The Great Mexican Wall

[MattBurt]

I wonder what exactly is flawed with that logic?

I just stated in the previous post that you can not possibly defend the logic of legal alcohol and smoking and deny the same logic for drugs. Either the alcohol prohibition was right and should have never been abolished, or it wasn't right. You can't have it both ways.

As for coke and heroin...sure, be my guest. If someone wants to use them, they will (and do), legal or illegal.

As for the gun argument... at the risk of reopening the old debate, I will say that the parallel is false. The manyfold increase in (legal) guns in the States over the years, has NOT been accompanied by the similar order of magnitude in gun deaths.

Both alcohol and tobacco are legal, yet we teach our children (and ourselves) to stay away from it, and if they do enjoy it responsibly, not to drive. After all, a reasonable consumption of alcohol has been found to be beneficial for your health. I do not smoke, but occasionally enjoy a good cigar. I am sure there is no health benefit from smoking (the way I do), and probably there is some damage, but it's been outweighed by the psychological pleasure I received (Cuban cigar + a good bourbon = happy guy).

In other words, the fact that something is legal (like alcohol and tobacco) doesn't mean everybody is going to jump into it.

I think the logic is flawed because if you compare anywhere with tighter gun regulation with us, the number of gun deaths is exponentially higher in the USA. Recently gun purchases have gone way up but gun ownership has not. What that means is the existing gun owners are stockpiling and hoarding their guns and for the most part guns are not being purchased by new owners at the same rate. As long as those existing owners keep them out of circulation it may not be an issue, but eventually I think they are likely to trickle out to a wider group.

I don't really want to get into the gun debate again but I guess I brought it up. I just think we need tighter regulation. The genie is out of the bottle so we will never successfully completely ban guns at this point but I think the free for all is bad for society. We need to find the happy medium, like I believe the term "A well regulated militia" is all about. Actually, that's a great parallel to pot. I think that should be regulated too because when prohibited, it's unregulated nature makes that a free for all as well. Sensible regulation will help keep pot or guns out of the wrong hands, but obviously not 100% of the time.

I suffer from debilitating gout in my feet and have had to give up my favorite libation, beer to help control it. Tobacco makes me sick and is not in any way enjoyable for me. I also don't want to risk physical addiction to nicotine.

Pot is nice and a pleasant way for me to chill out and watch a good movie that doesn't irritate my medical condition. I don't even have to smoke it, I can eat it, vaporize it, or even drink it. It's not physically addictive so if I take an extended trip and don't have any for weeks or months, it's no big deal.

I like that the way I choose to live my life doesn't make me a criminal by definition or make me have to deal with criminals to buy pot.
This is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[LesPalenik]

I think the logic is flawed because if you compare anywhere with tighter gun regulation with us, the number of gun deaths is exponentially higher in the USA. Recently gun purchases have gone way up but gun ownership has not. What that means is the existing gun owners are stockpiling and hoarding their guns and for the most part guns are not being purchased by new owners at the same rate. As long as those existing owners keep them out of circulation it may not be an issue, but eventually I think they are likely to trickle out to a wider group.

Because many of those legally purchased hand guns in USA end up in Canada.

Canadians crack down on guns, alarmed by flow from U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-gun-problem-is-creeping-into-canada/2016/02/13/a28cd1e4-c388-11e5-b933-31c93021392a_story.html?utm_term=.53fd5702d9b1

[Alan Klein]

That is way less optimal than buying it legally and staying off the roads.

My arguments for no legalization will not effect current users much.  The purpose of keeping it illegal is to not allow more use of the drug and more carnage on the roads because of the legalization.  I really don;t care if the current user has to go through more problems getting an illegal drug.  That's their problem.  My concern is staying safer on the roads for me and my family. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think the logic is flawed because if you compare anywhere with tighter gun regulation with us, the number of gun deaths is exponentially higher in the USA. Recently gun purchases have gone way up but gun ownership has not. What that means is the existing gun owners are stockpiling and hoarding their guns and for the most part guns are not being purchased by new owners at the same rate...

Bringing other countries into the gun debate is flawed simply because we have a whole plethora of other issues (culture, context, etc.) popping up and muddying the waters. Looking at the increased number of guns inside the US is much more telling.

But the analogy with the new gun owners is right and can be applied to legalizing pot too: existing pot users will simply use it more often and legalizing it is not suddenly going to make a whole bunch of new users.

