Pot!

[Fantasea]

true, but currently, the AMA believes that an ounce of alcohol a day can actually improve heart health, lower cholesterol, and may even be a deterrent to Alzhiemers disease. 1oz. = a shot of whiskey, a glass of wine 4oz., 1 12 oz. can of beer. And the CDC has already classified Heart Disease as the number one killer in America, followed by I believe cancer or diabetes, they run so close I get them mixed up. Drug related deaths are much lower on the list, accidents are I believe 12th, and alcohol related diseases are much lower.

So, just follow the AMA recommendation and you'll have no need for AA.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Enjoying a drink is not considered anything. Problems arise when one is not enough and two are too many.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I think we need to respectfully disagree on this one. Personally, I love to have more than one, because the second one usually tastes the best. But I like to live saying to each his own, as long as I don't have to directly suffer from it.

 

[codyvo]

A study at UCLA showed that one joint has less effect, permanent and immediate, on the brain than three beers.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Yes, like spending billions of dollars in an attempt to regulate morality.

Billions of dollars spent to save people, if only from themselves, is well worth it.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Billions of dollars spent to save people, if only from themselves, is well worth it.

I know you're not suggesting we spend federal dollars to promote Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, just to save some lives/souls from themselves. Though I don't think our government should be in that business I also don't believe they should hinder it either.

Now I know some of you are reading & saying 'what the heck is this idiot talking about?' But, Sebastian made it clear that he doesn't mind spending money to save people even if it's only from themselves. That can also be applied to saving people spiritually as well. Once you make that the standard & the government the authority & administrator of that then you open it up to every crackpot interpretation.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I know you're not suggesting we spend federal dollars to promote Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, just to save some lives/souls from themselves. Though I don't think our government should be in that business I also don't believe they should hinder it either.

Now I know some of you are reading & saying 'what the heck is this idiot talking about?' But, Sebastian made it clear that he doesn't mind spending money to save people even if it's only from themselves. That can also be applied to saving people spiritually as well. Once you make that the standard & the government the authority & administrator of that then you open it up to every crackpot interpretation.

It took me till the second paragraph but the connection became clear, I can tell everyone firsthand about money spent on "saving souls" in Louisiana we have alot of southern baptists, as a rule, the normal variety is pretty sane and keeps to themselves but southern baptisist will get in your face and try to force their version of salvation down your throat, when they don't win on the personal level, they bully representatives into passing laws to get their way. Examples are: anti-porn laws(I am for freedom of speech), warnings on tickets for rock concerts(we started to get them and now can't), bar closing laws, etc. I don't make excuses for drug usage and frankly don't suggest it, but, firmly believe that the person who is prone to do them will no matter what, so the least we can do is try to make it safe(they will pay their way though).

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I know you're not suggesting we spend federal dollars to promote Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, just to save some lives/souls from themselves. Though I don't think our government should be in that business I also don't believe they should hinder it either.

Now I know some of you are reading & saying 'what the heck is this idiot talking about?' But, Sebastian made it clear that he doesn't mind spending money to save people even if it's only from themselves. That can also be applied to saving people spiritually as well. Once you make that the standard & the government the authority & administrator of that then you open it up to every crackpot interpretation.

Yes, but there are many ways to prevent a slippery slope from occuring. Firstly, we make it clear America is not going to be a theocracy. Most of us through logic realize that you cannot save "souls" through laws. The convictions of a man are that man's choices. However, when it comes to laws regarding health and wellness, it is a seperate issue. We can and do regulate wellness, and legalization of marijuana would just be a counter-step in that. Why force the resturaunts to adhere to strict methods of cleanliness when "it is the people's right to consume whatever they like?"

 

[LaMidRighter]

Most of us through logic realize that you cannot save "souls" through laws.

With all due respect, history has proven otherwise.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Why force the resturaunts to adhere to strict methods of cleanliness when "it is the people's right to consume whatever they like?"

Knowledge...nobody is going to say...come here & eat cheaper because we don't clean our place to save you money...the regulation was really about knowledge for the consumer. Any law we have that is based in morality is also based in some form of religion. EXAMPLE: murder, stealing, etc.

Of course none of us want a theocracy but by your original statement you left it wide open for that to be the case.

SIDE QUESTION HERE: Why is it that when someone is passing out literature to raise awareness in an attempt to save the spotted owl or the rain forest they are considered an activist...BUT when they're passing out literature to raise awareness in an attempt to save lives/souls they are considered right-wing religious nut cases?

Just curious...

 

[sebastiansdreams]

With all due respect, history has proven otherwise.

