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

ApolloAndy said:
I don't agree with it, but I suppose the argument is that if pot were legal, the money and violence associated with the drug trade would disappear. Just like you don't see people sticking bottles of alcohol in their orificies to get across the border. (Well, maybe you do. I don't know. ;))

In economics terms, there is an "excess profit" to be gained when working in areas that are deemed illegal or otherwise unethical - running nunmbers, prostitution, etc.. One of the ways to remove the excess money (and the violence asocaited with it) of these activities is to legalize. I'm not saying that legalizing everything is a good idea - it's probably not. But legalized (and heavily regulated) prostitution in Nevada doesn't seem to have led to financial ruin (I'll leave the moral debates alone, LOL).

Can't help but think the violence in/around the TX/Mexico border would die down pretty quickly if there were no excess fortunes to be made due to the fact that marijuana is illegal in the US. Instead of supplying drug cartels with even more money (cocaine funds them enough as is) - those dollars could be put into use here in the US cleaning up the Gulf and rebuilding New Orleans and paying teachers a fair wage...

Supply and demand. If something is illegal, the supply does way down and the price goes way way up. If something is legal, you can find it at every corner drug store and the price goes way down.

ApolloAndy said:
If something is illegal, the supply does way down...

Oh, you definitely have no experience with drugs, do you? ;)

If something is legal, you can find it at every corner drug store and the price goes way down.

Not if it's regulated...and then taxed.

djDaemon said:
In no particular order...interact with my government representatives... :)

I assume this means lighting one up with them;)

ApolloAndy said:
But isn't the point of democracy to avoid that scenario completely? (Protecting the rights of the minority and such e.g. the bill of rights).

Having a democracy doesn't mean you necessarily protect the rights of the minority. Bill of Rights does that in the US. But you could have a democracy without them. And the Bill of Rights only goes as far as the rights of the minority are actually recognized. If the government (the 'might') determines to fine, imprison and/or put to death folks who engage in certain activities, the government is effectively right (at least with respect to those folks who get caught by said government). Government (thru the democratic process) may change its mind at some point down the road but might will continue to make right.

My experience is there are two types of pot smokers, those that buy it and those that do not. The non-buyers take a puff here or there at a party or hanging out with friends. The buyers are overwhelmingly regular, daily and often multiple times a day smokers.

What I never see mentioned in the legalization discussion is what the ratio of casual versus habitual pot users is? Casual use is considered by most to be harmless, even cute or funny. But the term "pot-head" brings almost entirely negative associations with it. Addiction, regardless of the substance, is an ugly way of life.

While the "harder" drugs including alcohol have a much harder rock bottom the common thread to all addicts is one of character devastation and spiritual death. They have made horrendous judgment calls as a result of devoting their lives to getting high or drunk.

Is Mr. Carnell a casual smoker or a pot-head? Is he addicted to other mind altering substances? Was he high at the time of the accident? In the absence of a drug test immediately following the accident we'll likely and unfortunately never know (this would have determined if he smoked pot three days or three hours prior). This to me is the real story, why wasn't a drug test performed? Was his judgment impaired?

Marko said:
My experience is there are two types of pot smokers...

The non-buyers ... The buyers...

snip

...the common thread to all addicts is one of character devastation and spiritual death. They have made horrendous judgment calls as a result of devoting their lives to getting high or drunk.

Really? There are two types of pot smokers? And you either take a puff now and then, or devote your entire life to getting high? Please.

Holy crap, man. You need to get out more before you start blanketing the world in your black and white paint. And while you're at it, get a narrower brush.

It's funny that you also speak about the "negative associations". With intelligent analysis from people like you, it's hard to imagine why such "negative associations" exist.

From all the literature I've read (and I've read a LOT) - marijuana is almost universally classified as "habituating" meaning it becomes a habit. Addiction is a term generally reserved for drugs that create a psychological or physical dependence.

Part of the problem I see with prohibition is that it means you can't just go into a drug store and pick up a pack of marijuana. In order to obatin said product, people often wexpose themselves, intentionally or othwerwise, to those who might have other harder drugs available. In some states, you can legally buy beer or wine in some stores, but you must go to a LIQUOR store to buy anything harder...just thinking there should be some sort of parallel...

Brandon: He did qualify his statement with "my experience." You even quoted it. We could probably do without the character assassination.

Apologies for the assassination.

I quoted that part to point out that his experience is so lacking that his opinion isn't really all that relevant. Sort of like me commenting on the joys of motherhood.

Right on Marko. He should have been tested. The other argument (legalization) has nothing to do with this case or justice for the injured girl.

Why do some people keep ignoring the fact that a drug test wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know? The test wasn't going to tell you if he was high at the time or not. Obviously the police did not believe he was impaired when they interacted with him after the incident. No need to perform a drug test when he's already admitting he's used recently.

