Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[Jarhyn]

Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

Yeah, nah. Driving slowly isn't safer than driving at the speed of the traffic.

Speeding on high-speed roads is dangerous mainly because it means you and everyone else are going at different speeds. If everyone is going at much the same speed, the opportunity to collide is greatly reduced. Driving slowly on such roads is almost as dangerous as speeding.

On low-speed roads, driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances and conditions is safe; Driving slower than that does nothing to increase safety.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

Smoking pot impairs driving ability. Nothing about being stoned makes anyone a better or safer driver.

So, this is not entirely true.

Pot is a "mixed bag", in that it, on its own, does not rob the user of the knowledge that they're impaired and generally the user adjusts their own behavior.

This has the well-documented effect of offsetting impairment of reaction times with behavior that gives more reaction time.

It can also cause more anxiety than normal, leading a reckless driver to perhaps drive much more safely.

Crash culpability studies have indicated this result many times, with double-blind driving simulator research to back it up.

Exceptions to this pop up most notably when someone is impaired by a substance that takes away awareness of impairment (such as alcohol).

You are still assuming that reaction times and reflexes are a central part of good driving.

This is false.

Very widely believed. But false.

There exist rare circumstances, wherein someone else has done something badly wrong, and reflexes or reaction times can help to avoid, or to mitigate the severity of, a crash. But these situations are very rare indeed.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

Well, yes, this is true, in that if you are reacting, something has already gone sideways badly.

Part of good driving is driving in such a way that 1: if you need to react to something, it will be something you have sufficient time to react to; 2: nobody needs to react to you because you drive in a way that does not impose on or remove the road conditions which allow for 'sufficient reaction time'.

Potheads will often maintain these conditions attentively, and will generally think frequently about whether they have accounted for this.

That said, 100% of safe driving is about reaction times, even if it generally involves an expectation that no reaction happens.

 

[Tigers!]

The statistics doesn't show that pot smokers are worse drivers than non-pot smokers. Even though their reflexes are impaired.

I don't like making things illegal because of feelings. If we are to make it illegal we need to back it up scientifically. If we can't find a correlation between THC and being a more dangerous driver it would be wrong to make it illegal. No matter what we feel about it. Don't you agree?

We still allow people to drink a small amount to drive. Even though there's no safe amount. Tiny amounts of alcohol, even so small you can't feel it, makes you a worse driver. There's no safe amount. We still allow it, because we think there are things in life more important than being safe.

Hmm. If you are not safe then there are not many things more important. Safety allows you to do more. Fear does not.

If we think like that for alcohol, why not apply the same logic to pot smoking?

So continue on the same path and hope for a different result

No. I'd like the addicts to not be addicted.

So what's your plan in making that happen?

Carrot and stick.
Drive out the illegal pushers (as much as possible)
Educate all about the dangers (as much as possible)
Don't glorify or normalise drug use in advertising, TV, films etc.
Provide places where addicts as has been noted earlier can be looked after (carrot). But the users of these places must go on a program to try to wean them off (stick).

 

[Tigers!]

Safe driving is all about going with the flow, being predictable, anticipating hazards in your surrounding before they become hazards and leaving yourself an escape when some jackass is driving unsafe.

Yes. Assume every other driver is a muppet. And drive accordingly. On nearly every journey you will meet one on the road.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The statistics doesn't show that pot smokers are worse drivers than non-pot smokers. Even though their reflexes are impaired.

I don't like making things illegal because of feelings. If we are to make it illegal we need to back it up scientifically. If we can't find a correlation between THC and being a more dangerous driver it would be wrong to make it illegal. No matter what we feel about it. Don't you agree?

We still allow people to drink a small amount to drive. Even though there's no safe amount. Tiny amounts of alcohol, even so small you can't feel it, makes you a worse driver. There's no safe amount. We still allow it, because we think there are things in life more important than being safe.

Hmm. If you are not safe then there are not many things more important. Safety allows you to do more. Fear does not.

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just explaining how law makers have reasoned when making the current laws.

We still allow people to drive even though they are tired. Even though that is worse that mild enebriation. That's a legal choice we've made.

The police will only order you off the road if you are visibly dangerous and unable to control your vehicle. When it's reached that point, it's already been extremely dangerous for a long while.

If we think like that for alcohol, why not apply the same logic to pot smoking?

So continue on the same path and hope for a different result

No, we continue on the same path and hope for the same result.

No. I'd like the addicts to not be addicted.

So what's your plan in making that happen?

