Let people enjoy things đ
-
Probably also doesn't hurt that the US is generally far more reliant on driving to get anywhere. There's a higher tolerance for doing it dangerously since there's no alternative
What are we supposed to do?? NOT DRINK?
-
Thank fucking god
-
This post did not contain any content.
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]sorry man, I'm not reading all that
-
Yes, he became a monk afterwards though.
What class was he before that?
-
I used to be the kind of person who hated anything popular. And in Texas country music has always been popular. So I mercilessly mocked anyone who enjoyed it. "So is your cousin any good in bed?" "What has 103 fingers and 32 teeth? The front row at a Garth Brooks concert." I have dozens of jokes about being stupid, inbred, toothless, smoking cigarettes, going to Walmart, and other stereotypical things associated with being a country music fan.
I'm still not a fan but sometime in the last 10-12 years or so I stopped giving a shit what anyone else liked. If it's not for me but it's not hurting anyone I just don't care if someone likes country or pop, movies with popular actors, wants to dress in a way I see as weird, likes food that I don't enjoy, or whatever.
I wish I could go back and change it because I know I made some people feel bad for enjoying what they like.
Edit: fixed a word.
Nah I get why you hated it, most country is utter trash since most of it is Nashville country and fuck Nashville country. Also over the last 10 or so years music streaming has gotten become increasingly ready and available meaning it's easier to avoid such trash. Though I'm partial to bluegrass, Reno, and Bakersfield country which have somewhat gone back to their more folkish roots.
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
Given the potential to do harm, driving is a privilege. Personal views on whether one can drive under the influence of substances are irrelevant as vulnerable road users would be exposed to much more risk than the driver. Bystanders pay the risk that's taken by the driver.
It would be good if societies would work in a way that acknowledges that not everyone can/should drive or owns a car. This would mean better public transport, improved zoning, better facilities for walking and cycling.
-
I think that makes sense too. Sure a drunk cyclist is less of a problem than a drunk motor vehicle operator.
But as the third party you still don't want 100 kg (200 pounds) of dude and aluminium frame running into you at 20 km/h (12.4 mph), especially if you are a pedestrian, a second cyclist, or a biker.
Absolutely. A cycle can kill someone if they are unfortunately. But a car can kill dozens of people at the same time.
In terms of policy and policing it makes sense to look at outcomes. Heavily policing drunk cycling would result in more drunk driving, which would end up killing more people. So however much drunk cycling is policed, drunk driving should be policed significantly more.
-
Road deaths & accidents in the USA are like twice that of Europe.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]But thatâs okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. Thereâs absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.
Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than weâd like..
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
Tl;dr - Selfish person thinks people being fully cognitive while driving a 4,000lb vehicle is silly. Makes argument about how governance doesnt defend your life, while also arguing that they should impede on visibly intoxicated people... Like the thing we already do... That he is arguing against...
-
What class was he before that?
Horny bard
-
driving while intoxicated/under the influence (different states use DWI or DUI).
I thought it was a matter of severity, with DUI being over the limit but not obviously impaired and DWI driving while there's no doubt that you're drunk, leading to more severe punishment?
There's actually been a trend of shifting the language to "owi" or "operating while intoxicated" since the law is the same whether you're operating a car, a bike, a boat or a dump truck
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]What the fuck is all of this? Are you trying to rationalize your own drunk driving?
You do not understand tolerance. Start here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2764986
This study demonstrated that heavy social drinkers, categorized by their persistent and predominant adult pattern of drinking and regular bingeing, exhibited comparable alcohol-induced impairment to that of light social drinkers in such areas as fine motor and dexterity skills (Pegboard) and processing and encoding functions (DSST) following consumption of a moderate-to-heavy dose of alcohol (4-5 standard drink equivalent).
Basically even if you don't "feel" intoxicated, your psychomotor performance will be impacted as much as anyone else. If anything, it's more dangerous, because you're going to be less aware of how intoxicated you are.
This effect is especially noticeable if you see someone drinking on Vivitrol. They don't feel drunk, but they keep drinking and slurring their words, stumbling, etc. The way that alcohol affects the limbic system and creates that sense of euphoria is separate from how it affects your motor coordination, and balance, speech, vision, etc.
DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. And if you do, I pray you end up in prison for DUI rather than manslaughter. Fuck you for even spending all that time and effort writing an essay on how reckless use of a deadly weapon in public spaces is okay if you're an addict. Legal limit should be 0.01. It's a worthless poison that kills people.
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny
I know, right? That's why I should be allowed to wildly swing a machete around public spaces. Because limiting my ability to do so is tyranny!!! And kids should be able to bring grenades to school because we wouldn't want to impede on their rights! Fucking /s if you couldn't figure that out.
And your entire gun analogy makes zero sense. Regardless of anybody's opinion on gun control laws, it is true that you will be able to better defend yourself against a bad guy with a gun if you also have a gun. But driving while you're drunk will not make you any safer when the guy in front of you is also drunk. The two subjects are nothing alike.
-
Horny bard
Why would you repeat the word "bard" twice?
-
I will probably get downvoted for this but whatever. The idea that everyone has the same tolerance point to alcohol and once you pass the certain BAC threshold your driving is automatically impaired is not a realistic view. The state just has an interest in inconveniencing drivers with laws to increase revenue for the state. For instance Drugged driving laws are pretty dumb, i can undersrand drugs like alcohol, even benzodiazepines and things like GHB, or other disassociatives. But everyone has a different brain chemistry and a different response. Someone whoâs been drinking every day and is an alcoholic yeah they are killing themselves for sure, personally i hate alochol, I probably drink maybe 4 to 6 times a year sometimes even just once or twice at holidays. I hate the way it makes my body feel afterwards. But some people have larger livers and process alcohol differently or have an extreme tolerance. Yeah it would be better to just ban this behavior regardless but this type of authoritarian approach is just not conducive to the concept of a free society. Itâs like banning guns entirely, the rich will still have them police will still kill is with them and wars will
Still be fought to eradicate large swaths of the population so people should have them just in case anything happens. Inalways here the argument against guns like typically pointed st conservatives like if guns are for overthrowing tyrannical
Governments then why aren't you doing anything now (thats because the right is adjacent to and supporting of fascism as they believe it benefits them/ see themselves as equal to the ruling class) as the government is definitely violating the constitution in several ways as I type. but the better argument is what happens if we are invaded and the extremely sophisticated machines of murder our societies militarized imperial apparatus fail to function, are sabotaged not to function or just overpowered. Are we just going to lie down and succumb to an invading force? Itâs like if we have firefighters then why would we need fire extinguishers, the government saying we can make you safer by limiting your behavior is just tyranny. Murder and theft and rape which is a theft should be criminalized but with murder you can't really just wait for the state to defend your life that wont happen 999 times out of a thousand. 1 of 20 gun related homicides involve police. But back to the topic of impaired driving instead of analyzing the functionality and legitimacy of y C B ugh e laws within our society. If someone is visibly swerving and stumbling/ slurring their speech, torally, if thats observed they deserve to be stopped. Like maybe AI tools or just a vehicle that can detect this and stop it. In a way that can be done so that it is not a surveillance state nightmare that then notifies authorities and ruins your life but just that will slow the car down and pull over or even prevent swerving. Self driving tech has some potential here. When we dont need to drive in the future this thpe of behavior policing will be beyond unnecessary.
