9 ms·
People under influence do indeed pose danger to other people. Even the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous in certain situations leading to incidents
by z3phyr 9y ago
People under influence do indeed pose danger to other people. Even the influence of alcohol is potentially dangerous in certain situations leading to incidents ranging from hit and run to domestic violence.
- vkou 9y agoPeople with _______ pose a danger to other people. It is incredibly hypocritical to come down on someone for consuming LSD in their own home, but not on someone getting pissed drunk in their own home. Tens of thousands of people are killed by people under the influence of alcohol in the United States. How many people are killed by people under the influence of LSD? (I have never used drugs, other then alcohol.)
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoGuns, cars, "homosexual tendencies", etc, etc all fit into that blank.
- metaobject 9y agoPeople with homosexual tendencies pose a danger to other people?
- eecc 9y agoMissing /s?
- scotty79 9y agoEven alcohol? Alcohol is the most endangering drug. Because of wide spread use (no competition because in many places it's the only legal drug), addictiveness, toxicity and intrinsic nastiness of influence it has on some users.
- mikeash 9y agoWhere is it the only legal drug? Nicotine is often regulated but legal nearly everywhere, and I don't think caffeine is banned anywhere.
- aleksei 9y agoI get this is (mostly) a tech site, but do we have to argue semantics every time?
- mikeash 9y agoI don't think this is a semantic argument. The comment I replied to was making the argument that alcohol use is widespread because it has no legal competition. This does not appear to be the case to me, thus undermining the argument.
- metaobject 9y agoIf someone gets off work and wants to get loaded to forget about their problems, are they more likely to get a 12-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes?
- eecc 9y agoBoth
- scotty79 9y agoYou are right about availability of nicotine and caffeine but I'm not sure if you can make an argument that they could compete with alcohol. I know that caffeine was a bit of competition for alcohol in the period right after it was introduced (some think that enlightenment was caused by this), but I don't think it's like that anymore.
- anigbrowl 9y agoNicotine and caffeine are drugs but when did you last hear of people crashing cars or killing other people because they were high on nicotine or caffeine. I'm sure it's an ancillary factor and if you could investigate with strict accuracy you'd find they had a non-zero influence. But putting them on the same semantic plane as you are doing implies that people in the grip of a nicotine or caffeine buzz are little different from people who are drunk, and anyone with real-world experience knows that's nonsense. You're not helping your point by reflexively making nitpicking arguments. I'm pro legalization for all drugs, but but I'm not going to dispute the fact that booze, cocaine, and heroin are just like cannabis, caffeine and nicotine because it just isn't true. If you don't acknowledge the reality of people's experience when making your semantic arguments then people are going to ignore you.