Speeding worse than drug taking? Public opinion.

[LocoCoco]

Gaz. said:

Likewise, assuming normal is defined by 'completely unpredictable'. Like there are various degrees of speeding, there are various degrees of drug use, highs and lows, dependency etc. The one major difference is that if a certain velocity becomes inappropriate then you can apply your brakes.

I can think of another major difference: you cant just sleep speeding off.
If you're really wasted, going to sleep will stop you from damaging anything and you will feel more sober when you wake up, you just don't have this option when your velocity creeps up too high.

[jonnM]

Devil2575 said:

I know a number of people who take drugs recreationally who live perfectly normal lives. It's treated much like alcohol.

That's to be expected as alcohol is a recreational drug. We just view it differently because it's legal.

[kambites]

jonnM said:

Devil2575 said:

I know a number of people who take drugs recreationally who live perfectly normal lives. It's treated much like alcohol.

That's to be expected as alcohol is a recreational drug. We just view it differently because it's legal.

As is Tobacco. One could argue that both of them cause more problems than all of the illegal recreational drugs combined.

[GravelBen]

kambites said:

As is Tobacco. One could argue that both of them cause more problems than all of the illegal recreational drugs combined.

But would that be the case if the other recreational drugs were used in anywhere near the same quantity/frequency?

[GravelBen]

LocoCoco said:

I can think of another major difference: you cant just sleep speeding off.
If you're really wasted, going to sleep will stop you from damaging anything and you will feel more sober when you wake up, you just don't have this option when your velocity creeps up too high.

You don't have to wait until the next morning for your speed to drop...

• Will the fact that you're speeding make you less likely to make sensible decisions about how fast you should go and what else you should do at that speed?

• Will the fact that you're wasted make you less likely to make sensible decisions about how wasted you should get and what else you should do while wasted?

[Snowboy]

GravelBen said:

kambites said:

As is Tobacco. One could argue that both of them cause more problems than all of the illegal recreational drugs combined.

But would that be the case if the other recreational drugs were used in anywhere near the same quantity/frequency?

Probably.
If they were all legal you'd probably get fewer people drinking as they moved to drugs instead.
The same overall number of users and abusers, but spread over more varied drugs.

[LocoCoco]

GravelBen said:

LocoCoco said:

I can think of another major difference: you cant just sleep speeding off.
If you're really wasted, going to sleep will stop you from damaging anything and you will feel more sober when you wake up, you just don't have this option when your velocity creeps up too high.

You don't have to wait until the next morning for your speed to drop...

• Will the fact that you're speeding make you less likely to make sensible decisions about how fast you should go and what else you should do at that speed?

• Will the fact that you're wasted make you less likely to make sensible decisions about how wasted you should get and what else you should do while wasted?

1. Yes - at speed you have less time to make a decision thus making it less likely you make the correct one.

2. Yes - That is just undeniable


Which can you stop sooner, drugs or speeding?

You can stop taking drugs instantly (although it is tough). Bringing your speed down below the limit cannot be done instantly though, it will always take some time for the car to slow down.

Therefore if you're a habitual druggie/speeder and something unexpected crops up where you have to immediately stop or lots of children will die, you're far better off being a druggie.

[GravelBen]

LocoCoco said:

You can stop taking drugs instantly (although it is tough). Bringing your speed down below the limit cannot be done instantly though, it will always take some time for the car to slow down.

Your car will slow down an awful lot faster than the drugs will stop affecting you and leave your system.

Saying you can stop taking drugs instantly is the equivalent of saying you can stop accelerating instantly.

If your speed is appropriate for the conditions (regardless of whether its illegal or not) then you will have enough time to make a correct decision, in which case having a smaller excess of time isn't relevant.

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 14th February 12:26

[blindswelledrat]

This is just one of those ludicrous arguments where both sides argue the extremes of something that isn't extreme.

Speeding when done responsibly is fine and causes no adverse effects on others.
Same as drug taking.

THe pro-speeders cite the burgling addicts who leave aids-doused needles in school playgrounds
The pro-druggies cite the lunatic 17 year old who drives a lorry at 100 mph past nurseries.

[LocoCoco]

blindswelledrat said:

This is just one of those ludicrous arguments where both sides argue the extremes of something that isn't extreme.

Speeding when done responsibly is fine and causes no adverse effects on others.
Same as drug taking.

THe pro-speeders cite the burgling addicts who leave aids-doused needles in school playgrounds
The pro-druggies cite the lunatic 17 year old who drives a lorry at 100 mph past nurseries.

Yep, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Such a pointless argument.

[LocoCoco]

GravelBen said:

LocoCoco said:

You can stop taking drugs instantly (although it is tough). Bringing your speed down below the limit cannot be done instantly though, it will always take some time for the car to slow down.

