Legal pot on the horizon in the USA?

[Hans Jaeger]

This subject has been kicked around a few times in this forum...

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/mindelle_jacobs/2009/05/12/9428691-sun.html

[CybrSlydr]

Yeah, I think it's time we legalize pot.

$50 an ounce tax? I dunno about that - but we should make it a little more pricey than tobacco. If you price it too high, they could still get it cheaper from street dealers or, "urban pharmaceutical representatives" and we will have solved nothing.

Not to mention - once we legalize marijuana, we're that much closer to legalizing hemp and realizing the huge benefits of that plant.

However - I do feel that employers should be allowed to test for pot on potential employees. Showing up high is just as bad as showing up drunk - you stink, you're less effective and more prone to causing accidents.

[Blue Devil]

Yeah, I think it's time we legalize pot.

Absolutely...


$50 an ounce tax? I dunno about that - but we should make it a little more pricey than tobacco. If you price it too high, they could still get it cheaper from street dealers or, "urban pharmaceutical representatives" and we will have solved nothing.

On the contrary...

1. No more $75,000 annual incarceration cost for pot-heads.
2. No more pot-head court cost/clog.
3. No more collateral crime/court to fund pot-heads.
4. Higher price will help dissuade casual use by minors (and cause the adults to stash it better).
5. UPR's are generally the goblins anyway, ...and dealing will be a Federal offense like boot-legging, ...so it should help keep the neighborhoods safer.
6. Tax revenues could be used for drug prevention education. (but will probably go to ACORN and the socialist political machine anyway)


Not to mention - once we legalize marijuana, we're that much closer to legalizing hemp and realizing the huge benefits of that plant.

You bet.


However - I do feel that employers should be allowed to test for pot on potential employees. Showing up high is just as bad as showing up drunk - you stink, you're less effective and more prone to causing accidents.

Alcohol or pot in the work-place should be grounds for dismissal, ...it is on my jobs.


Alcohol or pot DUI should be a capital offense, ...works in India.

It would keep the roads/highways safer, ...and clean out the gene-pool of at the same time.(a little Darwin now and then, ...is a good thing)

[CybrSlydr]

Good points, BD. Thanks for contributing. :)

However - if we tax it a lot more than tobacco, we're still leaving the UPRs an angle - "Hey man, mine's only $35/oz instead of $55/oz!"

They're already skirting the law dealing - nothing would change for them.

I think a $25/oz tax would be enough. Besides - we don't even know how much they'd charge after costs of production! :)

Perhaps make it a percentage tax rather than a flat number? 200% tax? Costs $10 to make an ounce so there's a $20 tax?

Besides - we can institute a minimum age of 21 and card like with tobacco/alcohol sales - it's not a catch-all, but it's something.

However - I think it's important to realize that with the legalization of pot, for a year or so there would be a huge influx of use and abuses. The instances of use and abuse will be highly inflated for the first year or so. After the novelty of freely available legal pot wears off, I think it will subside and we can start to take a look at how things have gone.

[Hans Jaeger]

Yes, good points, gentlemen.

I noted in the column that the percent approval in polls seems to be consistently in favour, and even in a poll for a conservative source the level was above 50%.

The money and resources used for chasing pot users and incarcerating them could very likely be used for better purposes (hopefully not for other issues with fine political optics but little impact). Not to mention tax revenues and hemp crops for biomass (one of the best plants for this purpose, apparently).

[Toastmaker]

You know that I have honked frequently in favor of legalization. I hope to see this happen in my lifetime, not to become a user, but to see society/government do something logical and intelligent for a ****ing change.

[Skarbo]

You've change your attitude quite a bit about this subject Cybr :thumbs up:



However - I do feel that employers should be allowed to test for pot on potential employees. Showing up high is just as bad as showing up drunk - you stink, you're less effective and more prone to causing accidents.
Yep, I agree here ....but not the current urine test used, but a computer impairment test.....these tests are 99.9% accurate and test impairment(after testing shows what drug) NOT past use...in marijuana's case this can be months!


However - I think it's important to realize that with the legalization of pot, for a year or so there would be a huge influx of use and abuses.
I really don't think this will be a bad as some people predict.
When the Netherlands redid their laws ,adult use went( IF I remember right ) up from 12% up to around 20%.....juvenile use went DOWN to 5%! :wow:



Alcohol or pot DUI should be a capital offense, ...works in India.

