Intelligent design is flawed.

It assumes a source in line with a human sort of intelligence. What is a mind? We're the only ones with such a thing as far as we know.

Why would the source not be, perhaps an insentient organism? Some other sort of source of energy?

Oh yeah and this also is all terminal to just our universe.

Why don't we extend the questions further this time, if you know what I mean.

you probably don't.

The delete key.

I can't believe that there's an atheist stupid enough to join the military.

Oh wait it doesn't damage your brain!

Haha forgot the def.

You were rationalizing: 2. to remove unreasonable elements from.

Silly pants.

There is a time and a place for alcohol, just as there is a time and a place for marijuana, and it is not on the road.

Wow already dealt with that one okay. Nice way to repeat yourself.

Aside from that, driving drunk really has nothing to do with this topic,

It does. It kills more people. It's a similar activity. It's relevant.

just as old age really has nothing to do with this topic.

By pointing those out, you are diverting attention from the inevitable truth that marijuana does not belong in the bodies of people who intend to drive.

It stays in your system, you mean. Whlle high. And also, I'm my own person right? So I can take the risks I want. I know and assess all risk, every second. I'm aware of all of it, and of the consequences. Anyway. Old people are relevant because they're a danger too. Hell you know what causes more accidents than all drugs, shitty driving.

There can be no equivocation on that point, because the evidence that marijuana acts in such a manner has already been presented.

Except that it hasn't been researched for very long at all?

Period. End of Discussion.

Why? I like talking...

At 7/9/08 12:24 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 7/8/08 12:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 7/7/08 12:05 PM, Bolo wrote: You're only half correct on that front.

On what front. There was only one point in that post. People are idiots. It's their fucking fault that they die in the many ways that they do, because THEY are foolish, a drug doesn't have a fucking IQ.

Only half-correct on the front in which you stated in the original post you made that all crashes are caused by your level of competence as a driver. That is what you said, and it is a patently untrue as an absolute.

A competent driver is always response for guess what.

Oh yeah all this shit:

Crashes are also caused by the driver's state of mind; distraction, alteration, imbalance. Marijuana is responsible for alteration of brain state, and that makes driving while under its influence an unwarranted risk that puts innocent lives in harm's way.

So what would a competent driver do. Assess these risks obviously. Failure to assess them is still the PERSON's fault. I mean, even if you count that they are fucked up. This is their state of mind, which is again all encompassing of a person's entire lifestyle and general logic and comprehensive endurance.

All of which are unique to the individual.

A drug doesn't have an IQ, but people should. And if they aren't smart enough to make use of that common sense, it's the government's responsibility to clean up after them -

Well they're doing a fucking horrible job. And wasting money in the process.

or prevent accidents from happening by illegalizing the drug in the first place. Not for the druggie's own sake, but for the innocent lives the druggie stands to destroy by recklessness.

Already said that it would DUH never be legal to drive while fucked up. There's already a law against that. Yeah I'm hurting so many people by getting stoned and playing music.

I already indicated it was a dangerous path.

Then why cover for the people who engage in that dangerous activity, not only to their own detriment, but to that of everyone around them?

They sure seem to cover for the fast food industry so why shouldn't they do it for drugs? I mean that's what this country is about is money. We're already poisoning ourselves with countless meaningless pieces of shit things, entertainment, food, etc. Why stop there?

I'm not covering shit. I'm dissecting your flawed logic.

I already said driving stoned is illegal so yeah. Please indicate how it's dangerous when not in a vehicle. Oh yeah and health effects are off limits because Iunno I feel like that isn't hurting someone around me, so shouldn't that be my right? Right to privacy is a whole other section of this you can get into that if you feel like it.

There's a positive link between its use, and fatal crashes.

There's a positive link between the existence of automobiles in general and the existence of deaths in automobiles. Why don't we just get rid of the cars.