Your car will slow down an awful lot faster than the drugs will stop affecting you and leave your system.

Saying you can stop taking drugs instantly is the equivalent of saying you can stop accelerating instantly.

If your speed is appropriate for the conditions (regardless of whether its illegal or not) then you will have enough time to make a correct decision, in which case having a smaller excess of time isn't relevant.

Edited by GravelBen on Friday 14th February 12:26

If you die, it is impossible to take drugs any more, they won't change your mental state.
If I crush a car, I can still push the cube down a really steep public road, it will gather enough velocity to break the speed limit.

A druggie has a finite lifespan. The matter which makes up a car will always have the potential to break the speed limits. (this is ignoring any eternal life medicines/drugs that may be invented in the future).

[kambites]

GravelBen said:

kambites said:

As is Tobacco. One could argue that both of them cause more problems than all of the illegal recreational drugs combined.

But would that be the case if the other recreational drugs were used in anywhere near the same quantity/frequency?

Almost certainly not, no. I doubt the legalisation of most of the other drugs would have a significant effect on the overall harm they to to society either way.

[GravelBen]

LocoCoco said:

If you die, it is impossible to take drugs any more, they won't change your mental state.
If I crush a car, I can still push the cube down a really steep public road, it will gather enough velocity to break the speed limit.

A druggie has a finite lifespan. The matter which makes up a car will always have the potential to break the speed limits. (this is ignoring any eternal life medicines/drugs that may be invented in the future).

It is the driver that speeds, not the car. Death will prevent a person from wilfully participating in either speeding or drug-taking.

Simple solution then kill everyone and then nobody can cause any trouble?

[kambites]

blindswelledrat said:

This is just one of those ludicrous arguments where both sides argue the extremes of something that isn't extreme.

Speeding when done responsibly is fine and causes no adverse effects on others.
Same as drug taking.

THe pro-speeders cite the burgling addicts who leave aids-doused needles in school playgrounds
The pro-druggies cite the lunatic 17 year old who drives a lorry at 100 mph past nurseries.

Good summary. Neither is a particularly bad thing if done sensibly. Both can be terrible if taken to extremes.

[LocoCoco]

GravelBen said:

It is the driver that speeds, not the car. Death will prevent a person from wilfully participating in either speeding or drug-taking.

Simple solution then kill everyone and then nobody can cause any trouble?

That's what I'd do yep. Vote Loco!!


edit.

You could prop up a corpse in a car put a brick on the accelerator then point the car at a speed trap. I bet the corpse would get an fpn.

edit 2

You could die suddenly at the wheel whilst travelling above the speed limit.

Edited by LocoCoco on Friday 14th February 12:51

Edited by LocoCoco on Friday 14th February 12:51

Edited by LocoCoco on Friday 14th February 12:56

[paranoid airbag]

HertsBiker said:

It's the drugs that appear to be accepted by most people.

Source? One or two potheads disagreeing with you is not "most people".

HertsBiker said:

Had to add this in case of misunderstanding. I'm always shocked when people admit to drugs. To me, someone driving fast on a motorway does not seem to be a big deal.

Guess what:

nobody cares if it's a big deal to you.

HertsBiker said:

The drug takers do not view their habit as illegal or immoral, or even dangerous. The penalty for being found with some pot is a insignificant.

Just like you don't view speeding is illegal, immoral, or dangerous, and with the penalty for speeding - not the penalty for being caught speeding, which is irrelevant unless you're caught - also insignificant on average.

Your intuition as to what's right or wrong isn't special or important, and if you try and force it on people they'll quite rightly think you're a self-important moralising prick and fight back. If you want a good argument - the sort where you can justifiably feel persecuted when people ignore it - be really honest with yourself about how defensible that argument is before berating others with it.

[r11co]

Northernchimp said:

They are both indulgences, and theirs don't put others at risk.

Except when they are under the influence and in a position of responsibility....

[BJG1]

GravelBen said:

kambites said:

As is Tobacco. One could argue that both of them cause more problems than all of the illegal recreational drugs combined.

But would that be the case if the other recreational drugs were used in anywhere near the same quantity/frequency?

If everyone smoked weed instead of drinking alcohol on a saturday the only problem you'd have would be a nationwide shortage of frazzles

[eddy02]

Why is it trolling when someone voices an opinion,I thought that was forums were all about.
I would not dream of trying to wind people up on purpose,anything for a quiet life for me but I do have an opinion.

[Leptons]

whp1983 said:

Although drugs do only affect those that do it healthwise.... They destroy the lives of thousands in the country's they come from. It's misery from producer to drug baron to dealer.

No-one has ever had to smuggle a sports car up their arse in order to sell it to someone that might shoot them.

Speeding is by far the lesser crime as the courts agree!

Utter bullst. How else would the producer support himself? Entire communities rely on it.