It would keep the roads/highways safer, ...and clean out the gene-pool of at the same time.(a little Darwin now and then, ...is a good thing)
Don't agree with ya on this one Devil
MAYBE if they killed someone........
Just for the act?......No....

[Uncleal]

Whoa man, like I got the munchies, so I robbed the 7 -11 at Gunpoint

That clerk was moving in slo-motion, sooo I shot him

In NYC they plead those down to Indecent Exposure

And You want to legalize what ?

[Blue Devil]

Don't agree with ya on this one Devil
MAYBE if they killed someone........
Just for the act?......No....

Why wait...?

It ran the DUI vehicular homicide in India to, ....0.00.

It is at least attempted murder, ...as they knowingly get behind the wheel.

If you could guarantee that they would run over or smash into their own kids or parents, ...that would be an acceptable killing before you cook'em, ...but of course you can't...

...so ****'em.

Better them than my kids...

Cook one or two of the little pricks, ...and that would do it.

Not too many of them would climb into an alligator pit for a "Slim-Jim", ...and they aught to feel the same way about climbing behind the wheel of a vehicle when they have the munchies as well.

...but that's just me, ...and India...

[kurt190]

Here's a link that discusses some research from the UK re. DUI with pot.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4270

It seems shooting people might be a bit premature.
Also blood testing? Are you mad - they start testing for that sort of thing and before you know it you'll be genetically profiled into your next government sponsored job........ Give them an inch they'll take a mile. Some sort of testing might be appropriate in some areas (nuclear sites??) but on the whole does it matter if you smoked a bit of pot the night before you go to work next morning.

kurt

[bzhyoyo]

I know I did, and I suppose my pupils didn't even notice. If I smoked 2 reefers a day for a prolonged period of time, then I suppose they would.
I have been a regular user for the past six months (once a day - breaking up with your girlfriend makes you do this sort of things) but I stopped it two weeks ago. BTW, Uncleal, I didn't feel the urge to kill anybody, kinda of strange, isn't it?

[kurt190]

Why wait...?

It ran the DUI vehicular homicide in India to, ....0.00.

It is at least attempted murder, ...as they knowingly get behind the wheel.

If you could guarantee that they would run over or smash into their own kids or parents, ...that would be an acceptable killing before you cook'em, ...but of course you can't...

...so ****'em.

Better them than my kids...

Cook one or two of the little pricks, ...and that would do it.

Not too many of them would climb into an alligator pit for a "Slim-Jim", ...and they aught to feel the same way about climbing behind the wheel of a vehicle when they have the munchies as well.

...but that's just me, ...and India...

Where do you get the DUI death sentence in India from?

kurt

[Blue Devil]

Where do you get the DUI death sentence in India from?

Old legislation...

...The colonials had a habit of going to parties, ...having a few, ...and then running over the local citizenry on the way home. (with no consequence)

When India gained its independence in '47, ...one of the first laws enacted was a capital DUI law.

Worked perfect, ...but was later repealed when Indians themselves began drinking and driving.

[Hans Jaeger]

Worked perfect, ...but was later repealed when Indians themselves began drinking and driving.

So it no longer exists.

Doesn't the USA already have a vehicular homicide law with appropriate jail terms?

Seems drastic to impose the death penalty simply for being over point-zero-eight. Sounds like China.

[Skarbo]

This from wikipedia....

"This is according to section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. On first offense, the punishment is imprisonment of 6 months and/or fine of 2000 Indian Rupees (INR). If the second offense is committed within three years, the punishment is 2 years and/or fine of 3000 Indian Rupees (INR). The clause of 30 mg/dL was added by an amendment in 1994. It came into effect beginning 14 November 1994."

They have a 0.03 level......

While I'm not totally against capital punishment, I am totally against about using it for anything but murder.......But this is a topic for separate discussion.....

[MaskRider]

Doesn't the USA already have a vehicular homicide law with appropriate jail terms?

Here in California under certain conditions killing someone while driving drunk will get you a 2nd degree murder charge. The litmus tests is "implied malice" and/or "conscious disregard for human life". Prior convictions, particularly where the defendant pleads guilty, are usually enough to trip the wire. A "no contest" or "guilty" plea by a DUI defendant requires an admission that the defendant "knew the dangers of drunk-driving, but chose to get behind the wheel anyway". This admission can then be used in future proceedings to prove "implied malice" and/or "conscious disregard for human life".

Different states have different laws, though.

[Blue Devil]

Well...

To keep it simple, ...and to respect the Constitution and the 10th Amendment...

