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
#41
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?

If someone wants to risk running across the street, who am I (or you) to tell them they can't?

Should swimming pools be illegal? Why not, backyard swimming pools are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children than firearms, yet people push for controlling weapons based on their perceived threat, in particular to children. You can be punished for not locking a hand gun properly if a child gains access to it, you cannot be punished for not modifying a pool so a child cannot drown in it.

Should owning small uncaged pets be illegal? Why not, more injuries are caused by people tripping over pets than are caused by pet attacks, yet owning some pets is illegal because of the "danger" they pose to people. However the data clearly shows that regular pets actually pose a greater threat.


You can't make the argument that such and such should be illegal because it has been proven to be dangerous, and then subsequently not make the same argument for something else that is even more dangerous than what is illegal.

There is no consistency in these arguments. Again the deterrent should be in the consequences, the decision should be up to the individual.
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#42
If someone wants to risk running across the street, who am I (or you) to tell them they can't?
If you're an american citizen, tax payer or own/drive an insured vehicle you have every right to tell them they can't.

Should swimming pools be illegal? Why not, backyard swimming pools are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous to children than firearms, yet people push for controlling weapons based on their perceived threat, in particular to children. You can be punished for not locking a hand gun properly if a child gains access to it, you cannot be punished for not modifying a pool so a child cannot drown in it.
1. Due to several factors, people push for controlling weapons based on their perceived threat. One factor in particular is transportation. Can a child transport a gun to school via backpack or lunch box? Yes. Can he or she take a pool to school? Good luck with that one.

2. You shouldn't equate a locking mechanism with a modification. In addition, you can be charged with child neglect or even more severe charges if a child drowns in your pool.

Should owning small uncaged pets be illegal? Why not, more injuries are caused by people tripping over pets than are caused by pet attacks, yet owning some pets is illegal because of the "danger" they pose to people. However the data clearly shows that regular pets actually pose a greater threat.
1. It depends on the animal.

2. While more injuries may be caused by people tripping over small pets (usually small dogs, then cats) as opposed to attacks, you're forgetting the human element/factor that plays a role in the actual injury (trip or attack.)

You can't make the argument that such and such should be illegal because it has been proven to be dangerous, and then subsequently not make the same argument for something else that is even more dangerous than what is illegal.
But you aren't doing a good case either, sorry.

There is no consistency in these arguments. Again the deterrent should be in the consequences, the decision should be up to the individual.
No consistency in yours, and in a society where many people are not responsible when it comes to decision making, there needs to be something in place to regulate. So you, and others, can sit here and say legalize this, or legalize that, or "it's victimless" blah blah blah, but is it really victimless when your cocaine habit contributes to problems in the cj system or urban communities? When was the last time you walked through a neighborhood and saw crack babies or a pregnant blow head? Still victimless?
 
Nov 1, 2004
2,946
78
48
39
#43
^^^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?
Thats where peoples logic gets fucked up. People think that without a law people will go crazy. If the j-walking law went away, i dont think everyone would just sprint across the street randomly. I also dont think that if we legalized weed or any other drugs that people will all start using/abusing drugs.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#44
Thats where peoples logic gets fucked up. People think that without a law people will go crazy. If the j-walking law went away, i dont think everyone would just sprint across the street randomly. I also dont think that if we legalized weed or any other drugs that people will all start using/abusing drugs.
I dont smoke weed...not becuase its illegal (shit, i SOLD it for MANY years), i just have no desire to. So making it legal would not change my stance or view on it one bit.
 

Gizmo

Sicc OG
Nov 8, 2002
1,693
31
48
47
#45
If weed became legal it would jeopordize certain economies like DEA, Parole, Probation, The Prison system and so on. They catch a man selling weed or just smoking it and at minimum they get 3 years probation. from that the system gets you on numerous violations, some having to do with weed. Your caught in thier trap.

But if Mary Jane was legal the local goverment makes money. The drug dealers lose out and most people are happy. See it's like this......
If weed is the gateway drug it is more so for dealers than users. If a dealer only had a little bit of money he could get some trees sell it and move up the scales to something more worth the sale, like Meth or Yola. If they Legalized weed then stores could sell a pack of ten good sized joints for about $20 plus add $5 tax and no one would complain, ten joints for $25 come on. It would take the sales money away from dealers and put the tax back into the local economy. The Sacramento Valley would spring forth new crop which in turn would mean more labor. the only ones who lose are the ones involved in punishment or "rehabilitation".

I trully believe weed is a good medicine. I use it for all the things I would be taking pills for. Less side effects and I know it's been said before but who do you know that went Bazzerk and killed hella folks off weed. None I know of. The driving under influence thing I need to read to believe though cause fact is it does impair your senses.

Watch "Super High Me" he documents 30 days of not smoking to 30 days of full blown chimney smoking and has a higher IQ after smoking.