Irony & Darwin Award

[milesmiles]

There is a great documentary about this topic, called "Bigger, Stronger, Faster". I you haven't seen it, you should rent and watch it tonight!

[dufremle]

Seatbelt laws came about because insurance companies realized they were losing too much in profits because of auto accidents. It had nothing to do with 'safety', although that was an outcome they could push with. The federal and state governments didn't care about seat belt laws until the insurance companies suggested that they could give out tickets and levy fines (revenue). Then the governments started pushing for them also. Now we have $200 fines for not wearing your seatbelt.

Drugs will never be legal. Mainly because the federal government is the biggest importer of illegal drugs. They aren't going to give up that much money. They put most small time dealers and users in jail to make it look like they are doing something to try to stop it, but it is just a smokescreen but the general public buys it. Unitl the current people in power are removed nothing will change.

I wear my seatbelt mainly because I know how aggressively I drive, and I realized shortly after I received my license that I was going to kill myself if I didn't start wearing one. I wear a helmet on the sportbike because of how aggressively I ride. I do not wear one on a cruiser because I like the freedom of being in the open. I also do not go as fast as I can or ride aggressively on a cruiser. I have always worn eye protection because I do not want to go blind because of a rock or bug. Those are all personal preferences and I shouldn't be forced to do any of them.

[DarcShadow]

It's not the speed that kills you, it's the sudden impact on the ground. Both of my accidents I was going the speed limit (45 and 35). Had I not had my lid on for the first one I would not be here today. The second one, I got lucky and didnt' actually hit my head but that's just because of the way I fell/landed, flat on my back, head tucked to my chest.

I loved riding around Purdue's campus with no lid on, but never again, anything over 15mph I put it on.

Also, I would never wear anything other then a full face. The full face saved my face, had I hald a half or 3/4 lid, I would of broke my jaw, really screwed up my nose and probably scrubbed off most of my skin. Even with the full face I still managed to break my nose and fracture my orbital socket.

[milesmiles]

I agree that someone shouldn't be made to wear their helmet/seatbelt and that it should be a personal choice. On that note i hope all of you do all the time. It's just not worth hurting your friends and family so you can feel a bit more comfortable.

[DemonDuck]

I would not really be opposed to making pot legal. As long is the law was specific about it and it was just pot as that is not any more dangerous than many other things that are legal right now....from what I am told and everyone seems to agree to it. Its the other stuff that I wouldnt want to see legal.

[Striple]

As long is the law was specific about it and it was just pot as that is not any more dangerous than many other things that are legal right now....from what I am told and everyone seems to agree to it. Its the other stuff that I wouldnt want to see legal.

Well, that and crack. I just hate to see our good friend Miles forced to brake the law, just because of that habit. Miles is a good guy - legalize crack!

[Firewa11]

Miles is a good guy - legalize crack!

[milesmiles]

Y'all are crazy

[2track]

I just wanted to say that you all are great Americans ! & its nice to be a part of a group that believes in freedom. I believe that the Fathers & Mothers are the front line of defense for are children. And that should of never been put in our governments hands. It is difficult to reverse things, so we are in kind of in a pickle. It ultimately relies on who we put in office & what there objectives are.
I do sympathize with what you are saying DD ,but ultimately freedom is the best choice for our descendants.

[DemonDuck]

Freedom is a good thing but the problem is when there is no consequence to your action then what is there to stop you from doing whatever it may be. If there was no law saying I had to keep my speed under 70 then I would without a doubt be on the road hitting 190's or 200's in the straights and as fast as I could on the corners. I know it isnt safe but I will tell you right now I would do it and im not a kid. I do not believe the gov should be involved in every aspect. If you choose not to wear a helmet or wear your seatbelt then the people you hurt will be minimal and that is only if you hit the slight chance it will hurt anyone but yourself. The gov should be more conserned with the masses than the individual for laws and such. If they where to legalize drugs and you support it would you be ok with a meth lab being next door to you? After all it is legal. There is no simple answer to be honest and I can see the point that many have made. Would it help the nation get out of debt... yes. Would it save more than it would hurt ... wont be able to tell. Can they tax it like tabacco?... sure. Would it put your current drug dealers out of business?... no they would just sell it for cheaper because they didnt have to pay taxes on it. I can tell you this. If they where to legalize drugs in general in the US I would move to Germany or something. I can raise my child not to take drugs and many other things but that does nothing for what someone else teaches there children. Tobacco is illegal for a minor yet lots of minors use it. Many of them get it from there parents. Many of them even when I was in school would sneak out to smoke. Do you think for a second that drugs wouldnt be the same way. How many children would be shooting up schools or beating the living crap out of classmates if they where high? Where do you draw the line?

