Dells Extreme World operator charged in accident smoked pot three days earlier

Jeff said:
That is so not true. The dangers associated with lung disease alone are substantial.

That is not true, or at the very least, highly-contested:
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

And it's not like smoking it is the only delivery method. Which is cool, seeing as how THC actually helps slow cancer:
Pot's Active Ingredient Halts Lung Cancer Growth, Study Says

...chronic use in particular is known to inhibit learning and harm short-term memory.

Yeah, but the same is true for alcohol, only alcohol is worse in this regard. And yet, perfectly legal.

If you toke up as a teen, you're something like 50 times more likely to try other, more serious drugs.

And that has nothing to do with marijuana, but rather the user. If you're likely to not be opposed to trying pot, it's not at all surprising that you'd be likely to try other stuff.

Ask my 34-year-old brother living at home with my mom if weed is dangerous. I think he'll give you a well-informed "yes."

This also has nothing to do with the drug, and everything to do with the person. And I mean no offense, as I have a similar, though less-severe, situation with a member of my family as well.

Tekwardo said:
But I'm not going to illegally go 120mpg when the posted sign says 55.

But at least you'd be ultra-"green" while you did it. ;)

Drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc, can all be destructive in one way or another.

Tekwardo said:
I think that depends on the law. How is it a danger if no one smoked weed?

You mean, aside from the fact that it helps slow cancer progression and help chemo patients lead pseudo-normal lives?

If someone came in and took away our freedom of speech, our right to religion, or something like that, it's dangerous because that gets in to basic human rights.

I consider it a basic human right to do things that have absolutely zero impact on those around me. Especially when we're talking about consuming a plant that existed before we did.

But telling us we can't go 120mph, we can't smoke weed, neither one is something that is going to have a major impact on our life or rights.

You driving at that speed is unsafe in almost every imaginable situation (outside of Montana, anyway), and as such, impacts me. Me hitting a bong after work doesn't endanger you. Unless I'm doing it while driving. ;)

You mean, aside from the fact that it helps slow cancer progression and help chemo patients lead pseudo-normal lives?

Ah, but that's a different ball game. I'm all for someone using something intended as medicine as medicine. But I know plenty of pill heads that use legal medicines just to get high. I wouldn't have a problem with legalized medical weed. And it's shown in some states that some politicians don't have an issue with that either because that is legal.

I consider it a basic human right to do things that have absolutely zero impact on those around me.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'll have to come back and think about how to word what I want to say...

You driving at that speed is unsafe in almost every imaginable situation (outside of Montana, anyway), and as such, impacts me.

It could be unsafe, sure, but it's still against the law, hippy. ;-)

Tekwardo said:
It could be unsafe, sure, but it's still against the law, hippy. ;-)

Right, but it's illegal because it's unsafe. That's what I'm getting at - I happily obey laws that have an actual, reasonable reason for existing. But beyond that? Totally not far out, or even a little bit groovy. :)

dj, having only skimmed the bulk of the thread, the part of your argument that has me a bit anxious is what happens when it's extended.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that we should ignore laws that we disagree with if the laws are based on assumptions that we think are false. Right?

Seems like that opens a Pandora's box of people using their own world view to justify whatever behavior they want.

For instance, what if someone honestly believes that driving 120 MPH is no more dangerous than driving 55 MPH? Would you encourage them to do it? Or Mr. Rockin' Raceway who obviously thought the Zamperla Hawk could run safely with the ride logic overridden. Should he just ignore that law because "it's a stupid law"?

Tekwardo said:
Ah, but that's a different ball game. I'm all for someone using something intended as medicine as medicine. But I know plenty of pill heads that use legal medicines just to get high. I wouldn't have a problem with legalized medical weed. And it's shown in some states that some politicians don't have an issue with that either because that is legal.

Curious as to why you would have a problem with legalized non-medical marijuana.

ApolloAndy said:
If I understand correctly, your argument is that we should ignore laws that we disagree with if the laws are based on assumptions that we think are false. Right?

Wrong. Re-read, and you'll notice that I say that I'm speaking only toward laws that are objectively (not subjectively) without merit.

eightdotthree said:
Curious as to why you would have a problem with legalized non-medical marijuana.

Without going off on another tangent, I'm morally opposed to drugs for recreational use. And before anyone brings up alcohol, no, I'm not opposed to it, and no, I won't discuss the differences why (at least not at this point in this particular discussion).

