Board 8 > Is it okay to drive when drunk or high?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Curious after a discussion I had today.
---

nope, but depending on how drunk/high it isn't any worse than people who drive with shitty vision, who drive and text, who drive and yell at their kids in the back seat, etc. and nobody demonizes those people, who are entirely within a normal mindset, the same way they do drunk or high drivers, who are not.

As an avid smoker,

Hell no
---

Definitely easier to drive high than drunk.

But that's true for everything. And I wouldn't recommend it even if I've done it a bit.
---

No
---

velocycloraptor posted...

and nobody demonizes those people, who are entirely within a normal mindset, the same way they do drunk or high drivers, who are not.

I think plenty of people demonize people who text and drive, or drivers who can't see. That said, I'm not sure how this part even applies, since the latter chose to not be in a normal mindset.
---

You were having a conversation with someone advocating driving while under the influence?
---

Basically, this came about from witnessing an argument between two guys. One told his friend he had gotten in a wreck when high, and it wouldn't have happened if he was drunk because he's a "really good drunk driver." The other then start going on about how he drives high all the time, but would never drive drunk.

Both seemed to think one was okay but not the other, so it made me curious what others thought, since I thought it was pretty ridiculous, as did the person I was with.

I'd like to hear from the yes votes in particular.
---

plenty of people get mad and think texters/old people who drive are annoying or dumb, but you don't see the same vitriol like "they are scum of the earth and deserve to die" like for drunk/high drivers. at least that has been my experience.

and my point was that people who are drunk or high cannot make great decisions, and just because they chose to be that way doesn't mean they necessarily did it thinking/knowing they would end up driving. something might have come up, like they got abandoned by their DD and had to get home because they have work tomorrow or something. or there was an emergency and they had to take someone to the hospital or something. people still don't even attempt to empathize with it, while "it was an important text/call" or "i know i can't see but I didn't have anyone to take me anywhere" etc. are all seen as somewhat understandable circumstances. granted, this mostly is an argument that applies to the world pre-uber and lyft.

Well I mean, it's kinda true. With some practice you could almost certainly become better than the average drunk driver while drunk if you learned how to compensate for the stuff that drunkenness compromises properly, and that skillset wouldn't necessarily apply if you were high as many of the reasons you become a bad driver are different for each.

But you're still going to on average be a bad driver even at peak efficiency, never mind those "learning experiences" where you're completely garbage and getting by on luck, so I mean it's still taking a special brand of stupid to develop that skillset.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Basically, this came about from witnessing an argument between two guys. One told his friend he had gotten in a wreck when high, and it wouldn't have happened if he was drunk because he's a "really good drunk driver." The other then start going on about how he drives high all the time, but would never drive drunk.

Both seemed to think one was okay but not the other, so it made me curious what others thought, since I thought it was pretty ridiculous, as did the person I was with.

I'd like to hear from the yes votes in particular.

It probably depends on the person and their own body's reaction to the substances. I'm sure there are people who can drive well after drinking and people who could drive well after toking.

But the point is you can't accurately judge yourself under those conditions!
---

velocycloraptor posted...

plenty of people get mad and think texters/old people who drive are annoying or dumb, but you don't see the same vitriol like "they are scum of the earth and deserve to die" like for drunk/high drivers. at least that has been my experience.

and my point was that people who are drunk or high cannot make great decisions, and just because they chose to be that way doesn't mean they necessarily did it thinking/knowing they would end up driving. something might have come up, like they got abandoned by their DD and had to get home because they have work tomorrow or something. or there was an emergency and they had to take someone to the hospital or something. people still don't even attempt to empathize with it, while "it was an important text/call" or "i know i can't see but I didn't have anyone to take me anywhere" etc. are all seen as somewhat understandable circumstances. granted, this mostly is an argument that applies to the world pre-uber and lyft.

To be perfectly fair, there's not really much to empathize with. Cab services and 911 existed before Uber and Lyft. "I wasn't in a normal state of mind" isn't really something that excuses it.

Granted, I don't think "It was an important text" or anything is an excuse, either. But being in normal state of mind vs. not doesn't become an excuse.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Basically, this came about from witnessing an argument between two guys. One told his friend he had gotten in a wreck when high, and it wouldn't have happened if he was drunk because he's a "really good drunk driver." The other then start going on about how he drives high all the time, but would never drive drunk.

