Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gawker)   Prominent marijuana activist killed by drunk driver   (gawker.com) divider line 239
    More: Ironic, marijuana activist, drunk drivers, vehicular homicide, activists, Shutterstock, marijuana  
•       •       •

8205 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2013 at 2:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



239 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 04:19:52 PM  

Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.


I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.
 
2013-09-05 04:20:10 PM  

Dinki: What if it was banning synagogues? Or Mosques? How about banning political cartoons? Or talk radio?


Banning talk radio? I'd like to sign up for your newsletter, but I'm afraid it's been banned.
 
2013-09-05 04:22:04 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I tend to be wary of people with a nickname related to weed.

But yes, sad. Don't drink and drive you farks.


Maybe she was heavyset, hence kush....like cushy?
It's possible, she probably had the munchies quite frequently.
My first born son shall be named Bogart Sativa Bongstem the 420th
 
2013-09-05 04:22:09 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.

I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.


Oppressed?

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.

I would agree that slavery is oppression.  I would also say that banning weed for recreational use is not equivalent to enslaving someone.
 
2013-09-05 04:23:48 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: snocone: JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.

It is simply business. Is that oppression?

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the war on drugs?  If so then much of it is stupid and wasteful and ineffectual and corrupt.  But that doesn't mean that society trying to stop someone from getting high on the weekend is oppression.


I submit that "society" is a small base of idiots that have been false flagged into supporting something done entirely for Racial and PROFIT reasons.
 
2013-09-05 04:24:38 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: If it is not necessary then it doesn't rise to the level of oppression.

What if it was banning synagogues? Or Mosques? How about banning political cartoons? Or talk radio? I'm pretty sure none of those things are 'necessary' either. But i think you would agree that banning them would constitute oppression. That something can be prohibited by society simply because the powers that be don't like it, lacking a logical legitimate 'for the good of society' reason, is pretty much the definition of oppression.


I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.
 
2013-09-05 04:25:49 PM  

snocone: JasonOfOrillia: snocone: JasonOfOrillia: GnomePaladin: JasonOfOrillia: Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?

Not bad, just ignorant.  See:  The War on Drugs

Possibly.  There are all sorts of problems with prohibitions.  Whether or not those prohibitions rise to the level of "Oppression" is another matter.

It is simply business. Is that oppression?

I'm not sure what you mean.  You mean the war on drugs?  If so then much of it is stupid and wasteful and ineffectual and corrupt.  But that doesn't mean that society trying to stop someone from getting high on the weekend is oppression.

I submit that "society" is a small base of idiots that have been false flagged into supporting something done entirely for Racial and PROFIT reasons.


I would agree with that statement.  All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:26:28 PM  
cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]


busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.


So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.
 
2013-09-05 04:27:28 PM  
hey has anyone defined oppression?

/the war on drugs is oppressive...
//also, this just in; drugs win.
 
2013-09-05 04:27:59 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.


edgy
 
2013-09-05 04:28:12 PM  

carrion_luggage: The only way to kill a good guy with buds is to fill a bad guy with Buds.


Well done sir. Or ma'am. Whatever you are.
 
2013-09-05 04:29:31 PM  
TSA saves us from terrorism.
Weed is evil and causes accidents.
Iraq had WOMADs.

Anyone supporting the above in whole or in part needs a kick in the nuts so hard that their seed time travels back to prehistoric time and starts the missing link. Which is genetically, intellectually where it belongs, anyway.
 
2013-09-05 04:31:47 PM  

Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.


operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...
 
2013-09-05 04:32:22 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.


And I think many people would argue that getting high is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, and is also covered by the 5th amendment. I think society telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body is oppression pure and simple.
 
2013-09-05 04:34:46 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Unequal application of a law could be described as oppressive. And we all know that drug laws in the US are far more likely to hit blacks. And that is wrong. However, a ban on the use of weed for recreational purposes is not, in itself, oppressive. Neither would a ban on the recreational use of alcohol. Or the recreational use of bacon. They wouldn't fly. The prohibitions would fail. But they wouldn't rise to the level of oppression. They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life. They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.


see it's you making the point that unless it's required to live then denying it is not oppressive. I only took your logic to the Nth to show how irrational it is. prohibition is oppressive. it's the govt taking away a liberty.
 