You simply mean European and early American History over the span of Judeo Christianity. This, in itself, is not history. There have been many huge blunders regarding the attempts to save the soul through legislature. But, we have arrived where we are now. And at this point in history, most aggree that you cannot save a soul through laws (including most in the Christian community).

 

[LaMidRighter]

You simply mean European and early American History over the span of Judeo Christianity. This, in itself, is not history. There have been many huge blunders regarding the attempts to save the soul through legislature. But, we have arrived where we are now. And at this point in history, most aggree that you cannot save a soul through laws (including most in the Christian community).

It isn't just from a perspective of religion, we have MADD who got drunk driving laws passed(good idea) but they push incessantly for more power over the courts and lower alcohol limits(.08 is ridiculous), you have the environmentalist movement that got some good laws passed, but have pushed progress past the point of usefulness to society, there is also the feminist movement and the concept of forced sexual equality, the political correctness movement, prohibitionism, socialism, anti-gun movements, anti-obscenity advocates, seperationists, the ACLU, the religious right, the indignant left, the muckrakers, hippies, yippies, commies, anti-smoking movements, etc.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Any law we have that is based in morality is also based in some form of religion. EXAMPLE: murder, stealing, etc.

That I dissagree with. I believe that you can have morality without rooting it back to a religion. I think religions give cases of morality because that is part of life, and it would make sense that our diety discuss such matters. However, the fundamental difference between morality and spirituality (both in my book equally important factors in ones life) is that morality has to do with man's interaction with those around him. They regard how you treat others (i.e. murder, lying, theiving). On the other hand, spirituality regards the internal (i.e. intentions, love, purity). A person can be a very moral person and still be rotten on the inside. All this to say morality does not always stem back to a faith. It is rather an intity of its own.

SIDE QUESTION HERE: Why is it that when someone is passing out literature to raise awareness in an attempt to save the spotted owl or the rain forest they are considered an activist...BUT when they're passing out literature to raise awareness in an attempt to save lives/souls they are considered right-wing religious nut cases?

Because it's much easier for a person to admit that their actions are killing something else than for a person to admit that their actions are killing themselves. Why is that? Who knows.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It isn't just from a perspective of religion, we have MADD who got drunk driving laws passed(good idea) but they push incessantly for more power over the courts and lower alcohol limits(.08 is ridiculous), you have the environmentalist movement that got some good laws passed, but have pushed progress past the point of usefulness to society, there is also the feminist movement and the concept of forced sexual equality, the political correctness movement, prohibitionism, socialism, anti-gun movements, anti-obscenity advocates, seperationists, the ACLU, the religious right, the indignant left, the muckrakers, hippies, yippies, commies, anti-smoking movements, etc.

You're confusing a few seperate issues here. I think you're stressing that human nature is to go overboard. And in that I agree with you. Once the important issue is resolved, many of these groups simply keep griping to a ridiculous degree. But I don't see the coralation between various groups going overboard and a general aggreement and/or belief that people should be saved from themselves. I think drunk driving laws are a wonderful idea due to the amount of deaths caused because of drunk drivers. The last statistic I heard regarding the matter was that 75 percent of drivers on the road after three AM are over the legal limit. So apparently the laws either aren't strict enough or they aren't effecting anyone's judgement. The problem is this: when you're drunk, you don't weigh your options clearly. Would it be more effective to not allow alochol in the system at all? I think so. But that is for the democracy to decide. But I digress. Legislating common sense is not a new thing, and it has yet to go overboard. I do not see any reason to take a step back, in favor of the movement of "absolute freedom."

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

That I dissagree with. I believe that you can have morality without rooting it back to a religion. I think religions give cases of morality because that is part of life, and it would make sense that our diety discuss such matters. However, the fundamental difference between morality and spirituality (both in my book equally important factors in ones life) is that morality has to do with man's interaction with those around him. They regard how you treat others (i.e. murder, lying, theiving). On the other hand, spirituality regards the internal (i.e. intentions, love, purity). A person can be a very moral person and still be rotten on the inside. All this to say morality does not always stem back to a faith. It is rather an intity of its own.


Because it's much easier for a person to admit that their actions are killing something else than for a person to admit that their actions are killing themselves. Why is that? Who knows.

You make some what of a compelling argument on the first part. Although there are some holes in your theory...as well as my own. It's probably a little more complicated than just us spewing a few quick thoughts & some catch phrases. With that in mind I would say that morality & true spirituality aren't just about interaction with those around you (morality) or even your intentions (spirituality) but rather what you do when nobody else knows or sees what you're doing. In both cases you're dealing with integrity...it comes from within as does morality & spirituality. I think they're a little more intertwined than you believe. Certainly not one & the same but I still believe they go hand in hand.

for the second part...I suppose it's just something else to ponder...

