Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (76918)	4/5/2000 6:40:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 108807

<<You can't drive while intoxicated on ANYTHING- that's an easy law to write- just set blood concentration limits- and then, obviously some things you don't want people taking at all when they drive- like LSD- but that's about driving, not about drugs. >> I once thought up a test for Mary Jane use on drivers. Offer the suspected driver some chocolate doughnuts. Damn tough to keep the test whole in a police car though.

To: epicure who wrote (76918)	4/5/2000 8:33:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>but that's about driving, not about drugs. Different issue.< If you agree to disregard the moral argument against drugs, i.e. they're evil or something, the issues converge imo. Why restrict access to drugs? "Because they're dangerous." How does this danger manifest itself? "People on drugs do stuff like run into trees or walk off rooves." What's the easiest way to reduce this behavior? "Make drugs unavailable." Or alternatively "Restrict public behavior while intoxicated - drive drug use indoors". More equitable solution imo but harder to legislate. A more compelling argument to remove some drugs from easy availability is that those drugs tend to cause a compelling addiction that ruins lives and makes the addicts do destructive and dangerous things to get more drugs. I admit some people follow this script, and they seem to serve as cautionary examples. But it is very difficult to get straight, unbiased info on how severe or likely the danger of addiction is for each substance, and for each person. And it is impossible to hold a national dialogue on whether decriminalizing drugs of abuse would lead to a social crisis or would make the social crisis disappear - by removing the addict's need to steal or whore in order to feed a nasty habit. I don't pretend to have answers. But maybe chewing on the questions isn't a total waste of time.

To: epicure who wrote (76918)	4/5/2000 8:35:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A blood concentration law (of alcohol, or whatever) may be easy to write but it's often a shaky predictor of meaningful impairment at the wheel. Given that the most common level that triggers trouble with the law is .08, other factors have a huge influence on whether the alcohol level is a problem -- age, physical condition, present state of health, the presence of certain medication, sleep deprivation, stress, road conditions, weather, various distractions, and plain old personality type. Other conditions (with no alcohol present) have been shown to predict accident potential equal or greater than a .08 blood alcohol level in a healthy and responsible driver. A few of these are, talking on a cell phone, smoking, eating, mental or emotional distress, etc..... In any case, alcohol levels in the blood only warn of a potential for troublesome behavior on the road. Many, many untroublesome drivers have been severely penalized as a result of wandering into a random testing situation on a Friday night (not a personal experience, BTW). There are not too many instances in law where potential trouble making is punished in the same way as actual trouble making. We had the fun experience of a neighbor leaving a couple of threats on our answering machine to shoot us and our dog a few years ago -- the cops said -- "well, until he actually does something....." There is also real mischief in the way that blood-alcohol levels are commonly measured -- not by actual measurement of the alcohol in the blood but, in the vast majority of cases, by some form of "breathalyzer." For starters, no part of the apparatus/system used in this measurement has ever been recognized by the FDA as a medical diagnostic device. Further, there are inherent factors associated with the devices, their methods of use and diagnostic protocols that argue against them EVER being recognized as reliable by the FDA. Among other things, "breathalyzers" allow for no physical differences in test subjects, even though it is widely recognized that the normal range of differences in humans causes significant variation in accuracy of test results. Instead, "breathalyzers" meet procurement standards established by the DOT, its agencies and individual jurisdictions. It ain't pretty folks. In fact, if you care to check, you will find that money collected from "drunk drivers" provides much of the funding for law enforcement in many jurisdictions. These comments based on experience as a consultant and witness in DUI cases. I am inclined to believe that nearly 100 percent of those charged as a result of arrest based on observed driving behavior are guilty as hell, regardless of blood alcohol test reliability. Those convicted solely on the basis of blood or, especially, breath test results probably got screwed. Whatever any of you think of the law or it's application -- Don't drink (AT ALL) and drive. The blood-alcohol level laws mass produce convictions and judges and prosecutors are adept at convincing juries the testing is infallible. I have the good fortune of living within an easy walk of the ocean, golf and many interesting bars and restaurants. Walking is good for you :-) M