If the additional factor of marijuana use tips the balance of danger even minutely toward more deaths on the road as a result of inattentiveness or distraction, there's no reason to take or allow the risk as an acceptable activity on our road systems.

Yeah. I already said that.

Research has shown that it causes such a threat, thus it has no business being present within a driver's body at all. If even one life could be saved as a result of abstinence from marijuana, then that's as good a reason as any to heavily prosecute those found in possession of it, or those who have ingested it, and are driving.

Good thing you stuck those last three words in there.

I don't actually know. I couldn't find any research pertaining to that subject matter.

My guess would be a sustantial amount.

I'm not quite sure what point you're attempting to make here.

They chose to consume it. The pot didn't make that choice for them. It can't. It's not sentient.

Yes, they had consumed marijuana. That's why they were driving poorly.

From what I understood, you suggested before that all bad drivers are bad because of a low personal skill level, as opposed to other factors like presence of mind-altering substances.

I said that most drivers are just bad in general and it's no wonder that most of them crash all the time at all. Do you have data that shows the total of all car crashes compared to the ones of people under the influence? Google is not being nice to me right now.

Yes. Age does affect driving skill. But that's not the issue at hand here.

I was talking about memory too. All of those, everything effects your mind.

Marijuana consumption is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have at least a minimal net negative effect on driving ability, from all statistics thusfar produced by scientific studies on car crash victims' marijuana use frequency.

But how do we know if these stats are true in the spirit of a scientific standpoint? Come on. They're just figures. With millions of variables in each situation that turns the real idea off. Stuff like that, it's hard to take it seriously at all, there are so many factors at play. In every crash. True being fucked up obviously affects you a lot, it magnifies other minutia and messes up everything. Obviously. That's why you aren't allowed to drive drunk, or intoxicated.

The statement is true. From everything I've seen, you're trying to rationalize the use of marijuana while driving as an acceptable risk - despite the fact that it is scientifically proven to cause a higher rate of car crash frequency from at least two major studies in the last five years.

I've done nothing of the sort. I'm indicating the holes in the concept that it is the FAULT of the marijuana. As you guys seem to think it is. When it is not the fault but merely the cause. Maybe you guys don't realize that there's a huge fuckin difference there?

Maybe I blur the lines between the driving and the smoking in general and confused maybe what you were saying. I guess.

It would be disturbing, to say the least, now that we know the link between usage and fatal crashes, to see the collective statistics from the sixties all the way up to today, on how many lives were cut short by drivers under the influence Marijuana.

The numbers for alcohol would probably still be higher though wouldn't they?

Also what are you doing. Exactly what I am doing. Rationalizing it in different tones. And again I agree with you guys so I don't understand what the deal is. You are just misplacing the true source. The path is not the true one responsible, doesn't mean you shouldn't still have fuckin' roads signs/blocks. Fuck.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything,

Yes you are. You're just doing it in a negative light. Like I already said...

I'm trying to condemn people who would recklessly engage in an act which has the potential to destroy and maim human lives far beyond the limited sphere of their own selfish exploits.

Every exploit that everyone has ever done has been for selfish things. We do everything for ourselves. We're people. I thought you'd be all for darwinism.

I'm trying to explain that cavalierly dangling lives on the edge of a precipice, and willingly pushing them over that edge by using marijuana irresponsibly is nothing short of murder.

Except it is. Because if you don't get in a crash. Oh man, guess what, nothing fucking happens.

Rationalize away, if you want, but when lives that had unknown potential are cut so pitilessly short, there is little other way to describe the act than homicide. Perhaps even fratricide; the killing of one's own brother by humanity.

AGAIN I am rationalizing your posts mainly.

Again you guys fail to see what I'm trying to say.

so mike have you put your stain on the stain yet

Your title makes no sense. ANywhere implies one place.

So this is not true.

You don't even make sense.

Stupid racist shit.

I should not say he. It. The cause, the why. The unknown. The ULTIMATE end all unknown discovery. Basically.