...Let each State put on it the penalty commensurate with the crimes of:

1. Loading one(1) round into a six(6) shot revolver, ...walking down the sidewalk, ...spinning the cylinder, ...pointing it at random people's heads, ...and pulling the trigger.

2. Having said revolver discharge during the act described above.


It's "Russian Roulette"...


The ****ing government gives me a ticket for not wearing my seat-belt, ...because I could kill me...

...And a ticket to someone driving drunk (or stoned), ...because they could kill me or my kids.


Should they give a ticket to the Roulette clown...?

[Hans Jaeger]

There are many stupid things people can do to endanger you... should there be a death penalty for them all?

It sounds like you want to take some of the risks out of life by executing the people who might cause harm.

Execute someone who drives above point-zero-eight because they might have killed somebody? I don't think so.

[Blue Devil]

It sounds like you want to take some of the risks out of life by executing the people who might cause harm.

Execute someone who drives above point-zero-eight because they might have killed somebody? I don't think so.


You bet your ass.

~17,000 people a year in the U.S. lose that bet, ...and their lives.


Sure...

But if its my risk, ...and the risk of my wife and kids, ...or some kid in a cross-walk, ...why not have it be their risk too...?

They might cause harm, ...they might not.

They might get stopped, ...they might not.


It's their problem, ...let them take the big risk.

Because as soon as they have to, ...guess what, ...it's ****ing America again, ...and people are again personally responsible for their actions. (and the consequences)

And then do you know what happens...?

They don't drive drunk.

Not because there is a law against it, ...but because there is a very real chance that doing so will get them killed.

And that's the way it should be.

Nature's learning curve, ...pain and discomfort. (and sometimes the curve is steep)


I risk my life every day, ...I don't need some dip-**** risking it for me, ...at MY expense.

[Hans Jaeger]

You bet your ass.

Well going by your philosophy, speeders or sloppy lane-changers on the freeway should be executed too. Why not. They pose as much or more risk to you as a guy who's had two beers.

[Blue Devil]

Well going by your philosophy, speeders or sloppy lane-changers on the freeway should be executed too. Why not. They pose as much or more risk to you as a guy who's had two beers.

Drivers doing their best is an acceptable risk, ...it has to be.

A mandatory Bondurant School of High Performance Driving (http://www.bondurant.com/) course would make it good drivers doing their best, ...a very acceptable risk.

However...

Bob Bondurant himself, ...drunk and stoned, ...is an un-acceptable risk.


Reckless driving is a risk, ...but it is instantly correctable, ...and the driver is still at their max ability to control the vehicle.

It's just stupid, ...and jail can fix that.


Speeding...?

Like sex, ...it's not the governments job to tell me how much is too much, ...it's the wife's...

...and I am responsibly for the consequences of both.

[Hans Jaeger]

Drivers doing their best is an acceptable risk, ...it has to be.

Ah, but they're not "doing their best" when they speed or drive badly. And it is within their hands to do better, or to stay off the road.


A mandatory Bondurant School of High Performance Driving (http://www.bondurant.com/) course would make it good drivers doing their best, ...a very acceptable risk.

Well it's not mandatory.


Reckless driving is a risk, ...but it is instantly correctable

No it's not. Not when your car goes out of control, or you get into a head-on, or you force someone off the road. You can crank that wheel and stomp that brake all you like.


Speeding...? Like sex, ...it's not the governments job to tell me how much is too much, ...it's the wife's...

You're avoiding that one... and the government is definitely doing its job by telling you how much is too much... those speed limit signs aren't just a suggestion. But I'm talking about the other guy, not you. His excess speed (say, more than 10 MPH above the LEGAL limit, and entirely within his control, and wilfully ignored --- everybody has a speedometer) is dangerous and poses an unnecessary risk, like driving after two beers. He should be pulled over by the cops, taken down into the ditch and shot.

He's made a bad choice - like the guy with two beers under his belt - and poses an unnecessary risk.

[Blue Devil]

Again Hans, ...you miss the point.

First off...

If they asked me(and they haven't), ...I'd say not two beers, ...but ****-faced drunk.

If you want to have a few beers, ...that's fine with me.

I'm not anal-retentive about it, ...and I didn't sign off on the ridiculous 0.0001% stuff either.

They did it so that people would not have to be responsible for themselves.

Any is too much, ...so sayith the nanny state.

It used to be a beer an hour was OK, ...and you made the call when to stop.