[Alan Klein]

Bringing other countries into the gun debate is flawed simply because we have a whole plethora of other issues (culture, context, etc.) popping up and muddying the waters. Looking at the increased number of guns inside the US is much more telling.

But the analogy with the new gun owners is right and can be applied to legalizing pot too: existing pot users will simply use it more often and legalizing it is not suddenly going to make a whole bunch of new users.

But accidents are up since legalization.  Also, it's too early to tell how many more people will try out pot increasing the number of users and carnage on the road.   I think it would be smart if the rest of the country would wait to legalize it in their states until we can see what's going on in states that have legalized it.  So far, it's worse.  I can't imagine it will get better. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So far, it's worse.  I can't imagine it will get better. 

It will. Everything new is overused initially. Just remember the atrocities of the early shadow-recovery use in Photoshop. Quite a useful tool today, and mostly used in moderation, without even noticing its use

[Alan Goldhammer]

My arguments for no legalization will not effect current users much.  The purpose of keeping it illegal is to not allow more use of the drug and more carnage on the roads because of the legalization.  I really don;t care if the current user has to go through more problems getting an illegal drug.  That's their problem.  My concern is staying safer on the roads for me and my family.

Maybe we should extend the ban to the use of cell phones in cars.  Distracted drivers are a menace regardless of what is causing the distraction.  Turn cars into Faraday cages where cell phone signals are blocked.

[RSL]

I'd heartily agree with that, Alan.

[MattBurt]

That might be something we could all agree on!

[Jeremy Roussak]

Maybe we should extend the ban to the use of cell phones in cars.  Distracted drivers are a menace regardless of what is causing the distraction.  Turn cars into Faraday cages where cell phone signals are blocked.

That would spoil the ability of satnav systems to supply traffic updates, of course. iPhones now have "do not disturb while driving" which goes some way towards what you suggest.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

you are naive to think this is a viable option.

Has it been tried and properly enforced yet?

Rob

[Farmer]

Maybe we should extend the ban to the use of cell phones in cars.  Distracted drivers are a menace regardless of what is causing the distraction.  Turn cars into Faraday cages where cell phone signals are blocked.

Not completely, but to a large degree they are here.  If you're on a learner's permit or a provisional licence (2 levels, total of 3 years after a year on your learner's permit) you can not use a mobile phone for any purpose at all, nor touch it, in a car unless you are parked, out of the line of traffic.  Not for music, not for navigation, not for any reason.

For fully licenced drivers, you can use them connected to a hands free system of some sort. They can only be touched to answer a call and only if they're in an approved cradle.  Other functions must either be done through the vehicle via bluetooth or Android Auto or Apple Car Play or simialr or via voice command.

It's a $384- fine to breach this and a loss of 4 points from your licence (you get 13 as a fully licensed driver).  Those prohibited from using them face an automatic licence suspension if caught using them.  Police are now allowed to use cameras to show you were on a phone or holding it whilst driving and then fine you (or fine the registered owner who has the option of making a stat dec to declare another person was driving at the time).  Fines and points are increased if caught in a school zone.  There is no requirement in Australia for the police to take you to court to make the fines, although you can opt to take it to court to challenge it but good luck with that unless you have clear evidence that you didn't do it.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Not completely, but to a large degree they are here.  If you're on a learner's permit or a provisional licence (2 levels, total of 3 years after a year on your learner's permit) you can not use a mobile phone for any purpose at all, nor touch it, in a car unless you are parked, out of the line of traffic.  Not for music, not for navigation, not for any reason.

For fully licenced drivers, you can use them connected to a hands free system of some sort. They can only be touched to answer a call and only if they're in an approved cradle.  Other functions must either be done through the vehicle via bluetooth or Android Auto or Apple Car Play or simialr or via voice command.

It's a $384- fine to breach this and a loss of 4 points from your licence (you get 13 as a fully licensed driver).  Those prohibited from using them face an automatic licence suspension if caught using them.  Police are now allowed to use cameras to show you were on a phone or holding it whilst driving and then fine you (or fine the registered owner who has the option of making a stat dec to declare another person was driving at the time).  Fines and points are increased if caught in a school zone.  There is no requirement in Australia for the police to take you to court to make the fines, although you can opt to take it to court to challenge it but good luck with that unless you have clear evidence that you didn't do it.

