Only after an accident. Even then, the majority of blood tests (even say 12 pannel drug tests) don’t test for substances such as psilocybin, DMT. psilocybin is more common amongst teenagers than most would think. Not nearly as common as alcohol/marijuana though.
Must go to sleep, will talk tommorow.
I’m aware of the temperance movement. Prohibition was by and large a massive failure, led to bootleg liquor sometimes tainted with methanol, speakeasy’s, the criminalization of otherwise law abiding citizens, the rise of organised crime syndricate’s and more.
Alcohol is socioculturally engrained within most secular societies, it’d be very difficult to remove it from our culture at this point. I don’t think we will get rid of cannabis anytime soon (or ever) either.
People laugh about it now, but prohibition occured for a reason. Alcohol is highly addictive and when chronically abused is an incredibly destructive substance that effects both the user and those around the user.
No one smokes a lot of weed and beats up their wife, the same can’t be said about alcohol. Neither are good for you when consumed in excess (or probably at all).
Did he know that if he drove drunk there would be all sorts of potential negative consequences? Old enough to drink. Old enough to drive. Old enough to be an adult about the decisions you make. Plenty of people on death row find god.
I make a case for people accepting accountability. I’m not an SJW for drunk drivers.
Yes, if you know it’s wrong when you sober, you’ll know it’s wrong whilst drunk, you may not care as much and/or feel invincible though (this is largely dictated via how ethanol effects you… Some, such as myself would never get behind the wheel no matter how drunk they are)
FWIW, I also think the best way to deal with drunk drivers would be to take away the incentive to search for them. Let drunks drive home at a safe speed for them. Don’t incentivize driving at a speed they’re incapable of in order to avoid a charge that will punish them harshly for the content of their blood.
I guess this would be the case for someone that does not believe any alcohol can(safely) be consumed before driving. When you’re drunk, it’s much harder to realize that you’re less capable.
Just a question for you. Would you say the punishment is too high for drunk driving presently? If no, do you think the punishment for driving while using a device is too low? Speeding? We know speeding dramatically increases your chances of killing someone.
I have just noticed that we as a society have decided to demonize this one act, but other acts with similar outcomes people think are no big deal. Like you are the worst person in the world if you drive with a BAC of 0.08, says the person who texts and drives, or regularly speeds.
I think it is inconsistent to think that a person who drinks and drives is incredibly irresponsible, but not the person who speeds on a daily basis (I am someone who speeds daily, and it is a choice).
Yes. It is strange that we have chosen this one act to punish MORE harshly DUE to its lack of intent. It’d be like punishing a crime of passion killing more harshly than a murder that was planned for months ahead of time because the killer in the former didn’t plan to kill the victim.
Doesn’t it vary by state? I’m not a legal expert on it. I think the punishment can be pretty high but that has probably lead to it happening less frequently than the days of “ok Mr Jones you’ve been drinking so I want you to drive straight home.”
I believe these also vary, but even if not probably way too low. People on devices are highly dangerous. Start dropping some expensive tickets on people and maybe they will save the texts for later. Also immediately pull over any idiot driving and shooting a video for YouTube views.
I agree with your speeding points but I think on the whole speed limits are too high. Also most officers give you a wiggle room of 5-10 miles so that 75mph speed limit is just a suggestion. I take the turnpike to Wichita and people are driving 85-90 range all the time. Absolutely no reason for it imo.
I will say you are consistent. Would you agree that people on average are not consistent in regards to drinking, speeding, and device use? People are deemed bad people who get one DUI, but others who speed every day are possibly the same risk to the general public, are not given any grief at all.
I am not saying any of these items are good (even though I regularly speed), just that the public reaction and the punishments are incredibly inconsistent.
If you desire a fair society, you would then desire that the punishments for speeding or device use go way way up, or that the punishments for DUI are scalable to the degree of impairment (which would in most cases be a lower punishment).
We could come up with a level of drunkenness that poses the same risk as speeding a certain amount, by using historical data.
Someone with a BAC of 0.08 going the speed limit and off of their device, would be statistically as dangerous as a sober driver going X amount above the speed limit.
You are logically consistent here (in your response to punishments about device use and speeding). I am guessing you would admit that in general there is inconsistency in the general attitudes towards these activities and the punishments towards them?
How would I know who had been speeding? A DUI is a matter of public record. I’ve also had people fly by me and if I could have given them grief I would have.