[Cougar]

HD it was only really incoherent swearing that got modded it wasn't that bad!

[HoosierDaddy]

That makes me feel better. I swear incoherently when I'm sober all the time.

[DurhangAddict]

I do not advocate driving while under the influence of any intoxicant. That being said, I'll just leave this here

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jul 21 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

And CI - just because we're chums doesn't mean I like it when you're rude to me. I prefer polite debate.

Huh. See my explanation to the mods. And fuck you people are sensitive. As much as 4chan is a taboo topic, perhaps I should explain that Amerifag is just 4chan for American. I would be an Ausfag. This would have been more appreciated in the Inn...

Anyway,

Anomander, on Jul 22 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

I'm quite puzzled about the negative attitudes regarding bongs in particular. I don't see how they're a dirty thing as some have claimed, in one case connecting it to the image of a street bum.

Actually what I said was clearing someone else's chamber is the equivalent of a street bum, some explanation may be necesasry. When you smoke a bong in Australia, you chop up with spin (a mixer), usually tobacco, at a ratio dependent on any number of variables (how much weed you have, how long you want to smoke for, how strong the weed is etc.). Common ratioes would be anywhere from 30/70 to 70/30. As you have a significant amount of tobacco in your cone, you don't need to puff slowly, the tobacco will burn hot and you will be able to finish the cone in one breath, "punching" the small amount of ash through the hole in the bottom of the cone into the water and releasing the shoddy (thumb hole) to clear the chamber of smoke. Etiquette says when you pass the bong you pass it with an empty cone piece and empty chamber, fresh and ready to go. If you pack yourself a particularly large cone and run out of breath before being able to clear all the smoke from the chamber, it is common for the next person in line to scrunch their face in disapproval and for the biggest desperado in the circle "aka street bum" to volunteer to jump in and clear it for you. This smoke will be warm and slightly stale.

Terez, on Jul 22 2009, 01:43 AM, said:

Anomander said:

Plus, as has been noted before, you can only reach a certain level of high before you'll fall asleep and even then if you get repeatedly high in one day it works less and less each time (burn out).

Exactly - this is the point I have been trying to make to CI, but he seems to be purposefully not understanding it. It doesn't work like alcohol or most other drugs, where drinking/taking more will get you more fucked up. It just makes you progressively stupider.

Another thing that it takes potheads forever to learn, if they ever learn it - you don't have to smoke until you're high. You can waste a lot of weed that way, because the high creeps up on you. Best to take a puff or two and wait a few minutes, and then smoke a little more if you need to.

I'm fully understanding your point, but you seem to be ignoring mine. Regardless of how little you smoke in a day, the next time you smoke, be it that same day ot the next day or even a few days later (perhaps not weeks later) you will need to smoke more to get high, as you said. Your choice from here is to do what you like to do, which is practice self control and limit your intake in order to combat your increasing tolerance, or you choose to smoke shitloads and fuck the tolerance. Doing this may be reckless but it's not necessarily ignorant or stupid (beyond the ignorance and stupidity of smoking at all). The motivations for one choice over the other are certainly vastly different and I'm happy to explore these if you'd like but it basically comes down to either a desire to fuck yourself up or a desire not to. Judgment on which of these is more normal would be open to debate but I'm warey about causing offence considering the fuss that has already been caused in this thread.

[Gothos]

is it just me or... it seems, at least taking this thread as base, that drunk driving is a serious problem in... the USA. since of people mentioning it as everyone doing it were Terez, HD and RLY...
out of all the people I know which encompasses a real horde of human beings, their friends and families etc, etc... throughout the years none of them EVER drove drunk. if we're drinking - we don't take cars or take a cab. peroid. there was one exception when a friend of mine drove me home after I twisted my ankle (she was after like 3 martinis) and that's that. Nobody. Ever.
it seems other discussionists from Yurop seem to have similarly inexistant experiences with drunk driving...

so, why the states? what's different?

[Obdigore]

THe laws against it have been much less harsh, and they are becomming more and more harsh (which is a good thing).

I hurd, do not have a link, that if you are caught drunk driving in germany, you can no longer have a drivers license, ever. I think that would stop a lot of people.

[Gothos]

well, over here they "just" take your license, and I'm not sure about that ever being able to have one... but then, in germany the limit is 0,5 promille, and here it's 0,2 promille... anything more than a small lite (aka american style beer ) and you're fucked if you drive...
so what's the punishments and limits in the states?

[Obdigore]

This is Minnesota, it varies state to state.

First punishment is a night in jail and a fine, as well as increased insurance.

Second punishment is at least a night in jail losing your license for about a month, as well as possibly being uninsurable. You will probably be court ordered to go to AA for a while too. (Can't operate a vehicle if you don't have insurance)

Third punishment is losing your license for a year, as well as a hefty fine and some jail time.

Fourth is you lose your license forever, from what I understand.

This is of course assuming you don't get in an accident or hurt anyone, things go up to manslaughter which you can be in jail for years.

The limit here is down to .08 BAC (blood alchohal level), which is about 2 beers in an hour for the average sized guy, but it is also up to the officer, if you are driving funky, even if your level is under that when you check, they changed the violation to 'Driving Under the Influence', so if you are a big light weight, they can take you out if you suck at driving.

[Morgoth]

Isn't it so that american police are not allowed to do regular checks of people to see if they have been drinking? Over here you experience from time to time the police pulling in every third car or so to do a routine check

[HoosierDaddy]

Road checks are legal in the United States, as long as they are "random" and not arbitrary and capricious. It doesn't take much to past that litmus test. We have road-blocks on nearly every major holiday all over the place.

So basically, as long as the justification isn't "we were trying to bust drunk drivers" as opposed to, "it was a random check point to find uninsured drivers, people without a license, and any other general thing that we are allowed to perform as long as we aren't targetting a certain group," (i.e. drunk drivers).

[MTS]

So they're not allowed to place patrols in locations specifically to catch drunk drivers? How does that make sense? We have some major roads where that's pretty much all that happens. The Great Ocean Road is riddled with drunk drivers on weekends. In America would the police not be able to put police there simply for that purpose? Stopping a crime is their mandate, and drunk driving is a crime - how is that 'targeting a certain group unfairly'? That's like saying the narcotics squad should be shut down because they're targeting a certain group.

[HoosierDaddy]

No, they can, they just can't use it as their reasoning. They can assign random roads to be road-checked, those random roads end up being pretty damn the same thing all the time, with major highways always hit, and other actual random roads being targeted because smart drunk drivers know how to avoid the main roads.

Edit: You have no background in search and seizure law, so it makes no sense to you. A police "stop" is governed by the rules of search and seizure as stopping someone is a seizure of their right to go wherever they please. Thus, there needs to be a reason given to do so that isn't "arbitrary or capricious" our lowest level of constitutional protection.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 23 July 2009 - 06:18 AM

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

It seems like part of it might be that people in America tend to drive more often than elsewhere, thus more drunk driving. Or we might have stupid drunks.

[Morgoth]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Jul 23 2009, 08:18 AM, said:

It seems like part of it might be that people in America tend to drive more often than elsewhere, thus more drunk driving. Or we might have stupid drunks.

I think it's more to do with the culture than anything. I've spent enough time with american college students to form the distinct impression that drinking and driving is not a problem to them as long as your not "too" drunk. and in movies people drink and drive all the time without a word of complaint. A reception, the main guy drinks a few glases of champagne leaves in his car. The guys meet for a beer or three and leaves in their cars and so on and so forth.

Trying to explain it away with people in the US driving more strikes me as pretty absurd.

[HoosierDaddy]

The other option is that we have less immediate other transportation. Very few places have cabs that will pick you up, buses that run, or trains or whatever. Thus the huge drive for DD's here, because we have to drive, EVERYWHERE.

[Cougar]

HD I do not see what is capricious or arbitrary about stopping drivers on the basis that you are attempting to catch drunk drivers. From you brief description it sounds like you are saying this comes back to a constitutionally guaranteed right to not have your freedom of movement restricted. Surely the police have the ability to simply claim in every case "we believed that his driving displayed some erratic qualities and so pulled him over on a suspected DUI" You could never prove they had pulled you over arbitrarily or displaying an excessive amount of whimsical caprice.

Last Chrimbo I got stopped 3 times and breathalized 3 times in that space of 30 mins. I was stone cold sober. Drink driving is penalised heavily and mercilessly over here, even having a single pint is risky before driving.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I don't think it's that absurd to speculate that a place with more driving in general would have more drunk driving as well. If you're going to take the tube to the bar, of course you're not driving home. If you have to drive 20 minutes to a bar that public transportation doesn't service, you're more likely to drink and drive.

I'm not defending it. As I said, never in my life have I driven after having more than one drink.

[HoosierDaddy]

You would be right on an individual basis, Cougar. However, when police roadblocks are inacted, where they test everyone driving through them, they need a reason to do so beyond "we think there are some drunks doing so." They need to rationalize it with a reason that is not arbitrary or capricious, i.e., he was driving down this highway at 3 in the morning, so I figured he might be drunk. That is an arbitrary stop, and is prevented by our constitution, on the other hand, if you say you are randomly going to test these locations on this night, to catch drunk drivers, that is not arbitrary or capricious because you have spelt on when and where you are going to do a stop, and whoever is stooped is being stopped for a non-arbitrary reason, therefore it is constitutionally allowed.

[Menandore]

Drunk driving isn't about how good or bad your public transport is, it's all about how socially acceptable activity it is. It's pretty much changed in a generation here in the UK. Where I grew up everybody drives everywhere. Buses stop at about 7pm and trains stop by 11pm. That's assuming you can even get a bus or a train close enough to your particular farm road. When my dad was my age you drove to the pub, had a few drinks then drove home. No big deal, it was just what you did. Now though attitudes have changed. I don't drive after I've had a drink. I make the choice - find someone to pick me up, find a place to crash for the night within walking distance of the pub or drive to the pub and drink coke all night. There are three options there and it's beyond me why anyone would be stupid enough to choose the 4th option of drinking and driving home. Among my group of friends I don't know anyone that would drink and drive either, it's simply not seen as an acceptable way to behave. I reckon the reason for this attitude is the fact that all through school we were lectured on the dangers of it and the police have totally cracked down on it in recent years as well.

[Cougar]

Yes it's been one of the few victories for the governement in the last 20 years. It has gone from being a sort of thing you just did akin to smoking weed say that nobody objected to, to something that carries massive social stigma and makes you a prick in most peoples eyes. This demonstrates as well as any case study how to genuinely change things.