User Controls
Its the 0.01% of non functional/criminal drug addicts that give drug use a bad name.
-
2017-01-09 at 3:09 AM UTCAlso like the 0.01% of drunk drivers who do it shitfaced/speed/drive recklessly and cause fatalities and bad crashes, so responsible "buzzed" (or even less than buzzed) drivers leaving a bar or resturant after having litterally just a few beers risk getting a drunk driving and a bunch of trouble & lost money.
-
2017-01-09 at 3:11 AM UTCYea well we gotta move as slow as the slowest members of society. It sucks but it's how it is right now.
Until the 20th and we make America great againThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-01-09 at 3:15 AM UTCI'm all for full decriminalisation but 0.01% is a stupidly low estimate
-
2017-01-09 at 3:23 AM UTCYeah the hoards of junkies dying everyday have nothing to do with it.
-
2017-01-09 at 4:41 AM UTCDon't get it twisted it's not a new method. Inhale, exhale, just got an oz in the mail.
There's probably a term for this. Like more people die every day from sober accidents and non drug related issues but we stigmatize being 'under the influence' to justify our own inherent inability to avoid, fucking, ACCIDENTS. You drive sober and get in a crash- ACCIDENT. IT WAS A SLIP OF JUDGEMENT. OOPSY DAISY! You were drinking?? BAN YOU! REBUKE YOUR PRIVILEGES! SCUM OF THE EARTH!
The statistics they create off of alcohol related traffic accidents are very skewed. If a sober driver is at fault in an accident with an intoxicated driver, it's included in the statistics as alcohol related. If you're sitting at a stop light shit faced and ask the car next to you give you their fathers' email addresses, boom, alcohol statistic, no questions asked.
It's probably something like, comparatively, 10% of all traffic fatalities are legitimately caused by the inebriation of the at fault driver, and the 90% are caused by simply having an accident due to driving a clump of metal 80 miles an hour and it was going to happen anyway, hence the term accident.
"I lost my so and so to a drunk driver" they say. OH GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE WE NEED TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING!!!
"I lost my so and so to a random traffic accident." "OH GOD I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT I'LL SEND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AFTER I GET DONE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK!
Worried about drunk drivers? Stop driving. -
2017-01-09 at 4:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Don't get it twisted it's not a new method. Inhale, exhale, just got an oz in the mail.
There's probably a term for this. Like more people die every day from sober accidents and non drug related issues but we stigmatize being 'under the influence' to justify our own inherent inability to avoid, fucking, ACCIDENTS. You drive sober and get in a crash- ACCIDENT. IT WAS A SLIP OF JUDGEMENT. OOPSY DAISY! You were drinking?? BAN YOU! REBUKE YOUR PRIVILEGES! SCUM OF THE EARTH!
The statistics they create off of alcohol related traffic accidents are very skewed. If a sober driver is at fault in an accident with an intoxicated driver, it's included in the statistics as alcohol related. If you're sitting at a stop light shit faced and ask the car next to you give you their fathers' email addresses, boom, alcohol statistic, no questions asked.
It's probably something like, comparatively, 10% of all traffic fatalities are legitimately caused by the inebriation of the at fault driver, and the 90% are caused by simply having an accident due to driving a clump of metal 80 miles an hour and it was going to happen anyway, hence the term accident.
"I lost my so and so to a drunk driver" they say. OH GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE WE NEED TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING!!!
"I lost my so and so to a random traffic accident." "OH GOD I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT I'LL SEND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AFTER I GET DONE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK!
Worried about drunk drivers? Stop driving.
Look pal there's no room for logic in this type of shit. Stop it immediately -
2017-01-09 at 4:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Don't get it twisted it's not a new method. Inhale, exhale, just got an oz in the mail.
There's probably a term for this. Like more people die every day from sober accidents and non drug related issues but we stigmatize being 'under the influence' to justify our own inherent inability to avoid, fucking, ACCIDENTS. You drive sober and get in a crash- ACCIDENT. IT WAS A SLIP OF JUDGEMENT. OOPSY DAISY! You were drinking?? BAN YOU! REBUKE YOUR PRIVILEGES! SCUM OF THE EARTH!
The statistics they create off of alcohol related traffic accidents are very skewed. If a sober driver is at fault in an accident with an intoxicated driver, it's included in the statistics as alcohol related. If you're sitting at a stop light shit faced and ask the car next to you give you their fathers' email addresses, boom, alcohol statistic, no questions asked.
It's probably something like, comparatively, 10% of all traffic fatalities are legitimately caused by the inebriation of the at fault driver, and the 90% are caused by simply having an accident due to driving a clump of metal 80 miles an hour and it was going to happen anyway, hence the term accident.
