6 ms·

Vehicular manslaughter is already illegal, we should make drunk driving legal. Drinking and driving without crashing into anything is victimless.

heavyset_go 3y ago
The equivalent would be banning all alcohol because sometimes people get drunk and do bad things.
- jojobas 3y ago
  You chances of drinking alcohol responsibly for decades are way, way better than your changes on not becoming an unemployable wreck in mere years on meth or heroin.
  - bdangubic 3y ago
    an amazing sentence which sounds like it is rooted in something vaguely factual while in reality there is nothing factual that can support this claim
    - jojobas 3y ago
      There's plenty to support this claim: consumption prevalence and disorder prevalence. Opiod users are vastly over-represented in all sort of statistics - addiction treatments, overdose deaths etc as compared with alcohol. 6% of alcohol drinkers are diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, the number exceeds 50% for meth users. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912a1.htm
      - master-lincoln 3y ago
        > 6% of alcohol drinkers are diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, the number exceeds 50% for meth users. This seems like numbers you can not compare fairly. I would think if alcohol were illegal, a bigger percentage of users would be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.
        jojobas 3y ago
        Diagnostic criteria are quite agnostic (badum-tss) towards the chemical in question. You could also argue that people consuming illegal substances are less likely to report for treatment and be diagnosed in the first place. Why is it so hard to accept that different substances are differently addictive and harmful, per capita? Would you shoehorn chocolate and coffee to the same bucket?
        master-lincoln 3y ago
        I am just careful in this area because previous policies have not been based on scientific evidence, but political agenda (as expanded upon other-where in this thread). So I don't trust my common sense... I accept that different substances have different effects. Harm is a domain that is very broad and hard to quantify fairly I think. Does Meth cause more harm because more Meth addicts have fallen out of society than say Coke? If so, how can we make sure to differentiate between mere correlations and causal relations?
  - eru 3y ago
    That would be hard to get data on, because alcohol is mostly legal and meth and heroin are mostly illegal. So you have a huge confounder: it seems likely people who are willing to do illegal acts, are more likely to become unemployable. So if meth was legal, and alcohol was illegal, the situation might be reversed. (I'm not saying this is true, but to make your statement you'd need to carefully exclude the possibility of this effect.) Btw, heroin and other concentrated drugs are popular partially because we banned comparatively milder and bulkier alternatives. Eg opium ain't as hard as opium, but it's just as forbidden, and its bigger bulk makes it less profitable to smuggle.
    - cwkoss 3y ago
      Meth is legal, sometimes. It's called desoxyn, and can be prescribed for ADHD or weight loss. Also chirality-flipped meth is available over the counter as a nasal decongestant
      - conradev 3y ago
        Over the counter… with an ID. It’s not on shelves precisely because it is so similar to meth
        bratgpttamer 3y ago
        It's not on shelves because it's a precursor chemical to actual meth manufacturing, not because it's a dangerous drug (otherwise it'd be Rx-only, like the other meth-like drugs). https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005.htm https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005.htm
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Neither ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine are the reversed-chirality methampetamine. "Regular" methamphetamine is dextromethamphetamine; the other version is levomethamphetamine.
        heavyset_go 3y ago
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Yet we give amphetamines and opiates to people under prescription en masse without such a thing happening with more prevalence than alcohol.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Yep, and I tell you what: on the rare occasions when I have accidentally doubled my dose of Adderall, I do not like the way it makes me feel one bit. An actual addict would probably be taking 10x or more of my prescribed dose to get their high. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the high because I'd feel like I was literally dying.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  We do ban alcohol because of that though. Maybe not a total ban but we regulate the hell out of it. You can’t even drink until 21 and then you can only drink in certain areas and you’re cut off once you show signs of intoxication.
  - komali2 3y ago