Both seemed to think one was okay but not the other, so it made me curious what others thought, since I thought it was pretty ridiculous, as did the person I was with.

I'd like to hear from the yes votes in particular.

It probably depends on the person and their own body's reaction to the substances. I'm sure there are people who can drive well after drinking and people who could drive well after toking.

But the point is you can't accurately judge yourself under those conditions!

Well, exactly.

It just made me curious how many people actually go "Yeah, it's okay to try."
---

Lopen posted...

Well I mean, it's kinda true. With some practice you could almost certainly become better than the average drunk driver while drunk if you learned how to compensate for the stuff that drunkenness compromises properly, and that skillset wouldn't necessarily apply if you were high as many of the reasons you become a bad driver are different for each.

I'm not doubting it's true.

My takeaway moreso was "How do people go 'Yeah, I'm a good drunk driver' and think it's a valid reason to drive when drunk."
---

One thing Smartmuffin accurately pointed out during his libertarian phase when he was fighting to legalize drunk driving was that sleepy driving can be even worse, and there's no national stigma against that.

Maybe that should be fought against too
---

I don't disagree that things like sleepy driving should be demonized a lot more than they are

I do disagree with the notion that it makes drunk driving less bad, or unfairly demonized, etc.
---

Just to beavis's point over there, I've been very drunk many times and I've never driven myself anywhere, nor had any urge to-- even having been inconvenienced a few times. Typically these situations involve me walking several miles.

It's not something that you can just forgive because you weren't of the right mindset. Being drunk doesn't fundamentally change who you are. Drunk drivers are stupid people, period.
---

the biggest factor in avoiding accidents is how much you pay attention to the road

someone who had a beer or two with dinner is absolutely fine driving home if they're taking it seriously. i generally follow the 'body can process one drink an hour' rule

i think it's important that drunk/high driving is demonized in the sense that it will cause people to do it less, but obviously the campaigns can go a little overboard if you follow them to the letter

i'm thankful to currently live in a city with a functioning public transit system- i never have to make any tough decisions because i don't even own a car
---

Jakyl25 posted...

One thing Smartmuffin accurately pointed out during his libertarian phase when he was fighting to legalize drunk driving was that sleepy driving can be even worse, and there's no national stigma against that.

Maybe that should be fought against too

Yeah but if you stigmatize sleepy driving it makes capitalism sad.
---

Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Reckless driving resulting in injury or death should be strictly forbidden tho.
---

you guys asked for it
---

I didn't even tag him!
---

Hey we don't have to make a big thing about this. You could all just admit I'm right, stop replying, and the OT can close the topic!
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Hey we don't have to make a big thing about this. You could all just admit I'm right, stop replying, and the OT can close the topic!

I'm ok with doing 2/3 of those
---

I'll use my phone while driving and acknowledge that I'm being kind of a selfish asshole when doing it.

I have a magnet that keeps my phone near the windshield so I'm not breaking my attention quite as much, but I should still just cut it out altogether.
---

SmartMuffin this topic is for real people only sorry

Your vote is disqualified
---

there's no need to bully here, it's an opinion
---

I've never felt safe in a car with a high driver, but I've never felt unsafe in the car with a drunk driver.
---

banananor posted...

there's no need to bully here, it's an opinion

You must not be familiar with SmartMuffin
---

@SmartMuffin can you elaborate
---

I'll give my understanding of his argument

Drunk driving IN AND OF ITSELF harms no one. It's only AFTER you've caused an accident that you've committed harm, and Muffin believes that those penalties are already substantial enough.

In his view, there's nothing inherently wrong with putting others at risk as long as that risk never pans out.
---

tazzyboyishere posted...

@SmartMuffin can you elaborate

Penalizing drunk driving is like penalizing shooting a gun into the air. In the vast majority of cases, it results in no harm to anyone.

That said, it certainly is high-risk behavior and sometimes it goes wrong. People should be penalized for when it goes wrong. Just like they are in every other instance of life. Drunk driving is basically the only "pre-emptive" crime that exists in society anymore.
---

In his view, there's nothing inherently wrong with putting others at risk as long as that risk never pans out.

Driving AT ALL puts others at risk. There are fatal crashes every day where nobody was impaired or distracted by anything. The things we penalize people for and how much we penalize them are so arbitrary it makes little to no sense. Studies have shown texting while driving is just as dangerous, and yet it carries virtually no social stigma and like a $200 fine, while getting a DUI makes people consider you scum of the Earth and you're probably losing your job, license, and spending at least a couple days in prison.
---

Oh, no, I get what you were going for there. I would just like to know what OT stands for.
---

oh

I... don't know. I should have said TC probably.
---

I've heard something to the effect of "marijuana makes you paranoid, which can offset the negative effects of driving while stoned."

Not sure how reliable my vague memory of that conversation piece is.
---

No

wtf is wrong with you people
---

KingButz posted...

wtf is wrong with you people

Politics et al.
---

Altimadark posted...

I've heard something to the effect of "marijuana makes you paranoid, which can offset the negative effects of driving while stoned."

Not sure how reliable my vague memory of that conversation piece is.

Completely anecdotal and made up and based on nothing.

Similar to "drunk people concentrate really hard on driving because they don't want to get a DUI which actually makes them drive more safely on average"
---

I don't really disagree with what smartmuffin is saying tbh. I don't think I've had cause to say that more than 1 or 2 other times in my life...
---

I've driven moderately drunk a few times, but below the ABV limit, and it feels incredibly unsafe. Sleepy driving feels equally unsafe. It's pretty mindblowing just how drunk you are allowed to get and still drive.

That being said Muffin is tangentially correct that drunk driving laws effectively only exist to give cops more power to stop and prosecute drivers, which beyond adding to the fear of reckless driving, is really just for racially profiling perfectly fine drivers.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Altimadark posted...

I've heard something to the effect of "marijuana makes you paranoid, which can offset the negative effects of driving while stoned."

Not sure how reliable my vague memory of that conversation piece is.

Completely anecdotal and made up and based on nothing.

Similar to "drunk people concentrate really hard on driving because they don't want to get a DUI which actually makes them drive more safely on average"

Yeah, that was literally the guy's argument for driving while stoned. Which is weird now that I think about it, since AFAIK he was clean & sober the entire time I worked with him.
---

drunk driving, driving while high, super tired driving and texting while driving are all awful and should be punished harshly.

Moreso than they already are
---

foolm0r0n posted...

I've driven moderately drunk a few times, but below the ABV limit, and it feels incredibly unsafe. Sleepy driving feels equally unsafe. It's pretty mindblowing just how drunk you are allowed to get and still drive.

That being said Muffin is tangentially correct that drunk driving laws effectively only exist to give cops more power to stop and prosecute drivers, which beyond adding to the fear of reckless driving, is really just for racially profiling perfectly fine drivers.

Huh. If I was right at the legal limit, I probably wouldn't feel anything. Slight buzz maybe.
---

I feel something should be considered a crime at some point when the risk reaches a certain avoidable level.

You say it's the same as shooting a gun in the air. How about shooting a gun in the direction of someone's yard or public property or a crowd of people? If you miss the people and the property should that not be a crime either?
---

Lopen posted...

I feel something should be considered a crime at some point when the risk reaches a certain avoidable level.

You say it's the same as shooting a gun in the air. How about shooting a gun in the direction of someone's yard or public property or a crowd of people? If you miss the people and the property should that not be a crime either?

To take it one step further, how about shooting a gun with 1/6 bullets loaded (Russian roulette style) at someones face.

Should you go of scott free if its a dud? It's the same concept to an extreme
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Huh. If I was right at the legal limit, I probably wouldn't feel anything. Slight buzz maybe.

IIRC you drink a lot so you probably have a higher tolerance

But also I think any kind of motor impairment feels dangerous, which can happen at a pretty low ABV depending on who you are. ABV is just a bad measurement in general for that reason. But I guess recently they also lowered the limit?
---

Lopen posted...

If you miss the people and the property should that not be a crime either?

Nothing should be a crime unless a harm was done. If your behavior instills a certain fear in your neighbors, they could argue that it has harmed them and perhaps a crime was committed. In any case, there's a clear victim and accuser who can point at you and say "this person harmed me."

If you shoot a gun over a neighbor's house and he's not home and it doesn't break anything he owns, no harm was done. There is no victim. The fact that he may have been home is irrelevant. He wasn't home. If you do it while he's home, that's different.
---

btw y'all your argument with Muffin is 100% semantics from this point forward

just warning you
---

foolm0r0n posted...

btw y'all your argument with Muffin is 100% semantics from this point forward

just warning you

Why would anyone argue with Muffin, he's very clearly wrong
---