Carrot and stick.
Drive out the illegal pushers (as much as possible)

You are describing the war on drugs paradigm. We've tried it since the 70'ies and doesn't work. We can quibble about why it didn't work. But it wasn't for lack of trying. To quote what a wise man once said, the reason Europe has stopped doing it was because we stopped "continue on the same path and hope for a different result".

Driving out illegal pushers is a waste of time. As I mentioned above. Removing pushers, drives up prices, which incentivises new pushers. We have the same amount of drugs on the streets. Just more people in the jails. Housing people in our jails is extremely expensive. It's pointless. And someone who's already been in jail for selling drugs, has that on his criminal record. So he's not going to get another job. All incentives is for him to keep selling drugs.

Educate all about the dangers (as much as possible)

Education about the dangers of drugs doesn't work. We've tried that since the 1870'ies. It doesn't work because drugs are usually not that bad. They're a lot of fun. It's perfectly possible to be able to handle drugs. Women often like drugs because they're not fattening to party on. If we lecture teenagers on drugs while allowing alcohol and nicotine be legal we're obviously hypocrites. So it's going to backfire. I became a teenager in the 80'ies. I was the prime target of "just say no". I was also the first generation to start going to rave parties, where we ate ecstacy and acid as if it was candy. The anti-drug propaganda was so wrong and off target that we did the exact opposite. We arguably did so much drugs because of the propaganda. We did it because the propaganda was so exaggerated, extreme and obviously wrong.

FYI, all my friends from that time who were the most enthusiastic about drugs are dead now. Now when older and wiser I know why I never got any problems and all those other guys did. If you educate young people about the dangers of drugs, you need to know what you are talking about. The anti-drug educators in the 80'ies didn't. That was the problem. In Sweden they were all nerdy Maoist communists who were reading from their propaganda manuals as if it was Mao's Red Book. We just laughed at them. I know it was a similar deal in USA. But there it was nerdy evangelical Christians with their Bible flavoured propaganda manuals. Equally rediculous. They were also just laughed at.

In the Harm Reduction paradigm, we've switched from propaganda to actual facts. Honest straight up information. In that information we must say that most people can do drugs and won't develop a problem with it. Because that's the truth. If we don't, the kids won't listen. But the war on drugs people don't want to do that. They still want to go the propaganda rout. It's never going to work.

Don't glorify or normalise drug use in advertising, TV, films etc.

How are you going to stop drugs being glorfied or normalised in advertising, TV, films etc? How is that even theoretically possible to do?

Provide places where addicts as has been noted earlier can be looked after (carrot). But the users of these places must go on a program to try to wean them off (stick).

The first sensible thing you've said. Yes. Rehab. Which we also provide in Harm Reduction. Of everything you've mentioned, the rehab is the only thing that will help against addiction. Everything else you've said will lead to more addicts and making it harder for addicts to become clean.

And this isn't theoretical. We've tried harm reduction in Europe now for quarter of a century. Portugal and Iran were first in 1999. The numbers are in.

Like I said. I'm a pragmatic. I think results matter more than ideology. Whatever gives us the results is what I am for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You want to heroin, fine. If you call 911 for help they should just let you fend for yourself. No social services.

So you want to force heroine addicts into more dangerous criminal behaviours. How will that make life better for anyone?

No. I'd like the addicts to not be addicted.

You're after an unattainable goal. We are after the best attainable goal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The right needs bad things to protect society from. You can pretty much count on them taking the path of harm maximization.

And the left is different?
Both "sides" need, create, manufacture bad things to protect society from.

Otherwise politicians would have nothing to do.

The left doesn't go around making life more dangerous like the right does.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, people on injectable insulin usually get containers for their used needles. We used them in the ALF where I worked for about 17 years. I don't know where we got ours from, but I think they came from the drug store.

The problem is what becomes of them afterwards. They are considered biohazard, they're not supposed to just be thrown in the trash.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

Well, that's almost certainly not true of alcohol. A small amount of alcohol seems to have measurable health benefits, though few consumers of alcohol do so at such low levels as to have the good outweigh the harm.

That's tabloid science reporting. At no point has any serious researcher ever claimed the positive effects of alcohol outweigh its negative effects. At any dosage.

Disagree. It has long been known that light drinkers average better than non-drinkers. More recently opinion is shifting towards this being a selection bias, as those who don't drink sometimes have a medical reason for not drinking. Most, but not all, of the effect goes away when comparing light drinkers to never drinkers. However, the never drinkers might be that way from having seen it harm a relative, so we can't be sure.

