>> ^Gamble:

No one has ever died from pot? Sorry, stopped watching right there.


Hi Gamble, you seem genuine. Let me add what I can.

I'm going to call bullshit on that French study.

It says, "French researchers studied all drivers involved in fatal car crashes over a two-year period and found 7% tested positive for marijuana, including nearly 3% who tested positive for a combination of marijuana and alcohol."

This study is from before 2005, I don't believe roadside marijuana tests existed back then, as they aren't used much even now. That means they did tests that determined the person smoked weed in the past few weeks. And so 7% of those people tested positive for having smoked marijuana in the past few weeks? Whopp-dee-doo. From The National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

Among adults aged 26 or older, 6.3 percent were current illicit drug users in 2009. In this age group, 4.6 percent used marijuana, and 2.1 percent used prescription-type drugs nonmedically. Less than 1 percent used cocaine (0.6 percent), hallucinogens (0.2 percent), heroin (0.1 percent), and inhalants (0.1 percent). The only statistically significant changes between 2008 and 2009 in the rates of past month use among adults in this age group involved nonmedical use of stimulants (which increased from 0.2 to 0.4 percent) and methamphetamine use (which rose from 0.1 to 0.2 percent). In addition to these increases between 2008 and 2009, the rate of current marijuana use among adults aged 26 or older was higher in 2009 (4.6 percent) than in 2002 (4.0 percent).
( http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm#2.4 )

So obviously among those 4.6% marijuana users aged 26+ there are a lot of drivers who would test positive for drug use in the past few weeks.

It also says, "The study also showed that drivers who tested positive for marijuana were more than three times as likely to be responsible for the fatal car crash. Researchers say the likelihood of being at fault increased as the blood concentration of marijuana increased."

So they took blood tests? That doesn't determine if you're stoned. Marijuana stays in your blood for a long time. If you smoked yesterday at 2 P.M. you would still definitely have marijuana in your system. But you definitely wouldn't be stoned at all.

Lastly my own personal experience: I drive stoned all the time. But before you harangue me for being a danger to society let me tell you that I know when I am in control and when I'm not. I am a responsible driver and there have been very few occasions when I've smoked a joint and needed to rest before driving. It's happened a couple of times where I've been somewhere, smoked a big joint and then needed to leave. I get to my car and shit is still spinning and overwhelming a bit. It's these times when I take 10-15 minutes to let the initial effects wear off and adjust to and get serious about my surroundings.

Alcohol is far far worse, for me anyways... I've driven tipsy once or twice, and it's just not to be done. It's different, everything's just a big fucking joke when you're drunk. I had to keep reminding myself to be careful and not just let go and enjoy the ride lol. When stoned, I'm vigilant.

Lastly, I would like to mention that I feel weed affects me quite strongly. I've smoked a ton of weed in my day, and compared to me friends, I still get pretty darn high. Especially if I've gone even a week without smoking.

Anyways, tl;dr Marijuana is a relatively safe drug and the prohibition against it is highly suspicious.

Although obviously not a long term solution, can't they boil their water?

Also.. Can you, erm, drink boiled sewage ?

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/dystopianfuturetoday" title="member since January 9th, 2007" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">dystopianfuturetoday, as government grows you cannot have a government of, for and by...


Oh, we can't? How do you know? Because we've been trying for thousands of years? Well. Plenty of righteous people have been fighting religion for thousands of years. We haven't given up on that, and I think we're finally making some headway.

It's fucking hopeless you're saying. We should just give up and devolve. That's a damned sad perspective, because a world in which we cannot work together, by governing humanity, is a savage world not fit for your children.

My cognitive dissonance must border on religious because I CANNOT and WILL NOT give up my hope for a government of, for and bi [sic].

P.S. Would be great if vs could fix the damned quote system.

>> ^deathcow:

god slowest movie site ever


streamed fine for me

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all I do respect you for defending yourself quantumushroom, Sorry about the cheap jab earlier.
No biggie.
Hate to oversimplify, but generally, when government gets involved, costs for everyone go up and innovation suffers. When government practices the lost art of 'benign neglect', the free market rapidly punishes and rewards ideas. People do more when you allow them to keep more of what they earn.
As the necessary evil it is, government has vital, mandated roles, such as protecting the borders and enforcing private property rights.
Battling child obesity, making smokers second class citizens (while spending tobacco tax revenue), providing "free" healthcare and making land owners get 'permission' to chop down a tree on their own property are not legitimate government functions. Nor can the buffoons "run" markets, except into the ground.
Right now, the federal mafia is simply too damned big, and they don't know what they're doing, just as FDR didn't know the long-term effects of his alphabet soup agencies that are STILL with us. Yes, you won't budge; just be aware there is evidence FDR's policies prolonged the Depression. Or you can merely observe today's scamulus doing nothing.
As blankfist can point out better than me, the Federal Reserve is about to print another trillion dollars, making the money in your wallet and savings account less valuable.
The left has an important part in this narrative; I just disagree with their conclusions.