"I lost my so and so to a drunk driver" they say. OH GOD THAT'S SO HORRIBLE WE NEED TO STOP DRUNK DRIVING!!!
"I lost my so and so to a random traffic accident." "OH GOD I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT I'LL SEND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AFTER I GET DONE DRIVING HOME FROM WORK!
Worried about drunk drivers? Stop driving.
you're probably right in terms of statistics, but don't you think that it's a mark of extremely poor judgment to knowingly put yourself in a risky situation (driving) with your judgment and reactions heavily impaired? it is after all entirely avoidable -
2017-01-09 at 2:02 PM UTCThere's too many people
-
2017-01-09 at 10:25 PM UTCI want to be a game dialog and scenario writer like this guy fuys:https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-narrative-had-to-be-baked-into-the-corridors-marc-laidlaw-on-writing-half-life
-
2017-01-09 at 11:38 PM UTCWorried about drunk drivers?. Murder everyone on the planet.
Problem solvedThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-01-09 at 11:43 PM UTCI've always thought they should have a separate license for drink driving.
Like you drink a pint and do your test, and if you pass you have another pint, repeat the test, if you pass have another pint and repeat the test, and keep going until you get drunk enough to fail and then measure your BAC and after that you can legally drink drive up to that amount of alcohol in your blood.
It's win win for everyoneThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-01-10 at 12:41 AM UTCPublic intoxication permits. If you can prove you can handle your shit and maintain basic motor skills you can do meth and drink a beer in public/while driving.
-
2017-01-10 at 12:42 AM UTCmore like 50%+
-
2017-01-10 at 6:18 AM UTCtheeees ^ Im a menace son!!!
-
2017-01-10 at 6:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by reject I've always thought they should have a separate license for drink driving.
Like you drink a pint and do your test, and if you pass you have another pint, repeat the test, if you pass have another pint and repeat the test, and keep going until you get drunk enough to fail and then measure your BAC and after that you can legally drink drive up to that amount of alcohol in your blood.
It's win win for everyone
This is actually a decent idea, what with the variety of different body types and responses to alcohol, a set standard limit is just rude to those of us who can drink a 6 pack and not go driving through schoolyards and veering all over the road. -
2017-01-10 at 6:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by reject I've always thought they should have a separate license for drink driving.
Like you drink a pint and do your test, and if you pass you have another pint, repeat the test, if you pass have another pint and repeat the test, and keep going until you get drunk enough to fail and then measure your BAC and after that you can legally drink drive up to that amount of alcohol in your blood.
It's win win for everyone
I think the ideal system would be to take a blood test when you're issued a license - it's only to verify that you have no drugs in your system and can be destroyed after verification.
once it's been determined that you have no drugs in your system, a brainwave scan and reaction test (dilation after light exposure or some other involuntary effect would be difficult to tamper with) and whatever else are performed with baseline values encoded into your license.
if you're pulled over or caught in a checkpoint police can perform simiilar field tests to determine whether your brain activity is sufficiently impaired (according to predetermined algorithms I guess) compared to your sober baseline.
this would be effective for any drug regardless of whether it's detectable or not and takes differing biology into account since it's based on your own personal baseline -
2017-01-10 at 6:27 AM UTCalso, drug impairment should not be considered a mitigating circumstance to a crime if you willingly took the drug yourself.
-
2017-01-10 at 6:29 AM UTCNo, a separateanarchy highway where you can sell guns and fireworks and do donuts on the middle of the road, and drive drunk, and kill people.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-01-10 at 6:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra also, drug impairment should not be considered a mitigating circumstance to a crime if you willingly took the drug yourself.
I wonder if anyone ever caught drunk driving wound up utilizing a defense that they were mugged and forced to drink a shit load. I wonder how that would play out. I mean if someone DID force you to take a drug and as a result you committed a crime you otherwise wouldn't have, that wouldn't seem right to charge you for it.
I know there was a case where a person murdered their neighbor in the middle of the night and claimed a sleepwalking defense and wound up winning, so I'd imagine it's possible. -
2017-01-10 at 6:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I wonder if anyone ever caught drunk driving wound up utilizing a defense that they were mugged and forced to drink a shit load. I wonder how that would play out. I mean if someone DID force you to take a drug and as a result you committed a crime you otherwise wouldn't have, that wouldn't seem right to charge you for it.
I know there was a case where a person murdered their neighbor in the middle of the night and claimed a sleepwalking defense and wound up winning, so I'd imagine it's possible.
I dunno, if burden of proof stays the same, cops would have to prove that you got rekt yourself - witnesses, surveillance footage from a bar etc.
as for sleepwalking that's entirely possible with zolpidem/zopiclone and pals - I'm sure you've heard the stories of people unconsciously going for a drive and plowiing through fences or waking up to a burning house because they tried to bake a cake
