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.