Same with speed (and there are still some States without highway speed-limits), ...tell you about neighborhoods, schools, and dangerous conditions, ...and leave you be.

It's not about shooting people for having a beer, ...and then driving home.

It's about creating the forcing function such that, ...if you get behind the wheel when you're drunk, ...you are putting a gun to your own head...

...so you make the call.

[Hans Jaeger]

Again Hans, ...you miss the point.

No I don't think I did. But anyway...


I'm not anal-retentive about it, ...and I didn't sign off on the ridiculous 0.0001% stuff either.

Well that's good. But I still think the death penalty for drunk driving (legally defined as anything above point-zero-eight) is way over the top.

We won't agree on that, so probably 'nuff said.

[bzhyoyo]

if you get behind the wheel when you're drunk, ...you are putting a gun to your own head...

...so you make the call.

And the poor bugger in which you crashed and who died didn't choose anything. The same goes with speeding. You're not alone on the road.
The same goes for the rest of your individual responsibility argument: it's not about making people feel not responsible for what's happening, it's about creating the conditions so that people can live together. Of course, we can debate about where to put those limits, but leaving it to the individual's free will is completely utopian. Assholes will be assholes, and innocent people get hurt.

[Skarbo]

Same with speed (and there are still some States without highway speed-limits), ...tell you about neighborhoods, schools, and dangerous conditions, ...and leave you be
You know Devil...You should really do some research before you spout....
There is currently no state that does not have a speed limit.....
And ,after putting on over well over 2 MILLION miles on our great American highways,your "speeding is my right and it don't hurt nobody else" argument is just plain BS.
I have personally seen TOO many dead people lying in the road JUST because they were reckless or going WAY to fast....
I personally tried to help one dude who was laying on the highway with his life blood spilling out on the pavement,all because he was "in a hurry,I'm late"....The only good thing was he did not take anybody with him.
So don't give me any of this "it's not dangerous to speed" crap.

[Blue Devil]

You know Devil...You should really do some research before you spout....
There is currently no state that does not have a speed limit.....

True, ...currently there is not. (but that is a change, ...and subject to change again)

Spout correction alert. (I don't get out much...)



...So don't give me any of this "it's not dangerous to speed" crap.

I won't, ...you can feed it to yourself.


Speaking of speed limits, research, and danger...

FATAL ACCIDENTS DOUBLE ON MONTANA’S INTERSTATES (http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm)


By Chad Dornsife, 5/10/2001
National Motorists Association, Waunakee Wisconsin

This is an obvious call to action. Something must be done. We need more laws, more money for enforcement and more citations written - Speed Kills!

Not so fast says a follow up study just completed by National Motorists Association. The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws.

The doubling of fatal accidents occurred after Montana implemented its new safety program; complete with federal funding, artificially low speed limits and full enforcement.

Yes we all want safer highways, but who are the players and whom can we believe? How can fatal accidents double after we put in place our government’s (NHTSA) most revered highway safety strategy? What is going on here? Something doesn’t add up. Is this an anomaly or is it expected?

The NMA has long held that true highway safety can only be achieved by following sound engineering practices, not conjecture, and we wanted to find out what really happened in Montana. In this study we examined the 2 classifications of highway where the effects of no limits and full enforcement could be definitively compared. These Montana findings add weight to 70 plus years of consistent engineering findings to the same effect.

From an engineering perspective the evidence strongly suggests that some of these lives lost were a direct result of Montana’s politicians succumbing to unfounded conjecture. They passed a politically correct law at a time when the state’s fatal accidents were at a modern low and its roads were never safer. Why are they responsible, they simply ignored (US title 23, federal law) federal safety requirements that sound engineering standards and practices be followed – resulting in non–complying signs being posted, adoption of unsafe practices that are known to increase accident rates, which most certainly includes hazards remaining unmarked or with insufficient warning.

There are four primary contributors to this confusion: In the last 30 years we have institutionalized a billion dollar enforcement industry... a press that transitioned from investigative into a business... the ever ominous politicians looking to get reelected or establishing a legacy... and the ignored traffic safety engineering community who has relentlessly documented cause and effect safety strategies, requires peer review and verification before a standard is adopted as the most effective solution, a group which knows the best policy is one that always encompasses observed human nature.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personifies the traffic enforcement industry, because this industry is its primary constituent. In its role, it first created “Speed Kills”, next was “Road Rage” and then the “Aggressive Driving” slogans and supporting propaganda campaigns to scare the public into growing the enforcement industry (revenues, equipment, staffing). Its press releases as a matter of practice grossly misrepresent data (invent a crisis, then the need to intervene) – engineering findings never support its conclusions. At what cost? Fatality rates in 2000 increased again, sound engineering practices have been undermined, road blocks for checking your papers are now legal and common, vehicle confiscation for minor infractions now accepted practice, mothers are thrown into jail for not wearing seat belts – and a public gladly sacrificing its liberty to false safety idols.

