|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 25/10/2018 18:26, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:44:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:29, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 00:37, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". No In that case, your "point" is non-existent. And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. "Full control" is too vague for something inherently non-binary. The provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations are not vague. Full control (or the lack thereof, as the case may be) presents no definition difficulties for the police or the courts. Thene there is: https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law And perhaps more to the p[oint: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ted?view=plain But of course, you know better than the law, don't you? Are you feeling alright? I suspect I have better health than you, thank you for asking. What is your response to this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-45979243 Should we ban alcohol? I assume that this is the recent news story about some student who died of alcohol poisoning after taking part in an initiation "ceremony". I don't have any particular response to it. It does not require alcohol to be banned. Perhaps, though, the minimum age for drinking alcohol - anywhere, even at home - needs to be increased, perhaps to the same age as USA federal law provides: 21. But I hope that driving whilst under the influence of too much alcohol remains banned. Smoking weed gives an almost immediate high so you cannot overdose because you will pass out long before you get a lethal dose. Alcohol has a delayed effect and you can overdose before you know it. Assuming you are correctly distinguishing being "drunk" (WTMB) from suffering from alcohol poisoning, all I can that is that the latter has never happened to me or anyone I know. I can remember having a skinful the night we got our degree results I wasn't the only one), but it was nowhere remotely near enough for any of us to be at any poisoning risk. You see, some of us know how to behave responsibly. But some don't and take illegal drugs, as well as routinely behaving unlawfully in other ways. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:08:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 17:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:37:10 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. Are you feeling alright? What makes you so certain legal weed will result in drink drivers becoming drug drivers? Nothing makes me certain of that. So why did you claim it does? But *you* insisted that legalising illegal drugs reduces the incidence of drink-driving. Empirical evidence from USA proves it. *You* are saying that there is a connection between the two, and that connection can only be people moving from drink-driving to drug-driving. *You* are saying that, not me. Well, unles the drugs so incapacitate its victims that they can't find their keys. Drugs like alcohol, you mean. No one is proposing Weed Bars where you can go and get high then drive home, as happens with alcohol. No one is suggesting you should be able to order 'A selection a rustic breads with cannabis infused olive oil dip' in a restaurant. This is how it works in Colorado. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZSJiFMExQ Those interested in FACTS can skip to 2:50. Those wishing to maintain their ignorant, uniformed prejudices can say 'I'm not going to click on that link.' It's up to you to put your argument. I shall not be doing any part of your Youtube research for you. I have done my research. Both research and real world data show legal weed is beneficial to society. The only argument against it is 'Nanny knows best.' |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 25/10/2018 21:35, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:08:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 17:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:37:10 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. Are you feeling alright? What makes you so certain legal weed will result in drink drivers becoming drug drivers? Nothing makes me certain of that. So why did you claim it does? But *you* insisted that legalising illegal drugs reduces the incidence of drink-driving. Empirical evidence from USA proves it. You are the one who is certain of it. I have questioned y0ur certainty. *You* are saying that there is a connection between the two, and that connection can only be people moving from drink-driving to drug-driving. *You* are saying that, not me. You are saying the first part of it. The second p[art of it is an inescable conclusion from what you are saying. Well, unles the drugs so incapacitate its victims that they can't find their keys. Drugs like alcohol, you mean. Yes... well... we have a law against that. No one is proposing Weed Bars where you can go and get high then drive home, as happens with alcohol. No one is suggesting you should be able to order 'A selection a rustic breads with cannabis infused olive oil dip' in a restaurant. This is how it works in Colorado. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZSJiFMExQ Those interested in FACTS can skip to 2:50. Those wishing to maintain their ignorant, uniformed prejudices can say 'I'm not going to click on that link.' It's up to you to put your argument. I shall not be doing any part of your Youtube research for you. I have done my research. Both research and real world data show legal weed is beneficial to society. The only argument against it is 'Nanny knows best.' So tell the government. