420 smoke weed how many days?

fett on 31/3/2010 at 23:05

Quote Posted by Kolya

dj_ivocha: Are you proposing that medics first check if the victim had been belted on the scene of an accident? And if s/he wasn't, they should leave them to their injuries?

I think he was meaning their insurance shouldn't cover their medical bills if injuries were sustained while not wearing a belt.

Kolya on 31/3/2010 at 23:48

I see, but I still don't like it, because this reinforces the gap between the rich and the poor. If you're rich, you can drive without a seatbelt, because even if something happened you can pay for it. If you're poor and do the same thing you lose your health AND are propelled into high debts.

This sort of thing happens enough as it is and shouldn't be actively cemented by law in my opinion.

fett on 1/4/2010 at 02:14

So if I'm rich I might be tempted to not wear a belt and get in a wreck because my insurance will pick up the tab? Either that's a really stupid conclusion to draw on your part, or I'm really stupid for not understanding what you're getting at. Maybe both.

You might be confusing the gap between rich and poor with the gap between common sense and stupidity.

Starrfall on 1/4/2010 at 02:33

Quote Posted by fett

smoking pot Frosted Flakes.

I still can't believe Kellogg's dropped Michael Phelps* over that bong picture, stoners love cereal.

*Yet another example of a pot smoker who is a completely useless drain on society :mad:

CCCToad on 1/4/2010 at 02:34

Quote Posted by Kolya

That's only fully applicable when talking about the price of the ticket. Dead is dead, regardless of how much money you have. In addition, no matter how much money you have, there's only so much that can be done for many severe injuries. Good luck enjoying the luxurious activities that a high income gives you access to if you are paralyzed from the waste down.

Course, a rich person is gonna have an easier time paying for surgery, but that doesn't mean its any safer for them to drive without a seatbelt.

Nicker on 1/4/2010 at 02:38

What have you guys been smoking? We were talking about... uh....

Quote:

"Freedom is a two-edged sword of which one edge is liberty and the other, responsibility. Both edges are exceedingly sharp and the weapon is not suited to casual, cowardly or treacherous hands." J.W. Parsons

The question of enforced conduct VS personal freedom is an interesting tangent, quite apart from the specific arguments about seatbelts (which absolutely should be mandatory for anyone, anytime they operate a motor vehicle because the seatbelt keeps the driver in the driver's seat, thus preventing minor jostling from becoming total loss of control of the vehicle, when the driver is ejected from behind the wheel (yes, it happens a lot), thus leading to a more serious collision).

One place where personal freedom must bend to collective will is in the realm of public safety and public need. In the case of seatbelts I see a clear justification for their requirement just as I see the need to ensure that all vehicles have working brakes, safe tires, lights and other essential equipment. We share the road - we share the risk - we share the responsibility.

When it comes to pot though, its criminalisation was based on ideology, racism and (most importantly) competing commercial interests, not real concerns for public safety (other that trumped up claims for it's dangers). The justification for it remaining criminal are still ideological and, in that case, the ideology of personal freedom trumps the ideology of nosy assholes.

Many daily activities involve risk and deciding how much and what kind of collective risk a society can or will sustain is always going to be a messy argument. If anyone has a simple formula for negotiating this essential and eternal aspect of human society, rent a tux - your Nobel Prize is a shoe in.

fett on 1/4/2010 at 02:50

Quote Posted by Nicker

(which absolutely should be mandatory for anyone, anytime they operate a motor vehicle because the seatbelt keeps the driver in the driver's seat, thus preventing minor jostling from becoming total loss of control of the vehicle, when the driver is ejected from behind the wheel (yes, it happens a lot), thus leading to a more serious collision).

Good god, man - your driving must be horrible.

37637598 on 1/4/2010 at 02:56

Hahaha

hahahaha

CCCToad on 1/4/2010 at 03:05

Quote Posted by Nicker

, the ideology of personal freedom trumps the ideology of nosy assholes..

I wouldn't agree with the last part: Like everything else coming out of the American political parties, their ideologies are based more on regional and cultural sensibilities (+ nonsensibilities) than any logical position or pure ideology. Its why there's a huge split among the right on this issue: more liberterian leaning conservatives want Weed legalized, while the mainstream Republican party is against it because of how the Religious right feels about marijuana. Course, they like to complain at the same time about how attempting to Tax tobacco out of existence is an assault on individual freedom, but logical consistency has never been a strong suite of American political parties.

Nicker on 1/4/2010 at 03:08

Quote Posted by fett

Good god, man - your driving must be horrible.

Not since I started wearing my seatbelt all the time, dude. I am golden now!

When I was a school-bus driver there was a training video that featured the story of a guy who was bounced right out of the drivers seat on a rough bit of road.

When he regained consciousness... he was head first, ass up in the step well. The bus full of screaming children continued on its merry way. He and they lived to tell the tale but the lesson is a good one.

People don't understand the forces at work or just how "dynamic" the environment inside a vehicle can get ( (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-taLmw5Qvg) ). The best place to be in an emergent situation is strapped in behind the wheel where you have a hope in hell of making things less worse than they are about to become.