The press (a business hungry for content) regurgitated every piece of propaganda that NHTSA could produce. Nobody can be against traffic safety and here is an agency whose very name says they are our protectors. Consequently the press became a conduit of unverified claims supporting this agency’s self interest. Marketing 101, tell someone for their entire life something is true - it becomes their truth. Except for a small group of traffic engineers and researchers, these manufactured urban myths became the nation’s truth, encompassing its politicians, reporters and citizens.

As for politicians, just ask which way is the wind blowing - sounds good to them. In Montana there was law and order Governor Mark Racicot, standing by the Attorneys General, the Chief of the Highway Patrol and the wishes of the law enforcement community. The state agencies followed the governor’s wishes and testified in support of the new law (when their data didn’t support it) – the norm in today’s world of agency testimony in front of legislative committees.

Now to the silenced engineers and researchers. Federal law (Title 23) says fact–based sound engineering practices are to take precedence over conjecture. The problem, no one is willing to enforce it – including the FHWA. These professionals work for political entities, and at the end of the day they are silenced from practicing their profession because they have families to feed and they need a job.

Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.

1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.

...Continued on next post...

[Blue Devil]

All the important observations made in original research paper remain very germane in regards to this doubling of fatal accidents on Montana’s highways. (February 2000, Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox) The following excerpts tell the story.

“Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatal accidents rates is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community. “

For years, motorists’ advocates have used engineering-based facts against artificially low speed limits. They have claimed that by raising speed limits to reasonable levels, accident and fatality rates will actually be reduced. This seemingly wild assertion has been documented by the traffic engineering profession for 50 plus years. This fact–based position has again been proven to be true by the repeal of the National Speed Limit. The nation has recorded the lowest highway fatality rate since such records have been kept.

What about the extreme of No Speed Limits on 4 lane Interstate and rural federal–aid primary two lane highways? These same fact–based engineers point to the German Autobahn, where with no speed limits, authorities are consistently reporting lower fatality rates than comparable US highways.

For the last 5 months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional, reported fatal accident rate declined to a record low. Fixed speed limits were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents have begun to rise again.

This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted – comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?

The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake. It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural by product of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.

The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”

The study on the effects of no daytime speed limits in Montana is clear. Traffic safety, if anything, actually improved without posted limits or massive enforcement efforts. Highway safety wasn't compromised nor can the lowest fatality rates recorded in modern times be ignored. Something happened, it was positive, and it needs further research to analyze what worked and why.

This doubling of the fatal accidents in Montana is a real life example to the potential catastrophic consequences of passing politically correct laws. Safety can only be achieved when sound engineering practices are allowed to overrule unfounded political conjecture. The sooner we as nation follow these precepts as adopted in the Highway Safety Act of 1966, our roads will be as safe as they reasonably can be while protecting your rights too.


One of my neighbors when I was growing up owned an ambulance service back in the '70's.

His three sons (and that kid next door) did all the driving.


I have forgotten more highway carnage stories (heard or witnessed) than you and most of your friends put together have probably ever seen.

[Willy]

No one has the right to break the law. Anyone who thinks that they do deserves every bit of what they get.

[Blue Devil]

No one has the right to break the law. Anyone who thinks that they do deserves every bit of what they get.

Agreed.

I never said that I did.

I said it wasn't the government's job. (show me where it is in the Constitution...)

[Skarbo]

Well Devil that was a semi-interesting article, but using Montana as an example is stretching it a bit seeing as their total population is under 1 million,There are more cars than that on the road in most major US cities during rush hour,so forgive me if I don't agree....



I have forgotten more highway carnage stories (heard or witnessed) than you and most of your friends put together have probably ever seen.

OK......again,I was on the road for 24 years,2.6 million miles total (I actually looked through my records;) )
How much carnage have You actually witnessed?..not heard of...

[CybrSlydr]

Just remember guys, when you start measuring dicks, it's still only a couple inches. ;)

[AckAck]

You could at least say "several inches" and make us feel better.