 

[LaMidRighter]

You're confusing a few seperate issues here. I think you're stressing that human nature is to go overboard. And in that I agree with you. Once the important issue is resolved, many of these groups simply keep griping to a ridiculous degree. But I don't see the coralation between various groups going overboard and a general aggreement and/or belief that people should be saved from themselves.

Extremism is extremism in my opinion, whether it is secular or religious seeking to control anothers behavior can be dangerous, especially when laws are requested to do so.

I think drunk driving laws are a wonderful idea due to the amount of deaths caused because of drunk drivers. The last statistic I heard regarding the matter was that 75 percent of drivers on the road after three AM are over the legal limit. So apparently the laws either aren't strict enough or they aren't effecting anyone's judgement.

Your facts seem to be accurate and I am not arguing against basic drunk driving laws they serve a very good purpose, but one problem is that the federal government has gotten involved due to the MADD lobby, and states have lost yet another facet of control in their own affairs.

The problem is this: when you're drunk, you don't weigh your options clearly. Would it be more effective to not allow alochol in the system at all? I think so. But that is for the democracy to decide.

I do believe it is for the democracy to decide, and you are correct that judgement is altered when you drink(ugly chicks know this fully), I think it would be extreme to have a .00 bac limit because as it stands you can have two beers in the first hour, one after that and most people can handle that with no problem, I think .1 was fair, but whatever.

Legislating common sense is not a new thing, and it has yet to go overboard. I do not see any reason to take a step back, in favor of the movement of "absolute freedom."

Absolute freedom is absolutely dangerous, this is what keeps me from being a libertarian, however, I believe that protectionism has already taken away enough liberties in this society to set the slippery slope in motion and has forever changed America as we know it, I think it has caused us to lose sight of our ideals as a free society, and we will see many reprocussions from it for years to come.

 

[Fantasea]

we have MADD who got drunk driving laws passed(good idea) but they push incessantly for more power over the courts and lower alcohol limits(.08 is ridiculous),

Your correct. .08 is ridiculous. For anyone behind the wheel, it should be .00 .

Why, you ask? The answer is here: http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1789,00.html

 

[LaMidRighter]

two problems,
1.) it is a single source statistic, MADD will of course put out statistics that inflate support for their agenda.
2.) what are the qualifications for the data, I learned a little trick awhile back about statistics, if you use a general qualification such as this one, you will get the sum total of all of the accidents involving alcohol instead of caused by. What am I getting at, of those killed in drunk driving accidents .08+ how many of the accidents were caused by the drunk driver, how many were caused by the driver of the other vehicle(this does happen, I met someone who got an OWI because of another drivers error), were there any avoidable deaths such as seat belt violations, etc.
If you had DOT statistics and more details, I would consider it a little more practical.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Your first problem is correct. More than one source is standard, BUT, just because it came from one source does not mean that it is not correct.

2.) what are the qualifications for the data, I learned a little trick awhile back about statistics, if you use a general qualification such as this one, you will get the sum total of all of the accidents involving alcohol instead of caused by. What am I getting at, of those killed in drunk driving accidents .08+ how many of the accidents were caused by the drunk driver, how many were caused by the driver of the other vehicle(this does happen, I met someone who got an OWI because of another drivers error), were there any avoidable deaths such as seat belt violations, etc.
If you had DOT statistics and more details, I would consider it a little more practical.

Actually, this is assuming that two drivers are not ALWAYS responsible for an accident. Do you think we could argue that maybe fifty percent of accidents could potentially be avoided if the "hit" party had recognized the situation and reacted quickly enough? Isn't that why your insurance goes up whether or not you're at fault in the accident? I would suggest that in the case of someone who is intoxicated, there reaction time is reduced to next to nothing (I know mine was when I went head first into the tree). Regardless of the fact that in a legal stand point the other party is at fault in the accident, the reality is that if the one driver had been sober, there is a much better chance they could have reacted more appropriately, and when you're talking at the expense of lives, both parties need to be in perfect ability to drive. Even if that means no cough medicine before driving.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Actually, this is assuming that two drivers are not ALWAYS responsible for an accident. Do you think we could argue that maybe fifty percent of accidents could potentially be avoided if the "hit" party had recognized the situation and reacted quickly enough? Isn't that why your insurance goes up whether or not you're at fault in the accident? I would suggest that in the case of someone who is intoxicated, there reaction time is reduced to next to nothing (I know mine was when I went head first into the tree). Regardless of the fact that in a legal stand point the other party is at fault in the accident, the reality is that if the one driver had been sober, there is a much better chance they could have reacted more appropriately, and when you're talking at the expense of lives, both parties need to be in perfect ability to drive. Even if that means no cough medicine before driving.