2013-09-05 04:36:15 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: http://i.word.com/idictionary/oppression


Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power 2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

Nothing in there about necessary for survival being a factor...

You are correct.  But the terms "unjust" and "cruel" are used.  Those terms are pretty loose and often based on what society feels about it.  Most of society feels that heroin dealers being put in jail is not unjust but I'll bet the dealer thinks it is.

I still fail to see why your definition of oppression requires something essential to life to be suppressed.

Oppressed?

I would consider, say, slavery, tone oppression. But slaves are typically given food and some sort of shelter.

I would agree that slavery is oppression.  I would also say that banning weed for recreational use is not equivalent to enslaving someone.


Grats on catching my autocorrect. Now clarify why your definition seems to require something essential to life to be oppressed, as you stated several times.

Also clarify what you feel is essential to life being kept from slavery, which you agree is repression
 
2013-09-05 04:36:56 PM  

Headso: Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.

operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...


A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?
 
2013-09-05 04:37:56 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.


But again, what if those laws were not determined by society or society had no say in those laws?
 
2013-09-05 04:40:14 PM  
The good news is that her friends and family held a fundraiser for her 4 kids last night and raised just over $5,500.

If you feel like helping, you can do so though:  http://www.wepay.com/donations/297729414
 
2013-09-05 04:40:27 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: "She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said.

I agree that weed is probably safer than alcohol and that there are therapeutic uses for it but banning the recreational use of some psychoactive substances is hardly "oppression."  Wrong-headed, extreme, and doomed to failure, sure, but not oppression.


If you say so

 prisonphotography.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-05 04:40:55 PM  

PainfulItching: Headso: Loadmaster: cannabis is safer than alcohol.

Loadmaster: [Citation needed]

busy chillin': deliberately obtuse? One liquor store has enough alcohol to kill an entire family. There isn't enough weed in all of the dispensaries to kill one person.

So that's the only criteria for "safe"? I guess operating potentially lethal heavy machinery with impaired mental faculties (like Dinki's example) just doesn't count. My bad.

operating potentially lethal machinery can be dangerous regardless...

A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?


I don't know what that means, but to clarify what I was saying, the level of danger involved in operating potentially lethal machinery has nothing to do with how safe cannabis is.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:06 PM  

scottydoesntknow: JasonOfOrillia: Duck_of_Doom: JasonOfOrillia: I think we are arguing past each other.  I'm not saying that weed should be illegal, I'm saying society banning weed for recreational purposes doesn't rise to the level of "oppression."

So your argument is that he misspoke.  Or that using extreme qualifiers for dramatic effect leads to miscommunication.  That is fine, and true.  Oppression is different from opposition or illegality.  As for your argument on temperance: you can't legislate behavior.  This is unfortunate (because I'd love to throw some people in jail for being idiots) but for the best.  That's where social pressures and standards come into play.  They are far better at modulating behaviors of peers and effecting social conditioning than any law.

I largely agree with your statements.  My original comment about the article was directed towards Mr. DePinto's statement about oppression.  It seemed hyperbolic.  Most laws are expressions of some limits desired by society.  In general, the greater the agreement with a law the greater the compliance with that law and the less sympathy there is for those who break the law.  Most of the most successful laws we have are ones that agree with social pressures and standards.

But again, what if those laws were not determined by society or society had no say in those laws?


majority rule can be oppressive. just because a majority of society agree on something doesn't make it just.  also a majority of Americans want pot legalized.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:29 PM  

PainfulItching: moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.

No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I don't care how many times you've gotten away with it so far. You are lucky, not good at it.


No, no bikes. I am sick and tired of drunk assholes riding their bikes down the road on the wrong side it is scary as fark to be riding along and see some asshole riding towards you, luckily most of the time the cars going the same way as me see the idiot too and give me some room to go past the idiot safely. Make them hire a driver to drive them. Consider it a tax on being an idiot.
 
2013-09-05 04:41:39 PM  

Alphakronik: The good news is that her friends and family held a fundraiser for her 4 kids last night and raised just over $5,500.

If you feel like helping, you can do so though:  http://www.wepay.com/donations/297729414


Oh no... 4 kids!!!! arghhh so tragic.
 
