Did I do the right thing?

[Torm]

FWIW, I don't use it, and I'm of the opinion that it's pretty harmless.

And I tend to agree, except that it is like any other impairing substance. If you're having a cookout or small party with a bunch of friends, and you know who is driving so they can lay off, and you want to have a few beers or even :gasp: a little pot, fine, whatever. Heck, even heroin, I don't care - I wouldn't mess with ANY of it, myself, including the beer, but I sincerely believe adults should be treated as adults, even if they are stupid adults.

But if you're one of those drivers, you should certainly know yourself WELL before touching any of it. And if you're drunk or drugged daily, when friends, family, and work are counting on you for day-to-day life type stuff, you are a problem. Certainly I would think someone who would imbibe WHILE driving falls into this category. :\

 

[fusangite]

Just curious, how would you measure it, define it, or regulate it, then, if there wasn't a legal limit in place? Genuinely curious.

In the mid 1990s, researchers at the University of Calgary came up with quite an interesting plan. They ran a series of tests on people with different blood-alcohol levels with very realistic driving simulations (halfway between an videogame and VR with the person sitting in a complete driver's seat replica) and they found that some people could learn to drive drunk, basically compensating for changes in reaction time, etc. to the point where they could drive drunk better than the average person could drive sober. Of course they didn't find this was the case with all alcoholics or even all regular drinkers. Basically, they found that some people can be trained to drive with quite a bit of alcohol in their system whereas others are harder to train or untrainable up to the above average level of reaction time and precision their study was looking for.

Surprisingly, they found that it didn't take that many sessions to train certain people to drive drunk. And we see this in reality with alcoholics; some who have been drinking for years are a menace on the road as soon as they pass the legal limit whereas others have trained themselves quite effectively.

The researchers recommended a policy change whereby our default should go from the current two-drink limit to zero tolerance so that a person with a standard license could be charged with any level of alcohol in their system. A person who wanted to drive drunk would have to pay extra to get a special license (because a bunch of extra testing would be involved) that permitted them to drive with whatever level of alcohol in their system they could demonstrate to the people running the tests that they could handle.

Anyway, you asked for an option. That's one example. There are probably others but that's the only version I've heard a radio documentary about. Of course, there technically would still be a legal limit: for a regular license it would be zero but for a special license it would be variable and printed on the license and entered into a database. Of course, dangerous driving would still be illegal, regardless of a person's blood alcohol level.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'd put money that, in Michigan (where I live), it will be decriminalized within a generation. Canada (Ontario) already did so and I think our proximity to several major metropolitan areas up there will slowly influence public opinion.

Well, it looks like you're smoking something too, because nowhere in Canada is pot decriminalized (and the debate about doing such a thing anywhere in Canada is extremely heated).

Have you seen studies on marijuana use and driving? It is generally considered that THC does very little to impair driving. And, in some cases, appears to enhance certain positive behaviours in motorists.

Sounds like selective reading to me. Every study I've seen quoted in the local paper says the exact opposite. Looks like there's nothing conclusive to even bother mentioning, here.

 

[Warrior Poet]

In the mid 1990s, researchers at the University of Calgary came up with quite an interesting plan . . . Of course, dangerous driving would still be illegal, regardless of a person's blood alcohol level.

That's fascinating. Thanks for the information. That's the kind of thing I was wondering about, whether mutable conditions could be implemented to accommodate a highly variable system.

I still think the logistics of it would be difficult to manage, much less enforce, but it is an interesting idea.

One of the things I noted about myself reading this thread was my perception of the problem (hazardous driving conditions, he said euphamistically) and the desire for a solution, when the conditions of the situation are such that a solution seems to be an all-or-nothing kind of thing. What's the only true way to prevent automobile danger? Get rid of automobiles! Of course, then I can't drive either, and I like to think I'm a fairly competent driver!