Brian

[Snuffy]

Just remember guys, when you start measuring dicks, it's still only a couple inches. ;)


You could at least say "several inches" and make us feel better.

Brian

C'mon AckAck ... Cyber can only go on what he's got ... not what the rest of us have!! :prop:

[CybrSlydr]

lmfao! :D

[Blue Devil]

How much carnage have You actually witnessed?..not heard of...

This thread has been high-jacked into a boy-scout referendum on the evils of speeding...

...Merit badges all around.

I did not offer or expand on road carnage because it would have been inappropriate, inductive, ...and irrelevant.

My experience while driving both ambulances and trucks along the west coast for over four years is that drug and alcohol abuse is far in excess of speed when highway carnage is the issue.



Open a thread called "Carnage I've seen along the highway", ...and I'll contribute.

[Hans Jaeger]

This thread has been high-jacked into a boy-scout referendum on the evils of speeding...

Threads go where they will go.

The original issue with speeding (and generally risky driving) was that with the increased risk it poses to other drivers, it should technically be viewed with the same eye as impairment as far as punishment goes. Both are judgement calls, avoidable by personal choice.


My experience while driving both ambulances and trucks along the west coast for over four years is that drug and alcohol abuse is far in excess of speed when highway carnage is the issue.

Not to denigrate your experience, but you have no way of knowing, by your personal experience, what the comparison is. You would need statistics for that.

[Skarbo]

This thread has been high-jacked into a boy-scout referendum on the evils of speeding...

...Merit badges all around..
Well you started it .......:p.....I agree with Hans...It goes where it goes



My experience while driving both ambulances and trucks along the west coast for over four years is that drug and alcohol abuse is far in excess of speed when highway carnage is the issue..

I just disagree thats all..... -just in my personal experience (thanks for reminding me Hans) I still have you beat year wise :D




Open a thread called "Carnage I've seen along the highway", ...and I'll contribute.
Well maybe I will......we can compare stories perhaps......:cool:

But just not right now.....My#1 daughter is getting married tomorrow so I'll be a BIT busy for awhile ( I HATE them monkey suits )

[Hans Jaeger]

But just not right now.....My#1 daughter is getting married tomorrow so I'll be a BIT busy for awhile ( I HATE them monkey suits )

Hey, congratulations, Skarbo! That's a big milestone. I hope she's got a good guy and that the sun smiles on your (her!) day.

[Skarbo]

Thanks for the wishes Hans....

Yep..He's a real decent fellow....I get along with him a lot better than son-in-law #1 ;) .....
He hunts,fishes,AND has an 4 wheel ATV that I get to use anytime I want......


Life is good :beach3:

[CybrSlydr]

Wait a minute - I'm not getting married tomorrow. :( ;)

Congrats to you and her, Skarbo! :D

[Hans Jaeger]

He hunts,fishes,AND has an 4 wheel ATV that I get to use anytime I want......


Sounds like he's off to a really great start with the father-in-law!

You'll be reading this "after the fact" - I hope your day went really well. I checked the weather for La Crosse (somwhere close to you, I think) - looks cool and breezy but mainly sunny - might have been a decently nice day, weather-wise.

It's the spring opening of our walleye/pike season here today, but it's cool, rainy and very windy. It's too rough on our big lake for anybody to be out there. Doesn't look good til Monday. You guys down in the States have been sending us some really crappy weather. :(

[USCG76]

Sounds like he's off to a really great start with the father-in-law!

You'll be reading this "after the fact" - I hope your day went really well. I checked the weather for La Crosse (somwhere close to you, I think) - looks cool and breezy but mainly sunny - might have been a decently nice day, weather-wise.

It's the spring opening of our walleye/pike season here today, but it's cool, rainy and very windy. It's too rough on our big lake for anybody to be out there. Doesn't look good til Monday. You guys down in the States have been sending us some really crappy weather. :(

La Crosse??? Is that Wisconsin. If it is thats one the best areas in WI.

[Skarbo]

Well Hans...It WAS windy and cool..but sunny, a great time was had by all ,especially me! :D since this is my last one I decided to let it all hang out....
It has been another cool spring this year but summer is just about here....Besides, I thought all that cool stuff came from the great white north:p


La Crosse??? Is that Wisconsin. If it is thats one the best areas in WI.
Yes sir....Born and raised.....and your right :thumbs up:
I live about a 1/2 mile from the muddy mississippi....;)