2013-09-05 04:42:19 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Jenny "Kush" Friede, a prominent Denver medical marijuana activist, was killed this weekend after a drunk driver headed the wrong way down an Interstate slammed into her car.

[...]

She was trying to end the oppression over [marijuana]," DePinto said. "We'd rally at the Capitol the last Saturday of every month for years, trying to tell people that cannabis is safer than alcohol. It's ironic that it was an uninsured drunk driver that killed her."

No. No it isn't. It is tragic and a good example of the point she was trying to make.


A proponent of a drug that's illegal was killed by someone under the influence of a legal drug. That certainly does qualify as irony.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:15 PM  

Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy


In this crowd it is, apparently.
 
2013-09-05 04:47:49 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.


No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.
 
2013-09-05 04:48:52 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: mediablitz: JasonOfOrillia: My mistake. It seems like you need to take a hit to calm down a little. Don't worry, I'm not trying to oppress you. And if weed is absolutely essential to your survival then you should have access to it. I wouldn't want to do the equivalent of chaining you up and only giving you bread and water.

Really trying to drive home the "pretentious asshole" part, aren't you?

What part of my statement is pretentious and how does it warrant the insult "asshole?"  All I did was turn the analogy around.

Furthermore why is it bad to say that maybe society barring people from get high for recreational purposes might be a good thing?


It has brought us so much good. Record level incarceration rates. Militarized police departments. Cartels. Billions of dollars for privatized prisons.
Just SO many benefits to us we can barely count.
All over a substance which at the very least the last 3 presidents, the worlds most famous body builder and the world's most succesfull Olympian have used.

So many benefits!
 
2013-09-05 04:49:14 PM  

Jormungandr: PainfulItching: moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.

No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas.  You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

I don't care how many times you've gotten away with it so far. You are lucky, not good at it.

No, no bikes. I am sick and tired of drunk assholes riding their bikes down the road on the wrong side it is scary as fark to be riding along and see some asshole riding towards you, luckily most of the time the cars going the same way as me see the idiot too and give me some room to go past the idiot safely. Make them hire a driver to drive them. Consider it a tax on being an idiot.


hmmmmmmm. A new job market. And a sponsorship from a car company. Wrap the cars in advertising.

DIBS!!
 
2013-09-05 04:51:11 PM  
So, has anyone mentioned that this isn't ironic.

Perhaps a coincidence.
 
2013-09-05 04:51:23 PM  

Dinki: JasonOfOrillia: I would argue that freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are necessary and suppressing them would rise to the level of oppression.  Banning getting high on the weekend does not rise to that level.  These things are not equivalent.

And I think many people would argue that getting high is a form of expression covered under the 1st amendment, and is also covered by the 5th amendment. I think society telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body is oppression pure and simple.


These bans normally come about through the external effects; drunk driving, second-hand smoke, inability to support or care for your family, etcetera.  Sometimes these are good justifications and sometimes they are not.  Currently that is at society's discretion.

That being said if you feel that the state should not get between someone and their psychoactive substances and that rises to the level of something that should be protected by the constitution then we just have an honest disagreement.
 
2013-09-05 04:52:34 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.


How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.
 
2013-09-05 04:52:53 PM  

GnomePaladin: See: The War on Drugs


I did see them, at Lolla last year. They were pretty good, too.
 
2013-09-05 04:55:22 PM  

vudukungfu: TSA saves us from terrorism.
Weed is evil and causes accidents.
Iraq had WOMADs.

Anyone supporting the above in whole or in part needs a kick in the nuts so hard that their seed time travels back to prehistoric time and starts the missing link. Which is genetically, intellectually where it belongs, anyway.


just because I firmly beleive it's impossible for this thread to spiral any further down  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-02 - 09/Marijuana-users-twice-as-likely-to-cause-car-crash/53031202/1
 
2013-09-05 04:55:31 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.

How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.


You never answered my post regarding what essentiality to survival is being withheld in slavery, which you agreed was oppression.

Essentiality to survival being stated several times by you as needing to be a factor in oppression.

That, there, looks like a moving goalpost to me.
 
2013-09-05 05:06:11 PM  

RedPhoenix122: This isn't even Alanis Morissette ironic.


She used that word because "isn't that misfortunate coincidence" didn't really fit into musical phrasing very well.
 