-Nate

Aamilj said:
The other argument (legalization) has nothing to do with this case or justice for the injured girl.

No one ever said it did. It's a side conversation loosely related to the topic at hand. (and, quite frankly, the infinitely more interesting one)

That's kind of how it goes around here.

Guys, I still don't get it. The primary reason this accident occurred is because the ride malfunctioned by stopping before it should have and there was no safety mechanism to prevent this from happening. The operator's role in this was similar to that of the operator who failed to press the E-stop on the KK drop tower which would have prevented that tragedy from occurring, too.

Obviously, he had more time to react and could have/should have prevented this from happening. But I don't follow why the majority of the blame is falling to the operator.

djDaemon said:
Sort of like me commenting on the joys of motherhood.

We'll leave that one to Carrie. I hear she really loves babies. :) ;)

I don't agree, Carrie. The distinction in the KK accident is that E-stopping that ride wouldn't have likely changed the outcome (and I'm still not convinced there was anything to indicate something was wrong in the first place). There was no mechanical failure here that has been made known, and if there was, it was covered up by the owner by tampering with the crime scene. One could argue that the ride is poorly designed because it requires the operator to do the right thing, but he admitted he didn't.

I should qualify "my experience" involves one-on-one interaction with hundreds of addicts and alcoholics. Sure there are exceptions to the two bucket rule/opinion, but for the most part this is again what I have experienced.

The fact the police and press see any use as relevant and newsworthy speaks volumes on the overwhelming perception of marijuana. It immediately brings to mind someone who smokes all the time and as a result judgment is significantly impaired. It is as much the substance as it is the pot-obsessed lifestyle most of us have seen to one degree or another, far too often.

rollergator said:

In economics terms, there is an "excess profit" to be gained when working in areas that are deemed illegal or otherwise unethical - running nunmbers, prostitution, etc.. One of the ways to remove the excess money (and the violence asocaited with it) of these activities is to legalize. I'm not saying that legalizing everything is a good idea - it's probably not. But legalized (and heavily regulated) prostitution in Nevada doesn't seem to have led to financial ruin (I'll leave the moral debates alone, LOL).

Can't help but think the violence in/around the TX/Mexico border would die down pretty quickly if there were no excess fortunes to be made due to the fact that marijuana is illegal in the US. Instead of supplying drug cartels with even more money (cocaine funds them enough as is) - those dollars could be put into use here in the US cleaning up the Gulf and rebuilding New Orleans and paying teachers a fair wage...

.. or fix roller coasters in NW PA. Oops, wrong thread.

I think the second paragraph is also a sound reply to dj's assertion that lighting one up in his living room affects nobody else. Unless he is the entire supply chain.

The legalization/economic argument sounds good in theory. But I still can't imagine those who make huge amounts of money dealing in contraband, whether it be drugs, guns or whatever, willingly giving it all up without a fight to become normal retail employees, dutifully filling out their 1040s, and debating which strip mall is the best location to set up shop.

coasterdude318 said:
Why do some people keep ignoring the fact that a drug test wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know? The test wasn't going to tell you if he was high at the time or not. Obviously the police did not believe he was impaired when they interacted with him after the incident. No need to perform a drug test when he's already admitting he's used recently.

-Nate

We don't no what other illegal substances he may have ingested. It has been stated more than once. There is reasonable cause to drug test an admitted drug user. Why would a thorough investigation not dot all "i's" and cross all "t's"?

Jeff said:
I don't agree, Carrie. The distinction in the KK accident is that E-stopping that ride wouldn't have likely changed the outcome (and I'm still not convinced there was anything to indicate something was wrong in the first place). There was no mechanical failure here that has been made known, and if there was, it was covered up by the owner by tampering with the crime scene. One could argue that the ride is poorly designed because it requires the operator to do the right thing, but he admitted he didn't.

What? I'm not sure you are remembering things from the KK accident very well. As I recall, the cable snapped on the way up the tower and the girls screamed for help. The operator was supposed to watch the ride during the ascent and she didn't. Then she admitted to calling for help instead of hitting the E-stop when she realized something was wrong.

Since the cable wrapped around Kaitlyn's legs on the way up (in fact, I'm pretty sure it was around her neck, but she was able to free herself from that at least), not stopping the ride before the free fall is what enabled her ankles to be cut off. Otherwise, she still would have been banged up, sure, but she would have had her feet.

And if this ride wasn't malfunctioning, why would the park have been tampering with it in the middle of the night? I don't think I get your logic. Even if they successfully covered up the malfunction, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. How else do you explain the ride not climbing the remaining 40 feet it was supposed to have gone?

I know the two situations are not exactly the same thing. My point is merely that in both cases, a malfunction is the source issue behind the accident. The fact that humans who should have been able to prevent it from happening didn't is why you should build systems that eliminate the potential for human error.