    Ok, so we should regulate the hell out of meth, heroin, ecstasy, etc. It doesn't make sense to federally ban a drug like LSD considering how little harm it causes compared to the drug alcohol.
    - chii 3y ago
      > how little harm it causes compared to the drug alcohol. but what harm per dose? May be the harm is high, but there's so few users that nothing shows up in aggregate.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      It is far easier to use psychedelics irresponsible then it is with alcohol. Most people crash at some point when drunk, but usually do not undress and walk out onto a busy street... The tendency of psychedelics to unearth mental health problems is IMO too much of an issue given how many people have untreated issues these days.
      - sfn42 3y ago
        I've taken most common drugs. LSD, MDMA, shrooms, cocaine, amphetamines, list goes on. None of them, except maybe some prescription pills like benzos, take control away from me the way alcohol does. None of them have had me wake up in some random place with no idea how I got there. None of them have made me do things I don't remember, none of them have made me do and say things I regret. Alcohol has caused all of that and more. The only reason I still drink alcohol is because it's the only socially acceptable drug. I'd much rather do coke or molly, to me those feel significantly safer than alcohol. And they're better, and they don't ruin the next day to the same degree alcohol does, at least not in my experience. And yes, alcohol absolutely can make people undress and walk out into a busy street. It can also make people aggressive. One time my father came home shitfaced, furious at me for no apparent reason, punched a hole in my bedroom window, came into my room and started screaming at me while bleeding everywhere from punching the glass, then grabbed me by the neck and started choking. I can't remember how it played put after that but I ended up spending the night at my aunt's place. The next day he was in shambles, he would never do anything like that sober. And for the next few years until I moved out, I was anxious every time he went out. I still do illegal drugs. Not very frequently, I'm a regular guy who works a decent job, is dependable etc. I'm not going to work high or anything like that. Just like most people don't get drunk at work. I know many people with similar lifestyles. I'd bet the majority of illegal drug users are just like me, they have their fun in a responsible way and live normal lives. Just like with alcohol the really messed up addicts are the exception, not the norm.
eru 3y ago
You are going for a reduction to the absurd here, but what you are saying isn't actually that far off what is practical. In general, many behaviours influence the chance of bad things happening. Eg getting behind the wheels of a car in the first place increases the chance of vehicular manslaughter (compared to walking). Society can punish the probabilistically bad behaviour, or the bad outcome or any combination of the two (including none). If the punishment is purely financial, and enforcement is certain and actors have deep pockets, it doesn't really matter which combination you pick. You can emulate the deep pockets by requiring people to get insurance. Even if the law only polices the bad outcomes, a rational insurance company might want to police its customers behaviour. (Eg your health insurance gives you a discount, if you show them evidence of healthy habits. That's equivalent to charging people who fail to provide that evidence more, but the discount is more PR friendly.) Both driving at all and drunk driving increase the chance of a person committing vehicular manslaughter. Societies largely allow driving, but ban drunk driving. Drunk driving is dangerous, mainly because drunkards have slower reaction times and are more prone to taking risks. The more alcohol you have in your blood, the harsher the fines and punishment. But we typically don't check people's sober reaction times and risk appetite, and charge them more for driving sober. It's all about trade-offs. In the case of vehicular accidents, most people don't necessarily have deep pockets, and the damage of injuring or killing people can't be undone by paying money. However we eg still let old people drive, and only do something about them when they actually get involved in an accident.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  The essential element of vehicular manslaughter that differentiates it from "a crash in which someone dies" is the mental state of the driver - specifically, that they're acting in a reckless or negligent manner. This is fundamentally nothing to do with economic trade-offs: it's about generally disincentivizing risk-taking when in command of a multi-ton vehicle moving at speed. We can know this because even if a "bad" driver is objectively more risky than a professional race-car driver who is 20yo, but has drunk a beer; it's the latter that's committing a crime when they drive.
  - Retric 3y ago