Phil, we have similar restrictions in the US but these are done at the state and not the national level.  there are large penalties associated with wrongful use but I still see lots of people using their phones in an unsafe manner while driving.  My phone synchs up via Bluetooth in my Honda but it's still awkward to use while driving as the controls on the steering wheel are not intuitive (perhaps with use they would be but I don't get many calls on my mobile).  Because cellular phones have a time signature if they are in use, the police 'should' be able to identify a driver involved in an accident as in violation of the law.

[Alan Klein]

It will. Everything new is overused initially. Just remember the atrocities of the early shadow-recovery use in Photoshop. Quite a useful tool today, and mostly used in moderation, without even noticing its use

Well alcohol's been around a long time.  Doesn't seem to be getting better.

"According to NHTSA 10,497 people died in alcohol-impaired crashes in 2016, up 1.7 percent from 10,320 in 2015. In 2016 alcohol-impaired crash fatalities accounted for 28 percent of all crash fatalities.."

[Alan Klein]

Phil, we have similar restrictions in the US but these are done at the state and not the national level.  there are large penalties associated with wrongful use but I still see lots of people using their phones in an unsafe manner while driving.  My phone synchs up via Bluetooth in my Honda but it's still awkward to use while driving as the controls on the steering wheel are not intuitive (perhaps with use they would be but I don't get many calls on my mobile).  Because cellular phones have a time signature if they are in use, the police 'should' be able to identify a driver involved in an accident as in violation of the law.

I got stopped by a NJ policeman locally where I live.  He cautioned me that I wasn't suppose to use my cell phone.  When I told him I was using it for navigation, which I was, and not for messaging or phone calls, he said that doesn't matter.  He let me go without a ticket.  Maybe because my wife was with me.  Nice guy. 

In any case, my car doesn't have Apple Play or Android Auto.    The new Acura RDX 2019 that we're think of getting only has Apple Play.  Acura says they're going to add Android in a software upgrade to be done at the dealers.  But who really trusts them to spend tens of thousands on a car with the hope they're going to keep their word?   Also, when?  Would I be safer and less distracted going back to paper maps that I kept on my lap to use before Google Maps and Garmin Auto-Navigation equipment?  In any case, is messaging any less distracting using Apple Play on the dashboard? There's so much stuff going on today with the technology.  It's like being a fighter pilot in a cockpit.  My friend never opened up the 800 page car manual.  He never uses the on-board navigation system. He told me he follows the instructions from his wife. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

In any case, my car doesn't have Apple Play or Android Auto.    The new Acura RDX 2019 that we're think of getting only has Apple Play.  Acura says they're going to add Android in a software upgrade to be done at the dealers.  But who really trusts them to spend tens of thousands on a car with the hope they're going to keep their word?   Also, when?  Would I be safer and less distracted going back to paper maps that I kept on my lap to use before Google Maps and Garmin Auto-Navigation equipment?  In any case, is messaging any less distracting using Apple Play on the dashboard? There's so much stuff going on today with the technology.  It's like being a fighter pilot in a cockpit.  My friend never opened up the 800 page car manual.  He never uses the on-board navigation system. He told me he follows the instructions from his wife. 

I'm pretty sure that it has Bluetooth as all Honda cars (Acura is a Honda brand) do these days.  It's also likely that it has controls on the steering wheel to answer your phone if you get a call (my 2017 Honda has this).  You can use Google maps to provide vocal navigation and really not have to look at the phone.  You can also get adapters to mount the phone on the console so you could see it if need be.  I don't know what other features you might need.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In 2016 alcohol-impaired crash fatalities accounted for 28 percent of all crash fatalities.."[/size]

OMG! That means that sober drivers are 3-4 times more dangerous than the drunk ones! 

[RSL]

I knew that all along.

[MattBurt]

I have a couple of older cars, a 2004 Forester and a 2007 Tacoma, neither of which came with Bluetooth or even a line in (which was annoying for an early tech adopter like me) back then. I added line-in capability myself through third party devices that trick the head unit into thinking they are a CD changer (remember those?).
Recently, I just replaced the head units in both vehicles with new Pioneer units that only have line in, Bluetooth, and USB connectivity and no CD player.
They work and sound great but can be fiddly if you aren't used to the interface yet. Now that I'm used to them it's a great system that I know my way around and I can even talk them to via Google Assistant to change the music, take a call, navigate, or whatever.   

[Alan Klein]

OMG! That means that sober drivers are 3-4 times more dangerous than the drunk ones! 

OMG you're right.  We should give them all sobriety tests and they fail if they blood-alcohol content is below 0.09!