That's what half of Oregon thinks right now
Mind enlightening me... What's going on in Oregon?
They legalized mushrooms and some other drugs and then (if I recall) made it to where possession wasn’t a crime. Half of Oregon (I imagine you can identify it based on population density) now most likely thinks legalizing drugs means allowing the bad behavior that comes from some of its users. Rather than realizing that alcohol is legal and has bad users as well that cause major harm to our communities but we wouldn’t dare take that away again.
Is it the half that wants to be annexed by Idaho? It is, isn't it?
I wish it was just those mouth breathers. It's also people sick of seeing people smoking fentanyl in Portland, but like I said, that's happening in most cities, not just Portland
I'm interested in what the harsher dui laws have done to drunk driving rates. Are less people doing it and less people dying? Or are there just a lot more fines and arrests from people driving home from restaurants and bars?
I'll clarify I refuse to drive with more than two beers in me, I really only have more than that at home, but I do feel like the somewhat arbitrary alcohol limits seem harsh And the fact you can be pulled over and forced into a BAC test for really any reason feels a little 'Minority Report'.
Again I'm not condoning drunk driving, just interested in the shift in effected lives.
Better public transportation, walkable streets, and non car-centric urban planning in general has done far more to prevent drunk driving than harsher laws. Data shows that the incidence of DUIs are more or less proportional to the need for residents in a city to drive in general. DUIs are rarely premeditated, purposeful crimes. Very few people are at the bar rubbing their hands together as they down their fourth shot, anticipating the moment when they get behind the wheel. The vast majority of DUIs are the result of poor planning and poor decisions when you just want to get home, and in situations like that the threat of punishment or simply the voice of their conscience is also a lot more likely to be ignored. Providing easy alternatives to droving goes a long way to preventing DUIs. People are way less likely to be in a position to DUI when the metro is the most convenient way to and from the bar.
BAC limits are at least supposed to be based on averages recorded from "test subjects were impaired / affected at this level or higher"... It's not a bad metric to use in itself, but the level applied and how it's enforced are definitely able to be questioned harder.
The fact that cops use "they seemed influenced" as a catch all to threaten and excuse shitty behavior is the bigger problem by far. It's squarely under the other traffic laws in my mind ... While well intentioned, the vast majority of people will just behave the same regardless. Only 2 real things happen:
- Abuse of said laws for monetary / power gains
- Actual death/harm caused by major infractions holds a real chance at penalty or enforcement
Balancing between them is the bigger problem.
Ultimately, societal change on personal responsibility would be the better solution, but humans will always be "but I should be allowed to break the rule because I won't hurt anyone!"... Or they are sociopathic and just don't care if their fun hurts others.
I think BAC is probably the best real indicator we have, the issue that stands out to me about it is (unsure if state or national) the legal limit has been lowered twice in my memory, and it was due to groups like MAAD pushing, not scientific studies.
Note: MAAD was just an example I chose, I really know nothing about them. They could be complete abolishonists or concerned citizens, I have no opinion.
Harsher laws don't reduce crime. We have over 40 years of data in the US to corroborate that. They just increase your prison population.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36178871/
Conclusion: There was a marginally significant [p = 0.07] higher incidence rate of drunk-driving episodes among residents of states with no minimum jail sentence compared to those in states with a minimum jail sentence for the first time DUI.
Minimum sentences for first offense are correlated with lower rates of drunk driving. This doesn't prove causation, of course, and continuing to ratchet up sentencing will obviously have diminishing returns, but it does seem to help a bit.
That number is not insignificant though. I appreciate the recent study, thanks.
The pfp for that NIMBY/whatabout troll account is perfect. I can smell her room full of horse posters and chintzy crucifixes.
A sprinkle of hidden stereotypical sexism is also always well received online.
Not to mention that homicide is still a crime lmao
I wouldn't say murdered with words. I've been threatened by multiple people who are on meth. And there are even worse drugs out there which make people irrational
There are some drugs which should never be legalised. Furthermore, stuff like cigerettes are harming other people
My housemate had a serious addiction problem with weed too, and it's hard for him to stay off it if it was more readily available
The tens of thousands of people, if not more who are murdered by their alcoholic partners who would say that alcohol is a lot worse than marijuana.
If you decriminalize even hard drugs it allows people to take it under supervision in places like safe injection sites that also give them access to social services that will help them quit using drugs.
Portugal has had way fewer drug issues since they decriminalized it. Treating it like a medical issue instead of treating it like a criminal issue solves problems instead of creating more problems such as imprisoning people for drug offenses, stealing to pay for drugs.
This obviously costs money which people don't like paying for in their taxes, but a healthy member of a society is a lot cheaper than a drug user costing the rest of us when they end up in an emergency room.
And thats a VERY good point.
Alcohol is decriminalised, and is a SERIOUS issue. Just like Nicotine is. People keep trying to quit, but they can't because smokes and alcohol are available everywhere you turn. Making these things more accessible isn't a solution.
Alcohol should be banned too (our ex housemate was an alcoholic).
This isn't a case of "oh, but weed is less harmful". In fact, I just realised I have 2 housemates who had weed problems. The second one told me explicitly moved from her household because her family all had a serious weed and alcohol problem, and she felt less exposed to it in my house.
People on drugs like ICE here are already treated like a medical problem, and it hasn't helped. At least if its treated as a criminal issue courts can order them to go to rehab.
But yes, I think we'd all be more comfortable if Alcohol was banned too (or strongly controlled)
And the fact that meth is illegal is the main and only reason such a thread is illegal in your mind? ...
Nope. I could give you lots of reasons ranging from car crashes caused by drugs, psychosis caused by many of them, look at NT in Australia where they heavily control alcohol, etc
I've seen people's lives affected by this crap.. and the number of times druggies try to drag others into their addiction by telling them "it's totally safe" is common
And just to further this, some drugs affect others due to second hand smoke.
Lets be real, the main people who want to legalise drugs are doing so because they want weed too be legal. But if you speak to people who have recovered from weed addiction ( I know 2), they'll probably tell you it needs to remain controlled. If you speak to recovering ridiculous alcoholics, they'll tell you having alcohol surrounding them isn't a good thing
We can agree to disagree I guess.
People that threaten others on drugs also have a tendency to do so off drugs.
Not always.
Some drugs cause mental changes like psychosis too.