2013-09-05 05:08:59 PM  

A Fark Handle: CrazyCracka420: That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright). You cannot get that impaired from marijuana. One is worse than the other.

yes you can.  let's not pretend weed is somehow a magical super drug.  you shouldn't drive while fark up on either...


No actually, no matter how much you smoke you will never be as impaired as you can get on alcohol.  You can literally become unconscious and die from alcohol consumption.  Not so much with marijuana.
 
2013-09-05 05:09:09 PM  

vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: vicioushobbit: JasonOfOrillia: Headso: JasonOfOrillia: All I'm saying is that banning people from getting high on the weekend does not rise to the level of oppression.

edgy

In this crowd it is, apparently.

No, I think you just have your own personal definition of oppression. One which seems to change slightly depending on how you are asked.

I'll let you keep your opinion, as leave you with your moving goalposts.

How are my goalposts moving?  I don't believe that I have changed my definition of oppression.

You never answered my post regarding what essentiality to survival is being withheld in slavery, which you agreed was oppression.

Essentiality to survival being stated several times by you as needing to be a factor in oppression.

That, there, looks like a moving goalpost to me.


You know what, you might have a fair criticism.  I believe you are referring to when I submitted this:
They wouldn't rise to the level of oppression because none of these things is necessary to life.  They are not equivalent to being chained to a fence and only given bread and water to live.

That is is mistake on my part, driven by my reaction to the earlier analogy of the denial of the right to smoke dope being made equivalent to being chained to a fence and only being given bread and water to live.  It would have been smarter for me to say that the banning of smoking dope recreationally does not rise to the level of oppression because it is so inconsequential to living.  It would be like calling the banning of Mars bars oppressive.  It would be irritating but it seems extreme to call it oppressive.

Anywho, I will be offline for a while.  I'm going to see a couple of movies.  So if you don't see me respond quickly please don't think that I'm "slinking out of the thread like a whipped cur."
 
2013-09-05 05:10:06 PM  

PainfulItching: mediablitz: PainfulItching: No. Fark those morons. On all counts. Anyone blowin a .08 or otherwise fail a field sobriety test should lose all driving privileges and get a bicycle for 5 years. Get caught again, and jail. Kill someone? Death penalty. End of story. Flame on fellas. You want to drink? that's fine. I'm not going to piss on your good time. You risk my life? There are heavy consequences.

Maybe, just MAYBE, we shouldn't make alcohol so easily available, prevalent, and integrated into our culture then?

I'm not a drinker. I've seen what chronic drinking does (mother and grandfather). Not for me. I'll literally have 1 beer or a glass of wine on rare occasions.

That said, if you want to and have a way to do it safely, no problem. Most people drink reasonably with no ill effects to their health and they are responsible doing it.  Personally, we shouldn't have people locked up for a few ounces of weed either if it's for personal and responsible use. Some of the heavier drugs? Some shouldn't be on the road if they've taken benadryl.

2 kids in my class were dead before graduation from drunk drivers. Another one was the drunk driver and got a broken back because of it. Once a week around here I see a 4th or 5th offense DUI arrest on the news. A couple of months ago a guy got arrested for his 8th. How the hell are you not in the clink after 7 DUIs?

No pity for them. None whatsoever. If you can't plan ahead to drink, don't do it. If you can't handle that, get some help.


I knew a girl that had 7 dui-s, most of them occurred in Va., a couple in Md.- this was before we had good interconnected police records, I suppose.
Her 8th one (that finally landed her in weekend and after-work lockup, because she had a job, wtf) she was so drunk she didn't even realize she wasn't the passenger.
She miscarried a bunch of times, twice with twins, because she couldn't just say no. Had a bad coke habit at one point, too. Thank god she's no longer in my life. She could be dead-I'd honestly be surprised if she wasn't.

Treat it like a disease, whether or not it's just a lack of control. Mandated rehabilitation, none of that go to AA bullshizz. Gotta change laws for the state to commit repeat offenders, and make rehab easy to access for all.
 
2013-09-05 05:10:28 PM  

Headso: PainfulItching: Headso: Loadmaster:
A well placed and perfectly timed Raisinet could cause a Rube Goldberg type fatal incident, so we just throw all of the rules out of the window?

