Weed is such a harmless little bullshit drug to be so ridiculously over-the-top hyper criminalized in some countries like bruh.
Weed is gonna ruin your life because if you have it on your person imma sens you to prison for 30 fucking years and ruin your life.
It does not. Make. Sense.
Removed by mod
•And hippies •And folks against the war •And a way to fill for-profit prisons •And a way to control where/how people live •And a way to make cotton plantations make more •And a way to prohibit something since alcohol bans didn’t work out
It’s not really because of weed itself, a lot of countries in East Asia have very strict drug laws. Historically it ties into the boxer rebellion and the way the West used opium to control China.
Yuuup. Had the opportunity to move to Singapore about a decade ago… NOPE. Great place to visit. Amazing people and food. No weed. Don’t even think about it.
The only issue I have with weed, and most other drugs, is that you can’t easily test for them in a person’s system, meaning that you can’t know if someone’s driving under the influence. This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if not for the fact that we have have such a car centric society. I don’t like people endangering other people just for a buzz.
If you can’t tell what problems is it causing? What about the elderly, just because they’re not actively impairing themselves further it makes it alright that they are more impaired than a normal driver?
Elderly people shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
Imagine being so car brained that you base personal freedom around it
I don’t think this is “car brained”. They’re not saying anything around public transit, just that we need to have a test for DWI and weed. People shouldn’t be jailed for 30 years regardless of the presence of the test or not, but we do still need some other test. Otherwise I guarantee that “don’t drive while baked” will be the next infomercial you see in a few years.
Missing the point a bit, we shouldn’t base legalization around if people are going to drive their cars on a substance.
100% agreed. Like I said I think it should be legal regardless, the punishments are way too severe for what it is. But on a completely different note, we do still need the tests. I love drinking and I love smoking, but there are rules of the road, and one of those is “don’t drive the death machine with impaired judgement”.
But yes you’re right, the legality shouldn’t be based on if “but what if they drive”. I’m more saying “if you do some life-disregarding level ignorant” shit you’re still getting in trouble.
I honestly … for calling me “car brained”. That insult hurt me more than any other I’ve received. I want to protect pedestrians and cyclists from people driving cars under the influence. I want to limit driving people’s freedom to make life better for everyone.
That’s honestly a very odd reaction, for what it’s worth I meant it lightheartedly.
Of course I think pedestrians and cyclists also deserve safety.
I would like to point out however that a majority of incidents are drunk drivers who do not already have a device like that in their car, so it’s a tad bit absurd to indicate your hard line for legalization is that when it would only apply after the fact anyway.
Sorry, that was too rude, I just got really upset… It’s odd, I’ve never really gotten angry at internet comments until now.
I just wanted to point out my single issue with weed, which is more an issue with car centric infrastructure.
Sorry for making you angry!
Yeah, it’s hard, it’s not like you’re wrong that driving while baked is more dangerous then sober, but to your point I think the way our infrastructure is built where pedestrians are an afterthought if thought about at all, definitely contributes to make it even more dangerous.
I wish we had more walkable/bike-friendly locations, it’s just not super likely given how large the US is
Nothing you said was rude. In fact everything you said was correct on all counts. I think the other person was just joking
I edited my comment. I said that I despised them and said “fuck you”. Not that bad, but I changed it to be a little less abrasive.
You can easily test if they’re in someone’s system with a saliva test, so your argument doesn’t make any sense.
Can you hook a saliva test to a car’s ignition system to only allow sober people to start the car?
No, but not every car has a breathalyzer. Only repeat offenders get one of those. So the point still stands imo. Maybe someday the saliva test can be hooked up to the ignition.
The best way to eliminate this risk is public transit.
Yes. I want to ban cars too.
They have mouth swabs they use now that can tell for smoking.
Those can’t be used on the road and can’t be integrated into a car’s startup system.
They can be used when pulled over just like a breathylyzer (although this is the law in my state and I’m in USA all places may not have the same rules) but I do see what you are saying about hooking it up to the car like the breath machines.
Man, someone could potentially make a lot of money to be the first ones to roll that out.
More context please.
They were ambassadors for airport customs at Incheon, and in this scene, they were being shown contraband found in passengers’ luggage.
Yo! Welcome back!