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 25/10/18 12:44, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:29, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 00:37, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". No In that case, your "point" is non-existent. OK, I missed out "...to do it" off the end of the sentence. And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. "Full control" is too vague for something inherently non-binary. The provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations are not vague. Full control (or the lack thereof, as the case may be) presents no definition difficulties for the police or the courts. A vehicle can only crash as a result of driver inputs. A driver can cause a vehicle to reach or go beyond the limit of adhesion so that it no longer responds to further driver input (eg, racing drivers): but the driver must have controlled it up to that point. A vehicle can still be responding faithfully to driver input when it crashes but the crash was due to a series of incorrect driver decisions (eg, when mowing a cyclist down). Hence the term "not in full control of a vehicle" is rather nonsensical, compared to say, "not in full control of a horse". Thene there is: https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law Yes, there is a law about it. Then the law says it is *wrong* to possess and/or consume, perhaps? And perhaps more to the p[oint: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ted?view=plain But of course, you know better than the law, don't you? I am asking not telling. I asked you to explain "there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers" Does the law make laws because: a) it gives those employed in the legal trades a reason to get out of bed; b) it's trying to be a moral guardian; c) there is a public safety issue that needs to be reduced; d) if c), does a law or will a proposed law actually reduce the problem? Whenever you fall back on "it's the law" in an answer you don't make much of a case for c). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:44:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:29, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 00:37, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". No In that case, your "point" is non-existent. And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. "Full control" is too vague for something inherently non-binary. The provisions of the Construction and Use Regulations are not vague. Full control (or the lack thereof, as the case may be) presents no definition difficulties for the police or the courts. Thene there is: https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law And perhaps more to the p[oint: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ted?view=plain But of course, you know better than the law, don't you? Are you feeling alright? I suspect I have better health than you, thank you for asking. Time to ban corn flakes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0elsNDRqLtQ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:28:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 21:35, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:08:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 17:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:37:10 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. Are you feeling alright? What makes you so certain legal weed will result in drink drivers becoming drug drivers? Nothing makes me certain of that. So why did you claim it does? But *you* insisted that legalising illegal drugs reduces the incidence of drink-driving. Empirical evidence from USA proves it. You are the one who is certain of it. I have questioned y0ur certainty. And I have provided evidence to support my position. *You* are saying that there is a connection between the two, and that connection can only be people moving from drink-driving to drug-driving. *You* are saying that, not me. You are saying the first part of it. The second p[art of it is an inescable conclusion from what you are saying. No it is not. *You* are assuming adults who use the recreational drug THC have less self control than those who use the recreational drug Ethanol. Do you have any basis for that assumption? Well, unles the drugs so incapacitate its victims that they can't find their keys. Drugs like alcohol, you mean. Yes... well... we have a law against that. No one is proposing Weed Bars where you can go and get high then drive home, as happens with alcohol. No one is suggesting you should be able to order 'A selection a rustic breads with cannabis infused olive oil dip' in a restaurant. This is how it works in Colorado. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZSJiFMExQ Those interested in FACTS can skip to 2:50. Those wishing to maintain their ignorant, uniformed prejudices can say 'I'm not going to click on that link.' It's up to you to put your argument. I shall not be doing any part of your Youtube research for you. I have done my research. Both research and real world data show legal weed is beneficial to society. The only argument against it is 'Nanny knows best.' So tell the government. They already know. The government has admitted there is no reason for weed to remain illegal but they are going to keep it illegal anyway. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. Why do you care if my after dinner coffee in my own home contains a shot of THC rather than Dark Rum? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 26/10/18 15:26, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:28:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: So tell the government. They already know. The government has admitted there is no reason for weed to remain illegal but they are going to keep it illegal anyway. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. Why do you care if my after dinner coffee in my own home contains a shot of THC rather than Dark Rum? Have you noticed how Nugent will jump in to say how terrible it is to do a particular thing, but when asked to explain, bottles out with "go and tell nanny she's wrong"? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 10:50:30 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 15:26, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:28:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: So tell the government. They already know. The government has admitted there is no reason for weed to remain illegal but they are going to keep it illegal anyway. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. Why do you care if my after dinner coffee in my own home contains a shot of THC rather than Dark Rum? Have you noticed how Nugent will jump in to say how terrible it is to do a particular thing, but when asked to explain, bottles out with "go and tell nanny she's wrong"? I have noticed Nugent has suddenly gone very quiet on this subject. Even his 'I am not going to click on that link' seems to have failed. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 26/10/2018 15:26, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:28:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 21:35, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:08:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 17:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 12:37:10 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 00:01, TMS320 wrote: On 23/10/18 18:27, JNugent wrote: On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote: Why not UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255 Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving. Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada). Ah, of course - if our lords and masters have decided to make something illegal it must be wrong. Define "wrong". And your point? It's obviously too complicated for you, but for a normal person ought to be more obvious: there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Even you ought to be able to work out why. I have never knowingly taken cannabis products (does this mean I don't qualify as a normal person?). No doubt you can explain why there is no gain in swapping drunk drivers for drugged drivers. Neither category is in full control of the vehicle, of course. Are you feeling alright? What makes you so certain legal weed will result in drink drivers becoming drug drivers? Nothing makes me certain of that. So why did you claim it does? But *you* insisted that legalising illegal drugs reduces the incidence of drink-driving. Empirical evidence from USA proves it. You are the one who is certain of it. I have questioned y0ur certainty. And I have provided evidence to support my position. *You* are saying that there is a connection between the two, and that connection can only be people moving from drink-driving to drug-driving. *You* are saying that, not me. You are saying the first part of it. The second p[art of it is an inescable conclusion from what you are saying. No it is not. *You* are assuming adults who use the recreational drug THC have less self control than those who use the recreational drug Ethanol. Do you have any basis for that assumption? Well, unles the drugs so incapacitate its victims that they can't find their keys. Drugs like alcohol, you mean. Yes... well... we have a law against that. No one is proposing Weed Bars where you can go and get high then drive home, as happens with alcohol. No one is suggesting you should be able to order 'A selection a rustic breads with cannabis infused olive oil dip' in a restaurant. This is how it works in Colorado. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZSJiFMExQ Those interested in FACTS can skip to 2:50. Those wishing to maintain their ignorant, uniformed prejudices can say 'I'm not going to click on that link.' It's up to you to put your argument. I shall not be doing any part of your Youtube research for you. I have done my research. Both research and real world data show legal weed is beneficial to society. The only argument against it is 'Nanny knows best.' So tell the government. They already know. The government has admitted there is no reason for weed to remain illegal but they are going to keep it illegal anyway. I'd like a citation for that claim, please. A nice big explicit one. It should be easy if what you say is true. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. Why do you care if my after dinner coffee in my own home contains a shot of THC rather than Dark Rum? Who says I do? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
If Canada can do it
On 27/10/2018 22:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 15:26, Simon Jester wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 10:28:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: So tell the government. They already know. The government has admitted there is no reason for weed to remain illegal but they are going to keep it illegal anyway. I am not in a position to assist you even if I were prepared to. Why do you care if my after dinner coffee in my own home contains a shot of THC rather than Dark Rum? Have you noticed how Nugent will jump in to say how terrible it is to do a particular thing, but when asked to explain, bottles out with "go and tell nanny she's wrong"? I have no difficulty in agreeing with, and supporting, the law against certain "recreational" drugs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meanwhile, in Canada... | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | July 25th 17 05:11 PM |
Canada ? | DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH | Techniques | 0 | January 29th 17 11:52 AM |
O Canada... | phillip brown | Racing | 15 | July 30th 08 01:33 AM |
SHIPPING FROM CANADA TO USA | [email protected] | Techniques | 3 | June 6th 06 07:00 AM |
Cycling on OLN Canada | [email protected] | Racing | 2 | March 2nd 05 03:40 PM |