[Striple]

I hear ya, DD, and I think we're mostly in agreement. The only other point that I think needs to be made is that there is a significant and important difference between legality and morality. Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean that it is automatically immoral. For instance, local speed limits are typically set based on some very general criteria, such as the type of road involved, the nature of the neighborhood, and obviously the appropriate regional laws. What this means is that just because the speed limit is xy, it does not necessarily make it immoral to exceed that limit. It could be immoral, depending on the set of circumstances involved, like the amount of traffic, road conditions, weather conditions, vehicle conditions, etc., but it could also be immoral to go slower than the set speed limit. Many roads never receive the in-depth traffic surveys that would be necessary to produce a speed limit that could generally be considered to be 'safe' (the definition of which in itself being highly subjective), but instead are simply categorized using broad distinctions. In other words, it could be perfectly moral for you to drive 140 mph on the highway, given a particular set of circumstances (Indian Bridge would be one example).

The reason why I bring this up is to illustrate why I think drugs should be legalized. I don't have any problems with an adult making the decision to use drugs, regardless of whether it is destructive to many aspects of his or her life. It is a personal choice, and shouldn't involve the government any more than other aspects of our lives. Of course, the second that it results in directly affecting third parties, it becomes both immoral and illegal, and those people should be punished accordingly. This also means that I think it is not anymore unethical to run a meth lab than it is to run a legal pharmaceutical lab, as long as the operation is run safely (which of course illegal labs are typically not, since they operate outside of regulations). Now, I wouldn't want to live next door to a meth lab or dealer any more than I would like to live next door to a shady legal drugstore or lab. I also wouldn't want to live next door to a liquor store, but not because I think that selling potentially destructive drugs is immoral.

My point is that I agree completely that we should teach our kids to avoid immoral and potentially destructive behavior and people, but I feel very critical about the role that the government should play in making that distinction between immorality and illegality. Ultimately, most things can be destructive or harmful, it is just a matter of the doses involved. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, fats, processed sugars, and many other things in life that we tend to readily consume are obviously potentially quite dangerous, yet they are legal. So where do we draw the line? I find it very difficult to argue that alcohol should be any more legal or illegal than, say, cocaine. Sounds crazy? It shouldn't, because if you look at the medical evidence and statistics, then it becomes quite difficult to argue that one of the two should be legal, while the other one should be illegal. Like I said, I think we're mostly in agreement about the ethical aspects, we just have different views on how to best approach the legality aspect.

[Grinner]

I say theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Works damn fine in mother nature!

[Striple]

I say theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Works damn fine in mother nature!

Social darwinism! Nice. Hasn't been very popular since the end of nazism though.

[DemonDuck]

Now that I can agree with. Then if someone does give my kid drugs... reguardless if my kid asked for it I dont go to jail for killing them. We all win!

[DemonDuck]

Look I have some hard views on some things I know. Lets just say that I can give you specifics on people I know. Even with drugs illegal right now I know someone that has been hooked on drugs since she was 8 years old. Do you think for one second that at 8 years old she went looking for drugs? No not at all. Her dad was a drug addict and he started her when she was 10 and they would sit together and get high... not long till dad starts to do things with her other than drugs as well (I am trying to keep this from being to graphic but still graphic enough to tell the story). In the end she has lots of kids and is still an addict so to support her habbit she sells her body for drugs (not a problem in my eyes as I really dont care about that part because it is just her). Then she is going to get drugs with her kids with her... not long and one of the drug dealers dont want her he wants to do stuff with her kids.... she dont care as long as she can get high. The chain continues and this is while it is all illegal. If drugs where legal how many more households would be this way? I have other stories and if you want to know any more about it ask me at a bikenight. I have no problem going over lots of this stuff. I like a good debate but I tell you this. If you show me an area that is riddled with drugs I will show you an area riddled with crime. Believe me I am not without fault and im surely not the most moral person in the world or even in this conversation I am sure. All I am saying is that there are many other areas we need to get the government out of before we even talk about drugs being legalized. We would be back in the black if the government would stop all the welfare, foodstamp, and things of that type. These are things that are not the responsibility of the government in my opinion. Go to your local church or whatever non profit orginization and get them to feed you and house you and help you back on your feet... ok im not trying to take this a whole new direction sry. By the way if yall get tired of my ranting just let me know and I will stop... lol

[Blizzard_1708]

if someone gets tired of your ranting, they can just stop reading!

[DemonDuck]

Good point bliz ... didnt think of it that way.