Think about what it could and couldn't be. I think that, I have no fucking clue. Atm.

Well to know what god is, we must look at what he supposedly created and go from there. To define or think of such a scenario one must do this, no matter whether they are for or against it, when thinking about it, you have to apply logic.

Otherwise it's REALLY REALLY pointless.

Comeo n come on don't you guys HATE KEANU REEVES fuck.

A video game flash.

That's all I need to say.

At 7/6/08 12:39 PM, MasarapProductions wrote: It just a moral thing and the fact that you aren't really aware of anything when you're high.

Really that's funny I've matured more this year than I have in the last five years.

Smoking cigarettes and drinking doesn't make you get high, but you'll get drunk if you drink too much beer obviously.

They do nothing to your thoughts, besides dim them. And kill you physically.

At 7/7/08 12:05 PM, Bolo wrote:
You're only half correct on that front.

On what front. There was only one point in that post. People are idiots. It's their fucking fault that they die in the many ways that they do, because THEY are foolish, a drug doesn't have a fucking IQ.

Fatal car crash participants who were under the influence of marijuana at the time - 7%

Sample of the General populace who was under the influence of Marijuana - 3.5%

I already indicated it was a dangerous path.

Marijuana users make up a greater total percentage of fatal crash participants than their frequency amongst the general population would allow if all conditions were truly equal ( If marijuana did not affect your ability to drive ), which means that they get into these crashes more often.

What is the total of marijuana users in these percentages that use other drugs? I mean I was just wondering.

So either all of these marijuana users are, as you suggest, conspicuously bad drivers on their own ( odd that that trait would be limited to the marijuana-consuming demographic, though ), or being influenced by the drug which

wait for it, here it is, key words

"they had consumed."

The drug which is proven to affect memory, emotion, reflex and state of mind.

So does age.

Don't try to rationalize a dangerous activity that has caused many deaths over the last half-century.

That statement is broad, inaccurate, and irrelevant to my posts. Also what are you doing. Exactly what I am doing. Rationalizing it in different tones. And again I agree with you guys so I don't understand what the deal is. You are just misplacing the true source. The path is not the true one responsible, doesn't mean you shouldn't still have fuckin' roads signs/blocks. Fuck.

Driving while under the influence of marijuana is illegal for a reason. If you participate in that act, you're a threat to everybody else on the road, and that is supremely selfish.

Driving drunk is illegal too. Can we get back on topic and theorize the demographic shift, if any, that may occur in California if this is passed? Has it been passed? I don't know. I've lost track in all this psycho babble.

So when are you going to make that awards crew.

At 7/7/08 12:23 AM, Bolo wrote:
This means that under the influence of marijuana, your chances of becoming involved in a fatal car crash, are essentially doubled.

No. YOUR chances have nothing to with statistics and everything to do with your skills as a driver. Those stats have, again, NOTHING to do with the point you are trying to make. There are lots of unskilled drivers. Imo every driver is. So oof course if you give some of those unskilled drivers access to certain decisions. Shit's gonna happen.

Also I'll say it one more time.

Do weed plants drive cars?

No.

At 7/6/08 10:41 PM, Kolohe wrote:

And also saying that something causes someone to do something is retarded. The only thing that causes anyone to do something is that PERSON who is doing it. Their brain. Their decision.

Well the language is all there man. I'm talking about your basic philosophy here. You're responsible for your actions. You choose to smoke weed. Weed doesn't fucking come up to your door and ring the bell.

No shit?

EXACTLY.

No, I've read them all.

Then respond to them all? Maybe?

No it doesn't. I said nothing about risk,

Dude, this is getting old.

I enjoy this. It's called conversing.

You said a lot about risk when you said that weed doesn't kill you what so ever and that the only damaging thing about it is the smoke. Obviously, there is more to it than that.

