CDZ Illegal things that should be legal

[oldsoul]

Hey ! did someone get from me saying everyone is allowed to do something to themselfs (drug use) to you can have a gun and kill someone ?

don t you see the diffrence ?

1. someone does something to themselfs (drugs)
2. someone does something to others (guns)
do you think geting high is the same as killing someone ?

I seriously doubt any sane person would equate the two. I have been proven wrong before though...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Aren't these already legal? I know they must be in D.C. and Maryland because I've never faced any challenge getting a scrip for them filled. Maybe, however, you and I are thinking of two different things???

This again may be an instance where you and I have different things in mind? I know I saw someone driving on I-495 with one a few weeks back. Perhaps they were in violation of the law???

Yes, we are talking about different things. I'm referring to OTC antibiotics, such as what I am told one can obtain in places like Finland. Oddly enough, in Finland it is illegal to purchase Cloreseptic (sp.?) spray (you know, the stuff for sore throats).

As for the 3-wheelers I'm referring to things like this:
View attachment 86098

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

I see the aesthetic difference and the difference between the orientation of the wheels. Otherwise, they are, as far as I'm concerned, both three wheelers. FWIW, the three wheeler I saw recently on I-495 is of the same general ilk as the one pictured above.

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

Um... Yes, the one you pictured is much wider, and designed for highway use. The ones I am referring to are smaller, designed for one rider, and off-road use. The manufacture of the ones I'm referring to has been banned for quite some time. Also, as I understand it, if a licensed dealer of motor vehicles (on road or off) obtains one, it must be destroyed. Why is that? Supposedly because they are too "unsafe" and "unstable". Now, as one who has actually ridden one of these, I can attest to their inherent instability. However, using the same logic, one would assume that two-wheelers (AKA motorcycles) should also be banned, and yet, they are not.

I disagree completely, three wheelers (like we traditionally think of) are WAY more dangerous than motorcycles.

As someone who has some, albeit limited, experience with both, I can tell you it is far easier to loose control of a motorcycle that it is a 3-wheeler. Unless, of course, one is using it in a way it was not intended (i.e. high speed turns).

My, also limited, experience has felt different.

I never feel out of control on my four wheelers

 

[320 Years of History]

Low-dose Antibiotics

Aren't these already legal? I know they must be in D.C. and Maryland because I've never faced any challenge getting a scrip for them filled. Maybe, however, you and I are thinking of two different things???

3-Wheelers

This again may be an instance where you and I have different things in mind? I know I saw someone driving on I-495 with one a few weeks back. Perhaps they were in violation of the law???

Yes, we are talking about different things. I'm referring to OTC antibiotics, such as what I am told one can obtain in places like Finland. Oddly enough, in Finland it is illegal to purchase Cloreseptic (sp.?) spray (you know, the stuff for sore throats).

As for the 3-wheelers I'm referring to things like this:
View attachment 86098

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

I see the aesthetic difference and the difference between the orientation of the wheels. Otherwise, they are, as far as I'm concerned, both three wheelers. FWIW, the three wheeler I saw recently on I-495 is of the same general ilk as the one pictured above.

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

Um... Yes, the one you pictured is much wider, and designed for highway use. The ones I am referring to are smaller, designed for one rider, and off-road use. The manufacture of the ones I'm referring to has been banned for quite some time. Also, as I understand it, if a licensed dealer of motor vehicles (on road or off) obtains one, it must be destroyed. Why is that? Supposedly because they are too "unsafe" and "unstable". Now, as one who has actually ridden one of these, I can attest to their inherent instability. However, using the same logic, one would assume that two-wheelers (AKA motorcycles) should also be banned, and yet, they are not.

TY for the reply. I understand now what you were getting at. Seems like an absurd prohibition to me as well.

 

[hauke]

i think its insane that its illegal to use drugs, which only harm the person using them while its legal to have guns which only harm people who don t use them

 

[320 Years of History]

Now, how long do you think it would take for people to seriously re-consider driving themselves home from dinner that includes a drink or two?

Germany, as I understand, has (or had) a two strikes and your out rule with drunk driving. First time, you don't drive for a year, second time you never legally drive again. Result, very low rates of drunk driving.