Not a bad argument, but then we also must put that logic to accidents involving two sober parties, the incident I was speaking of involved a sober driver running a stop sign, drunk or sober, the other driver should have reasonable assumption that the other person would have stopped, broadside accidents are extremely difficult to avoid under all circumstances because they happen almost instantly, I don't argue that you must be in control of a vehicle at all times, but perfect ability, this would exclude many people from driving because of all of the demands that the act requires not just drunks. As we get older, eyesight, mobility, and reaction time slow, the disabled have physical limitations that could hinder the ability to take the appropriate steps to avoid an instant situation, etc. I'm not saying we should let people get sloppy drunk on the roads, but at least let someone have a beer with their friends.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

But we do take those things into consideration. And I believe we should do so to a greater degree. For instance, if your eyesight is bad, in many states, mine included, you are required to wear glasses for driving. Also, I personally have for a long time been under the opinion that there should be an age at which one is re-tested for their ability to drive. There are many people that should not be on the road based on their inability to react quickly enough in a pressure situation. Normally I would say yes, we should be fair to all people and should not discriminate based on age or inabilities. But when it comes to who ought to be behind the wheel of a vehicle that weighs a ton plus, the risk is just too great. And again, I would have no problem with someone having a beer then getting behind the wheel. But the problem is one beer often leads to two, and as soon as your judgement is effected, you believe that you are okay to drive, regardless. That was my case. I knew I was a little drunk, but I was getting tired so I just decided that I could make it home and crash. Turns out I skipped the getting home step and just crashed. It is simply not a good idea to allow ANYONE has has had anything to drink on the road. I know of a lady that got pulled over under sleeping medication. She had no idea how she even got on the road behind the wheel, but she was taken to prison for driving under the influence, and rightfully so. Granted, it may not have been a concsious decision, but it was a dangerous situation that could have been prevented if she'd been more informed on her medication.

 

[Fantasea]

two problems,
1.) it is a single source statistic, MADD will of course put out statistics that inflate support for their agenda.
2.) what are the qualifications for the data, I learned a little trick awhile back about statistics, if you use a general qualification such as this one, you will get the sum total of all of the accidents involving alcohol instead of caused by. What am I getting at, of those killed in drunk driving accidents .08+ how many of the accidents were caused by the drunk driver, how many were caused by the driver of the other vehicle(this does happen, I met someone who got an OWI because of another drivers error), were there any avoidable deaths such as seat belt violations, etc.
If you had DOT statistics and more details, I would consider it a little more practical.

At this point you are picking fly specks out of pepper.

No matter how you slice it, alcohol causes premature death in a number of ways. Addicts kill people. Alcohol kills addicts. If you can prove otherwise, do so. If not, you're fooling yourself.

 

[LaMidRighter]

No matter how you slice it, alcohol causes premature death in a number of ways. Addicts kill people. Alcohol kills addicts. If you can prove otherwise, do so. If not, you're fooling yourself.

Anything out of moderation can kill you, no argument from my end, I just don't think alcohol is a problem if you excercise discipline.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Anything out of moderation can kill you, no argument from my end, I just don't think alcohol is a problem if you excercise discipline.

The problem with alcohol is that at the point in which the decision that means life or death regarding alcohol is made, it has already taken its effect and altered judgement. That is a very bad thing.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The problem with alcohol is that at the point in which the decision that means life or death regarding alcohol is made, it has already taken its effect and altered judgement. That is a very bad thing.

One trick is to have a gameplan, either someone will drive and not have a drop of liquor, or the driver will have a set number of drinks for the night(1-3) and will not stray from that, if someone goes alone to a neighborhood establishment, they should say, I will have this many drinks in x amount of time(1hr+) because that is the limit and I will leave. If someone fails to have a set gameplan or strays from it they are inviting trouble. Even in my stupid days, like I said earlier I would gladly surrender my keys when someone thought I was too drunk to be behind the wheel, not worth the trouble, not worth the risk.

 

[Fantasea]

One trick is to have a gameplan, either someone will drive and not have a drop of liquor, or the driver will have a set number of drinks for the night(1-3) and will not stray from that, if someone goes alone to a neighborhood establishment, they should say, I will have this many drinks in x amount of time(1hr+) because that is the limit and I will leave. If someone fails to have a set gameplan or strays from it they are inviting trouble. Even in my stupid days, like I said earlier I would gladly surrender my keys when someone thought I was too drunk to be behind the wheel, not worth the trouble, not worth the risk.

If you must get shloshed, leave the car home and take a taxi.