Then with uppers its ridiculous to think someone high on cocaine or methamphetamine will be bad at driving. And as far as cannabis, considering someone who has cannabis in their system âimpairedâ is ridiculous unless they are drunk or tripping on acid at the same time to a level that makes the turn into a 3 dimensional pathway into a parallel universe then smoking pot is going to make driving harder. But itâs just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like itâs a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people canât function without it and need to have an elevated BAC level. Like extreme alcoholics on their way to liver cirrhosis probably couldn't tie their shoes or wipe their ass without having a BAC of 0.08. With cannabis i even read a tripple A study a long time ago when states first started to legalize cannabis that said the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol, and/
or cannabidol / cannabinol one has in their system doesnt determine how impaired they are and ultimately impaired functions and behavior are nor determinable through bloodwork. One could easily do a study and pick other random factors and probably do a study that says arbitrary things can affect your condition to drive. Emotional state, race/ ethnicity, wether you grew up with both parents or not, how much money you have. Discriminatory determinations like this don't provide concrete results in one way or another. Now they have a new study that came out this hear i read that for es was involved but it basically said 83% of cannabis users smoke the same day they drive and the criteria was they smoked within & hours of when they next drove like that is a totally ridiculous parameter.Some people have different brain chemistry/ cognitive functioning like people witb ADHD and consuming cannabis can allow them to focus in a sate of flow which is a real psychological state. I read a book on it about 15 years ago written by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called âflow: The Psychology of Optimal Experienceâ(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) itâs a state where the person feels as if time has slowed down and they have the ability to hyper focus and make the vest choice/ improvise in an uninhabited way like with improvisational music or guitar, or writing but really itâs a universal state across any physical activity thatâs just the way the mind works. I know I've besn drunk and experienced this state before especially playing music or trying to rizz up a baddie, but when i was drunk it definitely felt like it was work to operate in that headspace and the more alcohol the slower the response. I do think that to be the case for most people. But with other drugs that don't reduce your ability to write your name if you have too much its way different. Like someone with heavy opioid tolerance whoâs prescribed heavy dose of methadone in comparison to others will be perfectly fine to function on any amount of opioid that isn't far larger than their usual dose of opioids.. like if someone with a dose of methadone thpically larger than 100 milligrams if they break their leg or get into an incident where they need pain relief they will need a much larger dose of an instant releif opioid for breakthrough pain. Im talking like 20-30mg of dialaudid which could anesthetize most people but everyone is different.
Ive always been responsible with my enjoyment of mind / mood altering chemicals I think drugs are awesome and I have some firm probably subversive beliefs on drug prohibition. I believe those ideas are sane and reasonable but we live in an insane corrupt backwards oriented society and things are only getting worse unfortunately.
Oh! I know this one! I grew up with an alcoholic narcissist. This is the part where the drunk rants for hours about how unfair the world is and how they're the real victim.
You're not special. You sound exactly like every other "functional" alcoholic right before they end up on the news for killing a mother of two, with a sad faced mugshot, lip poked out like they're the one who got hurt.
But hey, what would I know? Iâm just a funeral director. Itâs not like I have to deal with the aftermath of people like you, right?
And you're rightâitâs totally unfair to expect you not to drive your drunk ass home. Itâs not like you could drink at home, or get a ride, or call an Uber, no! You have to drink and drive. Anything else would be unreasonable.
-
But thatâs okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. Thereâs absolutely nothing else that can be done, so we might as well shrug and accept our fate. When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on. After all, questioning the design of our roads or the size of our vehicles would be an affront to the gods of chance and the sacred right to drive anywhere, anytime.
Europeans might obsess over safety, but we know better: the universe writes its own traffic plan, and sometimes the ink is a little redder than weâd like..
When a poor kid gets flattened by an SUV, the only reasonable response is to sigh, feel sad for a moment, and then move on.
Not true. You could also call into question why the kid was outside in the vicinity of motor vehicles! Surely the parents can be blamed as well.
-
Garth Brooks was my personal Jesus (aside from Jesus) as a southern tween/teen, but I still have several bones to pick with him, among them Chris Gaines/The Lamb and a particular Walmart-exclusive concert at which I was the only attendee in my little town, making me feel even more like a total ass. Oh, and this. Yeeeeeah. But deep down I'm still pretty sure I'm gonna be in his band one day. And then usurp him as the new Garth.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]...so, like, it was a walmart-exclusive live television broadcast?..was there a live audience at the perfromance or was he just playing to an empty studio?..how'd that work, like, did they set up chairs in front of a special big-screen at each location or did you just stand around the electronics department for two hours?..
...garth brooks reminds me a lot of taylor swift; totally not my jam but you do you...
-
Fun fact you can get a DUI on a bike!
It depends on the state/country. Where I am you can get a drunk in public charging, but DUI requires operating a motor vehicle.
-
A friend broke his skull while cycling drunk.
Always wear a helmet!