I understand the line of thought you're on. I don't know how accurate or inaccurate be the conclusions you've theorized. The factor that plays heavily in my mind is that alcohol is a "mind altering substance;" it, among other things, allows one to perceive one is capable of doing things one truly cannot do or do well. Thus, I'm very hard pressed to conclude on whether the hypothesized impact would in fact materialize.

I'd be willing to try the model you've suggested and find out. After all, alcohol use is a nonessential activity and it's a behavior that requires one to exercise responsibility and good judgment before, during and after engaging in it. If a law will increase the frequency and quality of folks using good judgment re: alcohol use, great.

(I noticed you wrote that you haven't confirmed the causal correlation implied by the thinking you noted, so I won't hold you accountable for it being genuinely so, or for your being convinced it is so.)

For the record, I am not endorsing, nor really even advocating such a change to current DUI law. I was merely using it as an example. I fear that the toll in lives, property and injury would be far too great, at least in the short term. I was merely attempting to illustrate my point, which I apparently did effectively enough.

Okay...

 

[oldsoul]

Yes, we are talking about different things. I'm referring to OTC antibiotics, such as what I am told one can obtain in places like Finland. Oddly enough, in Finland it is illegal to purchase Cloreseptic (sp.?) spray (you know, the stuff for sore throats).

As for the 3-wheelers I'm referring to things like this:
View attachment 86098

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

I see the aesthetic difference and the difference between the orientation of the wheels. Otherwise, they are, as far as I'm concerned, both three wheelers. FWIW, the three wheeler I saw recently on I-495 is of the same general ilk as the one pictured above.

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

Um... Yes, the one you pictured is much wider, and designed for highway use. The ones I am referring to are smaller, designed for one rider, and off-road use. The manufacture of the ones I'm referring to has been banned for quite some time. Also, as I understand it, if a licensed dealer of motor vehicles (on road or off) obtains one, it must be destroyed. Why is that? Supposedly because they are too "unsafe" and "unstable". Now, as one who has actually ridden one of these, I can attest to their inherent instability. However, using the same logic, one would assume that two-wheelers (AKA motorcycles) should also be banned, and yet, they are not.

I disagree completely, three wheelers (like we traditionally think of) are WAY more dangerous than motorcycles.

As someone who has some, albeit limited, experience with both, I can tell you it is far easier to loose control of a motorcycle that it is a 3-wheeler. Unless, of course, one is using it in a way it was not intended (i.e. high speed turns).

My, also limited, experience has felt different.

I never feel out of control on my four wheelers

A 4-wheeler, is a much different animal than a 3-wheeler, and is only casually comparable to a motorcycle.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

I see the aesthetic difference and the difference between the orientation of the wheels. Otherwise, they are, as far as I'm concerned, both three wheelers. FWIW, the three wheeler I saw recently on I-495 is of the same general ilk as the one pictured above.

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

Um... Yes, the one you pictured is much wider, and designed for highway use. The ones I am referring to are smaller, designed for one rider, and off-road use. The manufacture of the ones I'm referring to has been banned for quite some time. Also, as I understand it, if a licensed dealer of motor vehicles (on road or off) obtains one, it must be destroyed. Why is that? Supposedly because they are too "unsafe" and "unstable". Now, as one who has actually ridden one of these, I can attest to their inherent instability. However, using the same logic, one would assume that two-wheelers (AKA motorcycles) should also be banned, and yet, they are not.

I disagree completely, three wheelers (like we traditionally think of) are WAY more dangerous than motorcycles.

As someone who has some, albeit limited, experience with both, I can tell you it is far easier to loose control of a motorcycle that it is a 3-wheeler. Unless, of course, one is using it in a way it was not intended (i.e. high speed turns).

My, also limited, experience has felt different.

I never feel out of control on my four wheelers

A 4-wheeler, is a much different animal than a 3-wheeler, and is only casually comparable to a motorcycle.

Agreed. I have a big farm and we use ours to check fences , check on cattle, horses and the like and we just ride them wherever, up the side of a 70 degree incline? No problem. Things I damn sure wouldn't attempt in a motorcycle or a 3 wheeler.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

i think its insane that its illegal to use drugs, which only harm the person using them while its legal to have guns which only harm people who don t use them

I think its insane that you wouldn't consider the collateral damage from someone operating machinery or driving while on drugs.
And then there is the medical expense of overdose and other related illness that comes from using. Who ends up supplementing the cost of these things?