Yeah it is obvious. You automatically assume I'm not talking hyerbolic. While I only assumed the that the risk of death is limited when you compare it to every day living. Driving a car in general. People get shot. Just plain living is dangerous. That's the underlying message. You're stuck on specific languages and the meanings you're coming up with aren't correct. Maybe it' s my fault. I guess, I should communicate better. : |

Wonderful, I never claimed that you did, but when you try to absolve weed from all responsibility of people's actions

It is their responsibility though. And again. I said most people shouldn't do it. With guns too, there needs to be less of everything. There needs to be less people. You think just drugs are bad? Haha, it's all bad.

I basically agree with your stances on the dangers but the realm of it being dangerous depends on the person. And most people aren't that person that can do that.

At all.

Ever.

At 7/6/08 10:22 PM, Kolohe wrote:
I didn't assume anything. I just applied your logic about weed not being responsible for stupid acts to guns.

Where did I explain my logic about weed? Oh yeah in the posts you ignored.

No shit?

EXACTLY.

Yeah, like I'm editing your posts...

No. But you are ignoring the ones where I actually illustrate my points.

Well, I guess I misinterpreted this...

...to mean that the only negative side effect of weed comes from the smoke, and that people doing stupid shit that could get them killed because of impaired judgment isn't a real risk.

Does that about sum it up?

No it doesn't. I said nothing about risk, and I said ABSOLUTELY nothing about applying systems of control onto the drug for society. At all. What so ever.

Next time I'll be sure to spell it out nice and easy for you guys.

There's also the people that say it's just the apocalypse.

Haha.

I agree with pretty much everyone that quoted me.

I do however feel like, corporately, we head in selfish directions. I think that needs to be fixed. For example, why the fuck are there still cars when we have the technology to make completely efficient railroad/monorail systems?

Things like that. Like if you look at how fast computers advanced because they had monetary interest behind them, I wish we would apply that avidness to other fields. Especially transportation.

That is to say. If it were the gun's fault. Guns would be illegal.

And you still aren't responding to the real argument. Oh wait there was none, it was you just misinterpreting EVERYTHING I said. ;)

At 7/6/08 08:54 PM, Kolohe wrote:
Yes Jack, let's repeal all gun control legislation while we're at it. Guns can't murder somebody unless some dipshit PERSON decides to pull the trigger. Right?

Notice how you AGAIN assume I mean this.

All I said was that it's in truth the person's decision.

That doesn't mean we don't need control just because it's actually their fault.

That's the reason we HAVE laws is because of the sentiment that I illustrated.

You should like, stop making up things that I didn't say at all maybe.

And also saying that something causes someone to do something is retarded. The only thing that causes anyone to do something is that PERSON who is doing it. Their brain. Their decision.

Fuck.

At 7/6/08 12:35 PM, Kolohe wrote:

At 7/6/08 12:24 PM, life wrote: I disagree with your argument about driving high. It's a lot easier to drive high than it is even only after having two beers. I don't suggest doing either, but you make it look like cannabis is the worse choice here.

My main point is that there are other dangers associated with pot besides the inhalation of smoke (if that's how you consume it).

My main point is that I agree with you pretty much but you don't seem to realize that. Maybe that's because you didn't read all of my posts maybe?

The fact that I see commercials for medicines I can OD on and something I can't OD on remains illegal doesn't really make sense to me.

If I can grow a plant that does the same things as aspirin why shouldn't I be able to?

Oh and the SMOKE makes smoking bad. I would go with a vaporizer or ganja food.

With Neo.

Quicktime savvy cats.

I googled but found nothing for other people.

It looks cool but they might have ruined it just because, you know, you can't remake something like that imo...

It does look better than I expected it to be though.

"We Suck Now But Not For Long."

Also, don't use dragon force as an example of fast guitars, that's like saying someone with plastic surgery has natural beauty.

How'd you get 10,000 dollars?

I would invest some and spend some.

I agree with JoS. But does JoS agree with me?

I think that no matter the cause, we should try to do something about it. If it even is something.

Also making our tools of living more efficient couldn't hurt.