of way as it is, but can you imagine the gridlock with people just through traffic all day?
its common sense to not walk across a busy street, but there doesnt need to be a law for it.
people dont j walk because theyre scared of a ticket, they dont do it because they dont wanna get hit by a car.

if they made it a law that u cant run with scissors would that even be necessary? no because people know already not to do that, but i wouldnt put it past them to do it just to make a few more dollars
 
Aug 19, 2004
391
77
0
#39
its common sense to not walk across a busy street, but there doesnt need to be a law for it.
people dont j walk because theyre scared of a ticket, they dont do it because they dont wanna get hit by a car.
I can only speak from experience. I've driven late at night and separating both lanes of traffic is this big median or whatever it's called with trees and bushes. Anyway, some lady was standing in the median, but behind the tree because I didn't see her, till she jumped out into the street and started running and I almost hit her.
I've seen people run through traffic and almost cause an accident because they were trying to catch the buss.
I've seen people with 8 kids trailing behind them walking through major streets like they were walking in their living rooms and just expect people to stop for them.
If that's the way it is now, with jaywalking laws, how would it be without them?
 
Mar 24, 2004
2,008
43
48
#40
^^^like i said, people do not j-walk in fear of a ticket....they dont do it in fear of getting hit...it would be the same without them...u really think if they made it legal everyone is jus gonna start running in the street?