 

[oldsoul]

Now, how long do you think it would take for people to seriously re-consider driving themselves home from dinner that includes a drink or two?

Germany, as I understand, has (or had) a two strikes and your out rule with drunk driving. First time, you don't drive for a year, second time you never legally drive again. Result, very low rates of drunk driving.

I understand the line of thought you're on. I don't know how accurate or inaccurate be the conclusions you've theorized. The factor that plays heavily in my mind is that alcohol is a "mind altering substance;" it, among other things, allows one to perceive one is capable of doing things one truly cannot do or do well. Thus, I'm very hard pressed to conclude on whether the hypothesized impact would in fact materialize.

I'd be willing to try the model you've suggested and find out. After all, alcohol use is a nonessential activity and it's a behavior that requires one to exercise responsibility and good judgment before, during and after engaging in it. If a law will increase the frequency and quality of folks using good judgment re: alcohol use, great.

(I noticed you wrote that you haven't confirmed the causal correlation implied by the thinking you noted, so I won't hold you accountable for it being genuinely so, or for your being convinced it is so.)

For the record, I am not endorsing, nor really even advocating such a change to current DUI law. I was merely using it as an example. I fear that the toll in lives, property and injury would be far too great, at least in the short term. I was merely attempting to illustrate my point, which I apparently did effectively enough.

Okay...

It appeared from your post that there may be some confusion as whether I was in favor of such changes. I wanted to be clear that, while not strictly opposed, I'm not convinced it is a viable option to the current system.

 

[oldsoul]

i think its insane that its illegal to use drugs, which only harm the person using them while its legal to have guns which only harm people who don t use them

I think its insane that you wouldn't consider the collateral damage from someone operating machinery or driving while on drugs.
And then there is the medical expense of overdose and other related illness that comes from using. Who ends up supplementing the cost of these things?

Well, thanks to the ACA we don't really need to worry about the cost of the medical side, right? LOL
As for the machinery and driving, have you looked at my post on the subject? Decriminalizing and enforcing very serious consequences for those who do harm to others? It's post #68 if you have not. It's an idea at least. What we are doing now, simply is not working.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

i think its insane that its illegal to use drugs, which only harm the person using them while its legal to have guns which only harm people who don t use them

I think its insane that you wouldn't consider the collateral damage from someone operating machinery or driving while on drugs.
And then there is the medical expense of overdose and other related illness that comes from using. Who ends up supplementing the cost of these things?

Well, thanks to the ACA we don't really need to worry about the cost of the medical side, right? LOL
As for the machinery and driving, have you looked at my post on the subject? Decriminalizing and enforcing very serious consequences for those who do harm to others? It's post #68 if you have not. It's an idea at least. What we are doing now, simply is not working.

they have been talking about stricter penalties for drunk driving for many years now, MADD pushed for it.
Problem is that those laws are not enforced, many people stand in front of a judge for their 5th otr 6th DUI still hoping to get off.

 

[hauke]

nr 1 . its illegal to use drugs while operating a car (alcohol, any other drugs) i think thats correct, people should never use machinery of any kind druged.

medical costs of drug use :
i think that drug users could be charged more.

and the problem of overdoses is a part off the illegality, drugusers don t know what the drugs quality is, legal drugs would have medical quality , therefore drugusers would know what amount they would use, so overdoses would be only relevant in suicides, if drugs where legal, because accidential overdoses wouldn t happen

 

[320 Years of History]

Aren't these already legal? I know they must be in D.C. and Maryland because I've never faced any challenge getting a scrip for them filled. Maybe, however, you and I are thinking of two different things???

This again may be an instance where you and I have different things in mind? I know I saw someone driving on I-495 with one a few weeks back. Perhaps they were in violation of the law???

Yes, we are talking about different things. I'm referring to OTC antibiotics, such as what I am told one can obtain in places like Finland. Oddly enough, in Finland it is illegal to purchase Cloreseptic (sp.?) spray (you know, the stuff for sore throats).