heavyset_go 3y ago

The equivalent would be banning all alcohol because sometimes people get drunk and do bad things.

jojobas 3y ago
You chances of drinking alcohol responsibly for decades are way, way better than your changes on not becoming an unemployable wreck in mere years on meth or heroin.
- bdangubic 3y ago
  an amazing sentence which sounds like it is rooted in something vaguely factual while in reality there is nothing factual that can support this claim
  - jojobas 3y ago
    There's plenty to support this claim: consumption prevalence and disorder prevalence. Opiod users are vastly over-represented in all sort of statistics - addiction treatments, overdose deaths etc as compared with alcohol. 6% of alcohol drinkers are diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, the number exceeds 50% for meth users. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912a1.htm
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      > 6% of alcohol drinkers are diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, the number exceeds 50% for meth users. This seems like numbers you can not compare fairly. I would think if alcohol were illegal, a bigger percentage of users would be diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        Diagnostic criteria are quite agnostic (badum-tss) towards the chemical in question. You could also argue that people consuming illegal substances are less likely to report for treatment and be diagnosed in the first place. Why is it so hard to accept that different substances are differently addictive and harmful, per capita? Would you shoehorn chocolate and coffee to the same bucket?
        master-lincoln 3y ago
        I am just careful in this area because previous policies have not been based on scientific evidence, but political agenda (as expanded upon other-where in this thread). So I don't trust my common sense... I accept that different substances have different effects. Harm is a domain that is very broad and hard to quantify fairly I think. Does Meth cause more harm because more Meth addicts have fallen out of society than say Coke? If so, how can we make sure to differentiate between mere correlations and causal relations?
- eru 3y ago
  That would be hard to get data on, because alcohol is mostly legal and meth and heroin are mostly illegal. So you have a huge confounder: it seems likely people who are willing to do illegal acts, are more likely to become unemployable. So if meth was legal, and alcohol was illegal, the situation might be reversed. (I'm not saying this is true, but to make your statement you'd need to carefully exclude the possibility of this effect.) Btw, heroin and other concentrated drugs are popular partially because we banned comparatively milder and bulkier alternatives. Eg opium ain't as hard as opium, but it's just as forbidden, and its bigger bulk makes it less profitable to smuggle.
  - cwkoss 3y ago
    Meth is legal, sometimes. It's called desoxyn, and can be prescribed for ADHD or weight loss. Also chirality-flipped meth is available over the counter as a nasal decongestant
    - conradev 3y ago
      Over the counter… with an ID. It’s not on shelves precisely because it is so similar to meth
      - bratgpttamer 3y ago
        It's not on shelves because it's a precursor chemical to actual meth manufacturing, not because it's a dangerous drug (otherwise it'd be Rx-only, like the other meth-like drugs). https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005.htm https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/cma2005.htm
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Neither ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine are the reversed-chirality methampetamine. "Regular" methamphetamine is dextromethamphetamine; the other version is levomethamphetamine.
      - heavyset_go 3y ago
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Yet we give amphetamines and opiates to people under prescription en masse without such a thing happening with more prevalence than alcohol.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Yep, and I tell you what: on the rare occasions when I have accidentally doubled my dose of Adderall, I do not like the way it makes me feel one bit. An actual addict would probably be taking 10x or more of my prescribed dose to get their high. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the high because I'd feel like I was literally dying.
jimbob45 3y ago
We do ban alcohol because of that though. Maybe not a total ban but we regulate the hell out of it. You can’t even drink until 21 and then you can only drink in certain areas and you’re cut off once you show signs of intoxication.
- komali2 3y ago
  Ok, so we should regulate the hell out of meth, heroin, ecstasy, etc. It doesn't make sense to federally ban a drug like LSD considering how little harm it causes compared to the drug alcohol.
  - chii 3y ago
    > how little harm it causes compared to the drug alcohol. but what harm per dose? May be the harm is high, but there's so few users that nothing shows up in aggregate.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    It is far easier to use psychedelics irresponsible then it is with alcohol. Most people crash at some point when drunk, but usually do not undress and walk out onto a busy street... The tendency of psychedelics to unearth mental health problems is IMO too much of an issue given how many people have untreated issues these days.
    - sfn42 3y ago
      I've taken most common drugs. LSD, MDMA, shrooms, cocaine, amphetamines, list goes on. None of them, except maybe some prescription pills like benzos, take control away from me the way alcohol does. None of them have had me wake up in some random place with no idea how I got there. None of them have made me do things I don't remember, none of them have made me do and say things I regret. Alcohol has caused all of that and more. The only reason I still drink alcohol is because it's the only socially acceptable drug. I'd much rather do coke or molly, to me those feel significantly safer than alcohol. And they're better, and they don't ruin the next day to the same degree alcohol does, at least not in my experience. And yes, alcohol absolutely can make people undress and walk out into a busy street. It can also make people aggressive. One time my father came home shitfaced, furious at me for no apparent reason, punched a hole in my bedroom window, came into my room and started screaming at me while bleeding everywhere from punching the glass, then grabbed me by the neck and started choking. I can't remember how it played put after that but I ended up spending the night at my aunt's place. The next day he was in shambles, he would never do anything like that sober. And for the next few years until I moved out, I was anxious every time he went out. I still do illegal drugs. Not very frequently, I'm a regular guy who works a decent job, is dependable etc. I'm not going to work high or anything like that. Just like most people don't get drunk at work. I know many people with similar lifestyles. I'd bet the majority of illegal drug users are just like me, they have their fun in a responsible way and live normal lives. Just like with alcohol the really messed up addicts are the exception, not the norm.

eru 3y ago

You are going for a reduction to the absurd here, but what you are saying isn't actually that far off what is practical. In general, many behaviours influence the chance of bad things happening. Eg getting behind the wheels of a car in the first place increases the chance of vehicular manslaughter (compared to walking). Society can punish the probabilistically bad behaviour, or the bad outcome or any combination of the two (including none). If the punishment is purely financial, and enforcement is certain and actors have deep pockets, it doesn't really matter which combination you pick. You can emulate the deep pockets by requiring people to get insurance. Even if the law only polices the bad outcomes, a rational insurance company might want to police its customers behaviour. (Eg your health insurance gives you a discount, if you show them evidence of healthy habits. That's equivalent to charging people who fail to provide that evidence more, but the discount is more PR friendly.) Both driving at all and drunk driving increase the chance of a person committing vehicular manslaughter. Societies largely allow driving, but ban drunk driving. Drunk driving is dangerous, mainly because drunkards have slower reaction times and are more prone to taking risks. The more alcohol you have in your blood, the harsher the fines and punishment. But we typically don't check people's sober reaction times and risk appetite, and charge them more for driving sober. It's all about trade-offs. In the case of vehicular accidents, most people don't necessarily have deep pockets, and the damage of injuring or killing people can't be undone by paying money. However we eg still let old people drive, and only do something about them when they actually get involved in an accident.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
The essential element of vehicular manslaughter that differentiates it from "a crash in which someone dies" is the mental state of the driver - specifically, that they're acting in a reckless or negligent manner. This is fundamentally nothing to do with economic trade-offs: it's about generally disincentivizing risk-taking when in command of a multi-ton vehicle moving at speed. We can know this because even if a "bad" driver is objectively more risky than a professional race-car driver who is 20yo, but has drunk a beer; it's the latter that's committing a crime when they drive.
- Retric 3y ago