I don't understand this. "The government" should essentially be us. They should be a good friend selling us shit at cost. When I buy weed off my pot dealing friend, he sells it to me at the same price he gets it. Cost. If I buy off the other guy, I pay a good amount more. If the government is the people serving the people, the people are the greatest benefactors.

I think it's wrong that, in Canada, we sell the right to build lines all through our country, and then the we let the people we sold it to(Bell and Rogers) gauge us for an internet connection.

I can see, however, how it could happen that government run programs might have people in charge who want to look good, so they might strive for a profit. I think this is wrong. It would be wrong for them to turn a profit and then redistribute the profit to other government run programs, but even wronger for them to take that profit and give it as bonuses to their CEO's.

At the end of the day, the problem with "Government" is that it doesn't serve the people, and it won't, unless the people keep on top of them.

We need to call a spade a spade. Like the recently passed law stating corporations can donate unlimited amounts, anonymously. How the eff is there not more outrage regarding that? It doesn't essentially mean the ultra rich control politics, no, not essentially, it 100% means the ultra rich control politics. Why not allow each party a set amount? Wake the fuck up...

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky

"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. " -- Noam Chomsky

Yes.

And I'm. Getting. FUCKING. Sick of it.

This dog is truly amazing. If I were a dog born without eyes or self-awareness, I would totally feel sorry for myself.

>> ^quantumushroom:

My point? I despise intellectual dishonesty, including Ratigan flummery ending in unfounded, TYPICAL charges of racism.

There just aren't many 21st-century Christians slaying homosexuals in the streets or committing "honor killings", while islam causes conflict wherever it spreads.
thereligionofpeace.com
muslims obey their "holy" book with its demands of endless war and conversion by the sword, just as they did in the 7th century. Since they won't change, they should be sent to live at Allah's house.

>> ^Matthu:

What's your point? The Bible says the following:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
No wars against the church tho eh'?



Just curious. Are you saying all muslims should be "sent to allah"?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Why are we sifting so many Simpsons clips with no context lately?


My fault sorry

>> ^DuoJet:

>> ^kymbos:
Really interesting. No one knows how to handle him or his argument.

No one knows how to handle his "argument" because his "argument" is rambling, incoherent, ill-informed bullshit. I watched the video three times and failed to detect any of the truth so touted in this post title.
But I agree; the USA is not at war. Instead the US has conducted an unprovoked invasion and ongoing occupation of two sovereign, albeit oil-rich and strategically valuable countries. These countries have no military organization, and no military means to resist the US occupation. The USA occupation is NOT welcome (just as an Iraqi occupation of US soil would not be welcome), and any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.


What part of what he said was incoherent to you?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Seriously, what is this guy's point? (BTW bcglorf nailed it).
islam is both a religious and political movement. The qu'ran demands that muslims either kill, convert or enslave infidels. There is no fourth option for "faithful" muslims. The qu'ran also demands that when muslims become victors in any nation, they convert the government to sharia law.
Fiberals once again defending the indefensible and, of course, reducing everything to RAY-SISSM!!!
These fools will be the death of the West.

>> ^SlipperyPete:
Congrats QM. Why don't you try addressing the points Ratigan made rather than continuing to bury your head in the sand?



What's your point? The Bible says the following:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

No wars against the church tho eh'?

I don't fully understand.

Is this relevant? Or just mildly interesting?

I mean... you still need actual hardware right? It's not like you could take a computer good enough to run minecraft and then in Minecraft build a computer good enough to calculate pi. Or could you??

EDIT: 'Cause if you could the implications would be mind-blowing.

I'm losing my mind.

At 12 secs tell me that's not the exact same spell fizzling sound from Ultima Online. I'm sure it is. WTF.

I would recognize that sound anywhere... I played that game entirely too much.

Blocked in Canada

I get emotional watching this video. I love the internet.

And I fucking love you fags.

God bless the internet. We just gotta make sure to keep the girls off the internet and we're golden.

Keep it up guys!!