As much as I wish all drivers out there were hyper-conscious of their surroundings, speed, weather, automobile capabilities, and other drivers, it just isn't the case, even when everyone's stone sober. Nonetheless, I find myself growing uncomfortable at the thought of even "managed" or "acceptable" controlled-substance levels in motor vehicle operation, which is funny because, that's already the case! (.08 here in this section of the Midwestern United States)

Anyway, thanks for the information. I think one of the things it comes down to is, as a driver, I have to look out for myself, AND the other drivers, as best I can when I'm behind the wheel (for me and my tolerance level, that means no booze; I don't toke, but I tend to believe it's less harmful to corporeal health [near as I can tell {and anyway, how many different parentheticals can I work into this sentence?}] than tobacco, but I don't know about its motor-reflex effects), and hope that others are doing the same, and I have to drive under the assumption that they aren't. In the meantime, I hope nobody's getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't be, whether after a party or after surgery.

Drive safe, everybody!

Warrior Poet

 

[Mallus]

In the meantime, I hope nobody's getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't be, whether after a party or after surgery.

Or without adequate sleep. Or in an agitated emotional state (no driving after a breakup, row with the spouse, confrontation with the boss,etc.). No mentally adjusting an NPC stat's or rethinking a plot hook on the way to the game. And certainly no fiddling with the radio dial or rumaging around for a power bar. And don't get me started on non-handsfree cell phones (whose use is already illegal in a number of places)...

How many drivers are completely free of some form of impairment? For those of you advocating essentially 'no legal amount' of alcohol for drivers, are you also in favor of criminalizing other equally-impairing behaviors/states? Perhaps cops need 'upsetalyzers' which measure your objective level of tranquality?

 

[The_Universe]

I'm with KenM on this one.

I find the number of people so vehemently defending his former girlfriend's behavior more than a little disturbing, as well.

 

[KenM]

See, The Universe agrees with me.

 

[The_Universe]

See, The Universe agrees with me.

Sometimes I forget that my screen name can create a cosmic double entendre - even though that's precisely why I picked it. Heh.

 

[Turjan]

I'm with KenM on this one.

I find the number of people so vehemently defending his former girlfriend's behavior more than a little disturbing, as well.

I think you are misinterpreting the answers. Nobody is defending the former girlfriend's behavior. The lack of respect for her partner has been stressed often enough.

This does not mean that you have to agree with Ken's reaction. Dumping her is fine. But this does not help with the impression that he tried to avoid to cope with the situation himself. Such a behavior like the one by his girlfriend would have caused a big argument in my long going relationship with my last SO. We would have got loud. We most probably would have insulted each other at some point. But in the end, we would have got some kind of result for our relationship, either a compromise, or one would have been convinced of the point of the other, or one would have been content to tolerate the other's position, depending on the situation. This always worked, in all those thirteen years. Of course, this needs both parties being ready to talk, and because usually only one is not content with the situation, this sometimes needs some demonstration of the urgency of the situation. Whether you get loud during this exchange is a matter of personal style .

What I see here is some kind of substitute act. Instead of dealing with the situation himself, the solution is pushed off to some anonymous organization. This might serve some kind of revenge, but I suppose the effect will feel somewhat shallow. I guess it will leave him with the feeling that he has not really tried enough to save the relationship. And from what I can see, as little as it is, this might be true.

 

[The_Universe]

Just so we're clear -

I totally agree with Ken, and would have done the same thing, were I in his situation. INCLUDING reporting her to the police as a potential danger.

He doesn't seem particularly vengeful here to me, gents. There was a problem. He tried to deal with it himself. He couldn't. He escalated it to the only people that can and will potentially deal with that problem, and seperated himself from it.

I think the group here is so incredulous that drug and alcohol use and abuse can be a big deal that any attempt to treat it as a *problem* and not just *the man trying to keep us down* that any attempt of Ken's to involve authority is interpreted as a betrayal of well - everything.

I think Ken acted reasonably. As with all things, YMMV.

Of course, not all the posters are defending the woman in question. But a lot of them are. Note the number of posts strenuously insisting that THC/alcohol aren't really problem causing intoxicants.