As for the 3-wheelers I'm referring to things like this:
View attachment 86098

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

I see the aesthetic difference and the difference between the orientation of the wheels. Otherwise, they are, as far as I'm concerned, both three wheelers. FWIW, the three wheeler I saw recently on I-495 is of the same general ilk as the one pictured above.

So do you see a material difference between the three wheel vehicle you pictured and those similar to the one shown below?

Um... Yes, the one you pictured is much wider, and designed for highway use. The ones I am referring to are smaller, designed for one rider, and off-road use. The manufacture of the ones I'm referring to has been banned for quite some time. Also, as I understand it, if a licensed dealer of motor vehicles (on road or off) obtains one, it must be destroyed. Why is that? Supposedly because they are too "unsafe" and "unstable". Now, as one who has actually ridden one of these, I can attest to their inherent instability. However, using the same logic, one would assume that two-wheelers (AKA motorcycles) should also be banned, and yet, they are not.

I disagree completely, three wheelers (like we traditionally think of) are WAY more dangerous than motorcycles.

As someone who has some, albeit limited, experience with both, I can tell you it is far easier to loose control of a motorcycle that it is a 3-wheeler. Unless, of course, one is using it in a way it was not intended (i.e. high speed turns).

As someone who took high school geometry, I know that a plane is defined by three points and a line is defined by two, and that is why an object that is expected to stand on its own (be it more or less stably) within a given plane of space must have at least three points of contact with that plane in order to do so. That alone, and by definition, makes an object having two points of contact with the plane less easily controlled than is one having three.

Just thought I'd share an illustration of how all that stuff we are taught in school does actually have use beyond merely getting a good grade and knowing solely for the sake of knowing. It just takes thinking about the information one was taught and then applying it in a contextually germane way.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hey ! did someone get from me saying everyone is allowed to do something to themselfs (drug use) to you can have a gun and kill someone ?

don t you see the diffrence ?

1. someone does something to themselfs (drugs)
2. someone does something to others (guns)
do you think geting high is the same as killing someone ?

I seriously doubt any sane person would equate the two. I have been proven wrong before though...

My time participating in this forum has shown me that the assumptions and presumptions I heretofore would have made about the qualitative nature of inferences and correlations folks might make were far more amiss than I would have ever conceived possible. <winks>

 

[oldsoul]

i think its insane that its illegal to use drugs, which only harm the person using them while its legal to have guns which only harm people who don t use them

I think its insane that you wouldn't consider the collateral damage from someone operating machinery or driving while on drugs.
And then there is the medical expense of overdose and other related illness that comes from using. Who ends up supplementing the cost of these things?

Well, thanks to the ACA we don't really need to worry about the cost of the medical side, right? LOL
As for the machinery and driving, have you looked at my post on the subject? Decriminalizing and enforcing very serious consequences for those who do harm to others? It's post #68 if you have not. It's an idea at least. What we are doing now, simply is not working.

they have been talking about stricter penalties for drunk driving for many years now, MADD pushed for it.
Problem is that those laws are not enforced, many people stand in front of a judge for their 5th otr 6th DUI still hoping to get off.

That is a very real part of the problem. We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have, and get rid of the ones that are either unenforceable or simply not enforced.

 

[Pilate]

Has anyone said dueling yet? Two consenting men should be allowed to settle their grievances in a manner which they deem fit without the interference of others so long as unrelated parties are not impacted.

 

[oldsoul]

Has anyone said dueling yet? Two consenting men should be allowed to settle their grievances in a manner which they deem fit without the interference of others so long as unrelated parties are not impacted.

My only edit would be to replace "men" with "adults". We don't want to exclude women, now do we? LOL

 

[Pilate]

Has anyone said dueling yet? Two consenting men should be allowed to settle their grievances in a manner which they deem fit without the interference of others so long as unrelated parties are not impacted.

My only edit would be to replace "men" with "adults". We don't want to exclude women, now do we? LOL

Damned Thomas Paine and his Rights of Man. He should check his privilege!

 

[SixFoot]

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Has anyone said dueling yet? Two consenting men should be allowed to settle their grievances in a manner which they deem fit without the interference of others so long as unrelated parties are not impacted.

I don't know about going THAT far, but we sure were a more civilized country when a man could end up getting punched in the nose if they insulted the wrong person.