• ExploitedAmerican@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    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 who’s 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. It’s 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? It’s 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 “impaired” 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 it’s just not a straightforward thing. I can almost undersrand drunk driving laws, like it’s a shitty drug and it just makes you dumb and slow. Some people can’t 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 “flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience”(highly recommend everyone to read this especially artists, musicians writers) it’s 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 it’s a universal state across any physical activity that’s 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 who’s 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.

    • MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      2 days ago

      Nah, driving is a privilege, not a right. You don’t NEED to d I’ve and you absolutely don’t need to drive while impaired. Even if you think you’re good, you’re not. There are THOUSANDS of cases of people being killed by drunk drivers who thought they were good.

    • Rebecca_Corndogs@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      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? I’m just a funeral director. It’s not like I have to deal with the aftermath of people like you, right?

      And you’re right—it’s totally unfair to expect you not to drive your drunk ass home. It’s 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.

    • Nelots@lemmy.zip
      0·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • TimewornTraveler@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • sunflowercowboy@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      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…

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Nangijala@feddit.dk
    0·
    2 days ago

    This is so true. For example, Werner Herzog hates the French language, despite speaking it fluently. He once had to regrettably speak French when he was held at gun point by drunk child soldiers in Africa.

    Pretty uninteresting guy, I’d say.

    • t_berium@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      I hope this is sarcasm. Herzog is a fascinating guy, even if you don’t watch his movies or read his works. Just watch any interview with him and you might be surprised how interesting his views on things are.

          • TriflingToad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            uhh I don’t remember the full story but here’s what I know.
            There was a subreddit called r/195 from some people who lived together in an apartment or dorm in room 195. They would shitpost and it eventually caught on. After they shut down the sub for whatever reason people moved to r/196 to shitpost on instead.

            why there’s “onehundredandnindeysix” and “196” is because the moderators of the 196 Lemmy sub power tripped and tried to move to lemmy.world, so half the community split to another version and half stayed on the existing one (the mods cancelled the move to Lemmy.wirld)
            I personally use the “onehundredandnindeysix” one.

            (also sorry if typos or sthm, I’m on a weird Lemmy interface that’s confusing)

            • squaresinger@lemmy.world
              0·
              1 day ago

              Thanks a lot for the summary! Hard to find information like that.

              Is there a theme or something to the posts there?

  • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 days ago

    Edit: tangent point the above image in the post reminded me of.

    For every person who thinks they’re interesting for hating a popular thing, there’s ten who will be like OMG YOU THINK YOURE SO SPECIAL AND BETTER THAN EVERYONE when you casually mention you don’t particularly care for a popular thing.

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 days ago

    in my experience, culturally, drinking one (1) 4.8% ABV 33ml can of beer in Europe is drunk driving

    Drinking two (2) 6.2% ABV fl oz (946ml total) glasses of beer and smoking weed in the USA is not drunk driving.

    Not defending it, just saying that it was eye opening how many people in the US get behind the wheel after drinking what they consider a small amount of alcohol

      • teuniac_@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 days ago

        But that’s okay. Accidents are just that, unavoidable and random. There’s 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 we’d like…

        • bob_lemon@feddit.org
          0·
          2 days ago

          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.

    • socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
      0·
      2 days ago

      There’s a time factor as well. One standard drink per hour will keep a normal sized adult below about 0.05 bac almost indefinitely.

    • teslasaur@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 days ago

      Yeah. You’re not gonna find many Swedes getting behind the wheel regardless of alcohol amount. There used to be a HARD stigma against it, since we know what happens. People used to get so drunk that we had to create a state monopoly of alcohol sales, in an attempt to reduce it. People argue about the actual effect, but i know that it’s cultural suicide to get behind the wheel drunk. The legal limit is 0,2 ppm alcohol.

      The Danes however… They could drink 3 halfliter lagers before reaching the legal limit of 0,8

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
      0·
      3 days ago

      In NL you are allowed to have 0,05% of alcohol in your blood, which is about 2 Dutch classes. We often server 0.2L glasses these days, it sucks …

      https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/verkeersveiligheid/vraag-en-antwoord/mag-ik-met-alcohol-op-deelnemen-aan-het-verkeer

      And waith you can have almost of litre of beer in your blood and it is still not drunk driving? Yeeeez, especially considering the US is a shit place to walk or bike. No wonder why there are so many drunk driving accidents

    • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      3 days ago

      Legally speaking in the USA anything after the first is driving while intoxicated/under the influence (different states use DWI or DUI).

      Working in the booze biz you are sadly correct though. I had a wine rep a few years back offer to pay for my parking in NYC if I went to a tasting. I told him I was taking the train and he was surprised. He shouldn’t be.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        2 days ago

        You really don’t need to swallow at a wine tasting. In fact you’ll be able to taste a lot more without starting to affect your judgment if you don’t.

        • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          2 days ago

          Even spitting you still swallow a bit. Most in the trade spit at tastings into the spit buckets. You’ll be fine trying 5 wines in an hour but I would be tasting dozens of wines for hours. It adds up after a while.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            1 day ago

            Impressive. Most of us get palate fatigue around 20 or so. Would imagine your BAL would still be legally fine, but everyone has different tolerance.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        3 days ago

        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?

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          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

    • BremboTheFourth@piefed.caEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      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

      • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 days ago

        I used to live way outside of town and there weren’t any night buses on weekdays, so I got a moped at 15. I just didn’t drink at all when I hung out with friends on weekdays, even when I turned 16 and it became legal, because I had to drive. It wasn’t hard to do and nobody batted an eye. So, the alternative is not drinking. Having no alternative transport is a poor excuse for drunk driving.

      • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 days ago

        I think this is more for the random person that attacks people for being fans of things eg adults attacking adults because they like Legos

        • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 days ago

          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 stood, 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.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            2 days ago

            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.

          • Nosavingthrow@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 days ago

            To be fair, garth brooks is for people with questionable taste. If the person making the music ISN’T inbred, I don’t want to hear it.

            • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              2 days ago

              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.

                • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  2 days ago

                  YEP! I planned around it and my parents agreed to take me. I approached the electronics department of my then-local Columbus, GA Walmart Supercenter expecting a hoppin’ soiree. This is Garth. He doesn’t do anything small. HERE. WE. GO! Instead, it was just me. Standing in the electronics department. At Walmart. Watching the “concert” on the wall of TVs.

                  I DEFENDED THAT MAN TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY when he pulled his Chris Gaines/The Lamb schizophrenic breakdown bullshit. He put me in the position of defending the indefensible. “Oh, no, you don’t understand, it’ll all make more sense when The Lamb comes out!” WHERE’S THE FUCKING LAMB, GARTH!?

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            0·
            3 days ago

            “What has 103 fingers and 32 teeth? The front row at a Garth Brooks concert.”

            That’s pretty good