Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Volsi Mimir who wrote (3679)	1/27/2001 3:05:57 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

crow, I think you have to weigh the harm from the enforcement to the practice. There are already lots of laws that prevent you from endangering your children or others by operating a vehicle or performing other public acts. You aren't allowed to take or do ANYTHING, legal or otherwise, that impairs you. I would think that second hand smoke is harmful, no matter what is being burned, short of hydrogen. So burning it in front of your child, well that is just like smoking near your child - a bad idea. Your dog? How much time are we going to spend worrying about stoned dogs? I don't care that much. I think impairment tests for truckers (and ALL drivers) would be a good idea. You could have a smart card that memorizes your baseline performance score on a video game like test. At any time you can be called upon to perform the test at the discretion of an officer. You must score at least 90%, let's say. If you are off 30% because you are tired or because you smoked a joint, what's the practical difference? None. The family of someone you kill due to impairment isn't going to be happier that it was "only" lack of sleep, or "only" a joint, or "only" speed, or even "only" Alzheimers or "only" because you had a burger in one hand and a cell phone in the other. None of these should be protected or treated differently, IMO.

To: Volsi Mimir who wrote (3679)	1/27/2001 6:26:25 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So I'm asking with a sortof half open mind how would you implement legalizing marijuana? It would have to be a system similar to that used for alcohol. No sale to minors (though they'd get it anyway, as they do now), probably no public use, restricted to the home and certain public places (I like the idea of being able to walk into a joint with a good reggae band and order a beer, a shot of tequila, and a fat one), etc. The details would require a good deal of attention. I like the idea of mandatory drug/alcohol testing after accidents, but I don't see legalization as adding to the problem created by the combination of driving with alcohol and "illegal" but universally available drugs. I don't think you'll see a lot of truckers and long-haul drivers smoking grass anyway; more likely consuming methamphetamine and derivatives. I can't agree with random drug testing, I think it is excessively intrusive and a violation of basic rights.