How about at this point, right here? :)

If it's a personal issue that you'd rather not discuss, I'd understand, but I think it's perfectly relevant to your opinion.

Tekwardo said:Without going off on another tangent, I'm morally opposed to drugs for recreational use. And before anyone brings up alcohol, no, I'm not opposed to it, and no, I won't discuss the differences why (at least not at this point in this particular discussion).

Drug in the dictionary is defined as:

a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, esp. a narcotic.

Alcohol and cigarettes fit that description. I find it odd that you could be against recreational use of a list of drugs, but not alcohol. But you're entitled to your opinion just as anyone else is. In my opinion moral arguments don't belong in law anymore than religion does.

As far as alcohol goes, it isn't so much a 'personal issue' in that way, I have no problem discussing it, I just don't want to go into ALL of that here (and yes, it would be pages of commentary).

A brief summary of part of it, though, is that I can take a drink or have a small amount of alcohol and not be under the influence of it, where as I'm not convinced that just a few tokes doesn't get you high.

Now that 8.3 posted:

I don't agree with cigs either. I don't smoke. Never have. Not even once.

And I agree with you on not having religion or personal morals in the law, I wasn't saying that. I think laws should be based on the best interests of everyone. But personally I'm against recreational drug use (and for that matter, over drinking isn't something I think you should do either), where as medical benefits from substances I'm all for. And to clarify, I stated earliery that I wouldn't have a problem, per se, with legalized Pot. I didn't mean in that last comment that I have a problem with legalized pot, where as I don't with legalized medicinal pot. I should have worded that differently.

I don't care one way or the other if it's legal either way, but morally I'm opposed to recreational drugs as opposed to medicinal drugs.

And if someone has an alcohol addiction, I definitely don't think they should drink.

A little girl is fighting for her life and the moment is being used to debate drug legalization. Why do we believe this guy when he said he smoked it 3 days prior? I sure as heck don't trust him at his word. Seems the detectives and many on here do. Why?

Speaking of old men staying at home with their parents, does anybody know if that was the case for this 33 year old?

As for he who took offense to me demeaning ride operation as a worthy career choice, I apologize. When I was at the Dells many moons ago, it was not exactly Disney/Universal standards. It was more roadside attractions. I would place it somewhere between the county fair and Six Flags in terms of appearance/cleanliness, etc (at least the ride attractions/operations...the river was nice). Lets just say that I have a difficult time seeing a lot of those employees getting hired at Disney/Universal. I also have a tough time thinking that most people strive to make a career from a job that appeared to be lower end. Has the Dells cleaned up their act to the point that it is reasonable to compare their attractions to Disney (Can't comment on Dollywood, never been)? Are their ride operators getting benefits, 401K's, etc?

Either way, my main points are that this guy does not deserve benefit of the doubt and police should have tested him. I think the girl's family deserved he be tested. I think the park owners deserved that he be tested. And I think the ride company deserved that the operator be tested.

Since the police did not do a thorough investigation, any decisions as to punishment and liable parties is way more subjective than it needed to be.

Aamilj said:
A little girl is fighting for her life and the moment is being used to debate drug legalization. Why do we believe this guy when he said he smoked it 3 days prior? I sure as heck don't trust him at his word.

You're right. We should never trust someone who smokes weed, because, as we all know, pot smokers cannot tell the truth.

Since the police did not do a thorough investigation, any decisions as to punishment and liable parties is way more subjective than it needed to be.

I'll ignore your moronic generalizations about people you don't know, and simply point out that perhaps these cops came to the reasonable conclusion that, as Gonch pointed out several pages back, the guy wan't under the influence, and simply had "a moment".

But again, how is a test going to determine if he had smoked that morning vs. toking up 3 days prior? Maybe I'm naive, but I thought the result would be identical: HTC in your system.

A little girl is fighting for her life and the moment is being used to debate drug legalization.

Because its a discussion forum, and conversations tend to evolve.

Vater said:
Maybe I'm naive, but I thought the result would be identical: HTC in your system.

I've heard of waking up with your kidneys removed from your system, but never waking up to find a cell phone added to it. ;)

I knew something didn't look right when I typed that. That wasn't a simple typo, either; I meant to do it. Too many acronyms in my world, dammit. :)

THC, HTC, GHB, TPR...Too many acronyms!