I don't know what that means, but to clarify what I was saying, the level of danger involved in operating potentially lethal machinery has nothing to do with how safe cannabis is.


Beg pardon, I think I quoted the wrong post. Can't find it now. Disregard.
 
2013-09-05 05:14:21 PM  
4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.
 
2013-09-05 05:25:55 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.


Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.
 
2013-09-05 05:27:56 PM  

Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.


Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus
 
2013-09-05 05:28:48 PM  

CrazyCracka420: A Fark Handle: CrazyCracka420: That being said, you can be drop down drunk (where you can literally not even stay standing upright). You cannot get that impaired from marijuana. One is worse than the other.

yes you can.  let's not pretend weed is somehow a magical super drug.  you shouldn't drive while fark up on either...

No actually, no matter how much you smoke you will never be as impaired as you can get on alcohol.  You can literally become unconscious and die from alcohol consumption.  Not so much with marijuana.


you can pass out from both.  when you pass out behind the wheel no matter the cause you're the same level of danger to others.  now the whole dying from an overdose thing is different between weed and alcohol.
 
2013-09-05 05:33:21 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?
 
2013-09-05 05:36:52 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus


hey gramps, it's 2013, people from all walks of life smoke pot now, it's been virtually legal in the most populous highest GDP state for almost 20 years.
 
2013-09-05 05:37:09 PM  

PainfulItching: Robert1966: 1) Legalize weed and market and sell it as we do alcohol (with age limits, etc), giving similar penalties for impaired driving.
2) Distinguish between hazardous DUI - erratic driving or high-speed driving - and simple DUI, and change the penalties accordingly.
3) Raise the driving age to 18.

I disagree slightly with you.
1) Licensed MJ sales
2) Triple all current fines for moving violations,
3) Make negligent driving a felony equal to attempted manslaughter
4) DUI as listed previously

/yeah, I'm a hardass when it comes to piloting a big hunk of metal
//at high speed
///in close quarters with other people doing the same thing


Or we could opt to be reasonable, which is always the best course of action. Over reactive legislature is never a good idea.
 
2013-09-05 05:37:28 PM  

Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Luse: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 4 kids!? A burn out stoner with 4 kids? Where's the dad I wonder... Probably scraping resin out of an old bowl to get a small high before going to play frisbee golf with some arts students.

Or golfing with another burnout like Ahnold, who has 5 kids with a supermodel.

Farking burnout loser.

Yeah, that encapsulates your average pothead. Jesus

So who does?
George Bush? Clinton? Obama? Sagan?


I'd say your average pothead does, not the few notable exceptions.
 
2013-09-05 05:48:17 PM  

moops: ddam: Maybe not the first offense but I'd be OK with mandatory 1 year in jail for second DUI conviction. Fark drunk drivers.

Uh oh, brace yourself for a brigading. One thing I've learned about Fark is that lots of people claim they're perfectly fine at 0.08 BAC and that we're way too hard on people that choose to drink and drive.


0.08 is nearly meaningless. It provides a rough correlation with impairment, but fatigue is at least as much of a problem, and that doesn't show up on any breathalyzer. Roadside tests are all that can prove impairment, any kind of chemical analysis only shows possible impairment by a particular drug.

I've had one drink and combined with sleepiness been too impaired to drive. I've had a dozen drinks and driven fine. Of course, I also drive almost 100,000 miles a year, so it's a pretty ingrained habit at this point; mastering anything sober means you can still do it drunk better than sober neophytes.

That said, 0.08 is more drunk than most people realize. They get a little buzz and think I MUST BE LEGALLY DRUNK BUT I'M FINE LOL when the reality is that they're still two drinks away from the limit. Bar breathalyzers are worthless, they're just made to give you a stupid high reading.
 
2013-09-05 05:55:54 PM  

digitalrain: dunno, but if they find so much as a seed in the drunk's vehicle, you can bet that the fact that he
was as drunk as a lord will be less than a footnote in this tale. All of a sudden, all the investigators,
media, officials, etc... will be talking about is how there was 'evidence' that he was high (mind you,
they won't rule it out w/ a blood test...they'll just dangle the speculation out there) and how sad
and ironic this was...what a tragedy it was...and how it is more unfortunate proof that marijuana is
a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad drug.


Yup.  It's getting pretty predictable.
 
Displayed 50 of 239 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report