[quote author=Fluffy]
And Dan - yes you can cause a few lives to be endangered through speeding but not as many that would have been endangered through the amount of drugs that was carried. Also the probabilty of you having and accidcent due to speeding is a lot lower than you drugs endangering someones life when there are 20,000+ hits there.
Fluffy Fluffy Fluffy.
Dan is making all of these points and hardly any of you seem inteligent enough to comprehend them.
20 Million Australians. Most of whom are on our roads espescially during thids time of year. Do drunk or speeding drivers who kill someone on our roads over the Christmas period (there will be at least 20 killed across Australia) Get the death penalty.... NO
20 Million Australians. Most of whom would not be affected by Van Nguyens drugs because 99% of the population are against drugs.
We are all affected by speeding. We only choose to be affected by drugs.
You don't choose to be killed by another driver, but by putting the needle in your arm you choose to run the risk of an overdose.
If people didn't do drugs there would be no one to sell it to.
Comprehend?
[/quote]
I understand your point but lets put that theory to weapons..
Guns dont kill people - people kill people. So why is it that i cant just rock up to Kmart, grab myself an M60 (what a beautiful piece of machinery) and go roo hunting?? The same reason why drugs arnt legal.
As for your speeding affecting 20 milliion we yes. However the probability of death is far lower per exposure hence i didnt miss the point, rather was far too inteligent for you to understand.
Maths 101
if there was a 1% chance of being killed by a someone speeding, on average it would take 100 people for each death.
If there was a 10% chance of being killed by drugs, on average it would take 10 people on drugs for each death.
Hence if 10 people were effected by drugs then it would equate to the same danger to life as 100 speeders.
I think you will find that per exposure drugs are far far more lethal.
Now without having the figures at hand i find it hard to imagine that there are less than 500 or so people dying each year due to drugs of some sort which is ballpark the NSW road toll from memory. So it seems that no matter what the exposure drugs are far far more lethal.
Now lets put dans theory as you see it to an extreme test. J walking - not just dangerous to the person commiting it, dangerous to the cars that swerve around to miss. At some stage someone has died swerving a j walker. There are far far far more people affected by j walking than speeding. So for your theory to work in reverse Jwalkers should have demerit points taken away and hefty fines applied. For J walking across 3 lanes it should be 3 months in prison.
Either you agree with that or agree that different crimes have different outcomes and hence should be treated differently.
