Monday, June 12, 2006
Here's Your Answer, David
89. You're wrong about driving while stoned.Nor could DU agree that giving your 11 year-old pot is necessarily, you know, bad:
Obviously, we don't want to encourage 'impaired driving'......but those of us who have been smoking for 40 years, know from experience, the effects of cannabis. If we have been driving for the same amount of time, we know something about that as well.
Cannabis was the drug of choice for long haul truck drivers for years during the 70's. When truck drivers were forced to quit smoking pot, there was no notable drop in truck-related accidents.
Truck drivers had a legitimate justification.....Meeting another truck on some narrow two lane highway, all you really wanted was that the driver was wide-awake and calm. How they got to that mental state was up to them.
82. No You are repeating the harsh judgement of the cannabis invective, and that approach is derived from racism, yes, fact. It does not make you a racist, but it does ask why you repeat it as if it were "your" judgement.Get that? You racist pig, legalize pot smoking for juveniles immediately! Shrinkwrapped has written about the sixties fallout, and I'd say he's got a point. Stoned truck drivers and parents using pot for the family hour is not something the average person would find functional.
A quarter pound of pot means the parents were poor and trying to earn some extra money to get by... it means the family is poor in an economy where minimum wage jobs don't pay the rent, so people do something extra on the side, so many people.. 32,000,000 US cannabis smokers.
The real issue is that the kids get raised by their family that loves them, and for all the misjudgements, you are using a black and white moral scale, where the reality is far less palitable. You presume that the kids, when taken away by social services in our sick, uncivil society, will find a better home than they came from.
This is highly unlikely, and then its a moral conundrum, as by doing what you say is the "right" thing, and taking the kids away, you curse them to a worse life, to losing their parents and their family, and all in the name of protecting them. So whilst your argument may sound like their protector, it is nothing of the sort.
What it turns out to be in practice, is criminalizing poverty, and using the drugs laws as an excuse to break up families who are poor. Then the argument you're making belongs in Dikensian England, and not in a civil society.
There's nothing you can say. The parents were both dealing and smoking with the children. According to the kids, their parents allowed them to smoke pot with them when they had behaved well. The two oldest were 12 and 11.
Links to this post: