VtWForum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6

Author Topic: Discuss "Double Standard" Here  (Read 12600 times)

Octale

  • Lord of the Hateorade
  • Staff Member
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 810
  • This is the text that doesn't end. Yes it goes on
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2010, 12:52:23 AM »

Quote
As for making it harder to obtain a license in exchange for the privilege of driving home, your ability to drive and obtain a license from the DMV while sober is irrelevant once your intoxicated beyond a certain point.
Except my driving while intoxicated is better than 90% of sober people.  That's why I resent the law.  I know I am a good driver, and that doesn't change just because I've used a completely legal substance in one of the ways it was intended to be used (else there wouldn't be bars). 
Logged
Studio Manager
Production Manager
Destroyer of Populists

Vaulisel

  • Moderator
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Fashionista
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2010, 01:10:34 AM »

Except my driving while intoxicated is better than 90% of sober people.  That's why I resent the law.  I know I am a good driver, and that doesn't change just because I've used a completely legal substance in one of the ways it was intended to be used (else there wouldn't be bars). 
This would sound way more credible if most everyone didn't believe this about themselves.
Logged

Recta

  • Friar
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2010, 04:30:07 PM »

So I started ranting about the government (US) and how bad it is years now.  This is just another example of stupidity.  I actually don't have an issue with the government taking someone's license away for driving their car drunk.  The bike thing is stupid and our drug laws in general are too.  BTW walking is not legal if your too drunk.  You can be arrested for public intoxication in a lot of areas.  

Lumping Prozac in with Narcotics that are legal with a doctor's note was a mistake in my opinion.  Vicodin and Oxycodone are much better examples then an antidepressant.  Antidepressants don't effect your reaction time in a negative way like other substances.  I don't know if you want to include medication only a doctor can administer in this, if so cocaine would need to be moved into this area.  I was very shocked when my doctor told me he used it in my nose surgery to fix my broken nose.  

Quote
Bars, taverns, etc. have to acquire liquor licenses in order to operate.
I just love this.  You have to have a license to sell alcohol.  Why?  Money.  Plain and simple.  More red tape for businesses.  The business already get heavily fined if they don't follow the rules and ignorance of the law is no excuse so why do we need a license to show we know law?  Especially when the same government tries to trick businesses into breaking the rules so they can write up fines.  

Quote
Running someone over with a bicycle is not fatal.
The problem is that's probably not the reason the law was written is it is.  Based off of reasoning for writing other laws such as tickets for not wearing a seat belt.  The law was written to protect you.  You aren't allowed to make the choice to take the risk of biking after drinking because the government is smarter and knows better then you.  





« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 04:32:14 PM by Recta »
Logged

Darth Xanith

  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2010, 08:42:02 PM »

This is a pretty interesting topic, I've been thinking out exactly what my POV on this is ever since I read the blog post.

Partly I am going to play Devil's advocate, now I can on some level see why someone would be pulled over on a bike and tested and even fined. Dont forget, by law bikes are for use on the roadways, and not the pavements (and at least where I am, cycle lanes are in short supply), you are as capable of causing an accident by swerving out of control on a bike as you are in a car. Dont just think of it in terms of pedestrians, if someone in a car has to swerve to avoid you they could well crash themselves.

On the other hand while yes I can see the logic in levying a fine for the above reason, it shouldnt effect the driver's licence of that person's car - that is pretty ludicrous.

As for the double standard with other narcotics, I personally believe you shouldnt drive with anything that might seriously impede your ability to drive/reaction speeds/concentration. Obviously short of an ability to so an on the spot blood test it's impossible to test for all of that, but with the numbers of people who do go out and get drunk before driving I dont think it's that unfair to put an emphasis on stopping drunks - esspecially with how easy it is to test for it.
Logged

Octale

  • Lord of the Hateorade
  • Staff Member
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 810
  • This is the text that doesn't end. Yes it goes on
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2010, 07:53:42 AM »

Quote
Lumping Prozac in with Narcotics that are legal with a doctor's note was a mistake in my opinion.  Vicodin and Oxycodone are much better examples then an antidepressant.  Antidepressants don't effect your reaction time in a negative way like other substances.  I don't know if you want to include medication only a doctor can administer in this, if so cocaine would need to be moved into this area.  I was very shocked when my doctor told me he used it in my nose surgery to fix my broken nose.  
The reason why is because prescription pain killers have a stigma, too.  "Mood enhancers" are just okay to use and abuse in the eyes of many.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 09:28:34 AM by Octale »
Logged
Studio Manager
Production Manager
Destroyer of Populists

Vaulisel

  • Moderator
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Fashionista
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2010, 08:22:27 AM »

"Mood enhancers" (and painkillers) are the victims of careless overprescription. Antidepressants should and are prescribed for depressive disorders which produce measurable biochemical problems in levels of various hormones and neurotransmitters. Antidepressants should not be administered to people who are feeling "kinda down". Doctors who are careless with diagnoses or who are receiving commission from pharmaceuticals vendors are to blame for the stigma these drugs have and the normalising of their abuse.

It's the same retarded problem that has resulted in scores of children unnecessarily doped up on ritalin et al, and resulted in the modern menagerie of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.
Logged

Scragnoth

  • Friar
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2010, 09:02:28 PM »

Is there a local election coming up? This seems like the kind of over-extension of the law politicians use to show that they are "tough on crime". I am also curious as to how strongly it is enforced. In my experience, some police officers can be a little flexible when it comes to offenses that affect your insurance rating, provided that you are cooperative.
Logged
Personally, I would rather lose 10 games with a VTW newbie learning the ropes, than to win one along side "xXPwNzNo0bZ69Xx" whom constantly proclaims how one thousand three hundred thirty-seven he is.

Vaulisel

  • Moderator
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Fashionista
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2010, 10:48:15 PM »

Ugh, the New Zealand police uses traffic law as a revenue gathering system, so they wouldn't take away a car license for cycling drunk. It'd be one less person to fine $200 for not wearing a seatbelt, one less person who can be fined $300 for not having their fog lights disconnected, etc etc. They don't seem to care that it's dickish to set up their speed radar with their car hidden behind a hedge at the bottom of a steep hill. After all, they have a quota of fines to meet each day. Yeah.

I'm not a huge fan of my country's traffic law enforcement
Logged

tardcore

  • Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2010, 06:09:42 AM »

You should really be more careful about how you use the word 'narcotic'. While many people use narcotic to refer to the opiate class of drugs or even to refer to illegal drugs in general, in pharmacy it is used to refer to psychoactive sleep or drowsiness inducing drugs. This category afaik does not include caffiene. It is true that many people cannot get moving without their morning cup of coffee. That is however, a symptom of withdrawal from regular use of coffee, not an effect from having coffee in your system. 

I would also agree with an earlier poster that comparing SSRI antidepressants such as Zoloft and Prozac (both very similar drugs if you didnt know) to alcohol is a far stretch. While they can cause sedatory and other undesirable effects, mental illness is a lot more prevalent than many would think and they are legitimately needed by many people to live normal lives (they are overprescribed though imo) and most of the less severe side effects usually fade after the first few weeks of therapy.  A much more adequate comparison would be a benzodiazapene such as the well known vallium: it is overprescribed, overused and even causes sedation via similar pharmacological process to alcohol. Even then this isnt a perfect comparison as alchohol is what is known as a 'dirty drug' and does not just act via one pathway and typically causes much further impaired judgement and fine motor skills than your typical dose of a benzodiazapine. 

The problem with what you dubbed the legal narcotics (Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol) is that they have become such an ingrained part of society that further limiting their use could have extreme economic and social impacts. This makes it incredibly hard to regulate them in the same way prescription drugs are regulated and even harder to outlaw them as illegal drugs. It is actually similar situation to aspirin; if such a drug where discovered today, the side effect profile would be much too extreme for it to be approved for therapeutic use. However by the time the full extent of aspirin's side effects were realised it was too late to take it off the market completely without a significant economic effect.  It would seem to me that we dont pick and chose the drugs that are socially acceptable. The picking was mostly done for us when drugs were used much more carelessly.
Bit of a long reply, but I am a pharmacy student and have a wealth of drug-related knowledge waiting to be used.

Finally, a bicycle is also counted as a vehicle in Australia afaik and I've been told that horses count as them too. Stupid law is stupid.
Logged

Octale

  • Lord of the Hateorade
  • Staff Member
  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 810
  • This is the text that doesn't end. Yes it goes on
Re: Discuss "Double Standard" Here
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2010, 08:50:48 AM »

Quote
The problem with what you dubbed the legal narcotics (Caffeine, nicotine, alcohol) is that they have become such an ingrained part of society that further limiting their use could have extreme economic and social impacts. This makes it incredibly hard to regulate them in the same way prescription drugs are regulated and even harder to outlaw them as illegal drugs. It is actually similar situation to aspirin; if such a drug where discovered today, the side effect profile would be much too extreme for it to be approved for therapeutic use. However by the time the full extent of aspirin's side effects were realised it was too late to take it off the market completely without a significant economic effect.  It would seem to me that we dont pick and chose the drugs that are socially acceptable.
We absolutely do pick and choose.  That's why we laugh at sitcoms that portray office workers as husks until they get their coffee, and heroin addicts as homeless, jobless, freeloading criminals.  That's why you'll never see the sitcom about a stock trader that does a couple of lines of coke before heading into the office.  Do you ever hear about the blood caffeine content of a driver who's just slid into a family of 6?  Of course not, but be damned sure if the driver of a car that hit the family of 6 had a thimble of gin, it will be all over the evening news.  We don't evaluate whether or not the driver of a car was a good driver or not, but we'll go over the situation with a fine tooth comb to find the narcotics we love to hate.  It's wrong, and we ought to have the mental and emotional courage to examine it and address all the things that are wrong with it.

Oh yeah, I forgot, life is hard.  So, serve me up two fifths of prozac with a coffee chaser, so I can forget about how bad my life supposedly sucks.
Logged
Studio Manager
Production Manager
Destroyer of Populists
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6