I searched it. I had ChatGPT present all available studies and meta-studies. You got nothing.

Whenever studies show that spefically moderate wine drinkers have better health, it's always because wine drinking is what rich people do. Being rich correlates with better health. The wine the rich people are drinking ONLY makes their health worse.

You're attacking the wrong thing.

I don't believe alcohol is beneficial at any dose. But the reality is that light drinkers on average live longer. The question is whether the effect is real or confounders. I was aware of the confounder of those who can't drink for medical reasons. You're adding another that I wasn't aware of.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But just giving addicts their favourite substance without any effort to get them unhooked will not work. Where is the incentive to get unhooked? What is the point of telling people that drugs are not good for you when you go and give addicts free doses? How is that not a mixed message at best?
Driving out the pushers is a good idea but if you replaced the street side pushers with a govt approved supplier (pusher) what has been really been achieved?

"Sending a message" is almost always a cover for doing evil.

 

[bilby]

We still allow people to drive even though they are tired. Even though that is worse that mild enebriation. That's a legal choice we've made.

No it's not; It's a reflection of the fact that technology to detect fatigue at the roadside in the brief timeframe available in a traffic stop has not been available, while tests for alcohol have been.

Roadside testing for other drugs than alcohol has fairly recently become available, and is now routine.

Testing for fatigue is just starting to become practical, and will likely become routine in the next couple of decades. It (like alcohol and drug testing before it) is being trialled in the heavy vehicle context first, as this is a more readily controlled environment, has fewer issues around consent*, and has a higher potential for harm per incident.







* When you are employed driving a company vehicle, the company has the ability and right to tell you what you must or must not do, to an extent that most private motorists would find unacceptable from an external body telling them what to do with their own car. Private motorists already get upset if their insurers try to limit their behaviour, despite the obvious direct interests those insurers have in crash prevention.

 

[Elixir]

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

Well, that's almost certainly not true of alcohol. A small amount of alcohol seems to have measurable health benefits, though few consumers of alcohol do so at such low levels as to have the good outweigh the harm.

That's tabloid science reporting. At no point has any serious researcher ever claimed the positive effects of alcohol outweigh its negative effects. At any dosage.

Disagree. It has long been known that light drinkers average better than non-drinkers. More recently opinion is shifting towards this being a selection bias, as those who don't drink sometimes have a medical reason for not drinking. Most, but not all, of the effect goes away when comparing light drinkers to never drinkers. However, the never drinkers might be that way from having seen it harm a relative, so we can't be sure.

I searched it. I had ChatGPT present all available studies and meta-studies. You got nothing.

Whenever studies show that spefically moderate wine drinkers have better health, it's always because wine drinking is what rich people do. Being rich correlates with better health. The wine the rich people are drinking ONLY makes their health worse.

You're attacking the wrong thing.

I don't believe alcohol is beneficial at any dose. But the reality is that light drinkers on average live longer. The question is whether the effect is real or confounders. I was aware of the confounder of those who can't drink for medical reasons. You're adding another that I wasn't aware of.

Yeah, it's really hard to isolate confounders. So Imagonna keep on swilling 15 ml of brandy nightly for as long as I can remember to do so.

 

[Tigers!]

The right needs bad things to protect society from. You can pretty much count on them taking the path of harm maximization.

And the left is different?
Both "sides" need, create, manufacture bad things to protect society from.

Otherwise politicians would have nothing to do.

The left doesn't go around making life more dangerous like the right does.

Historically that is incorrect.
Gulags, death camps, executions in many places.
History would teach us to be wise to avoid extremes of left and right.
But we do not learn from history.

 

[Elixir]

Historically that is incorrect.

Historically Democrats were the racists.
Historically doesn’t matter, Tigers!
What matters is that RIGHT NOW we have an incomparably corrupt administration under the thumb of an historically stupid, violence-loving narcissistic criminal rapist insurrectionist fraud.
The Party name doesn’t matter. We have never had anything like this before, and trying to equivocate from 9000 miles away is just silly.

 

[Tigers!]

Historically that is incorrect.

Historically Democrats were the racists.
Historically doesn’t matter, Tigers!
What matters is that RIGHT NOW we have an incomparably corrupt administration under the thumb of an historically stupid, violence-loving narcissistic criminal rapist insurrectionist fraud.
The Party name doesn’t matter. We have never had anything like this before, and trying to equivocate from 9000 miles away is just silly.

No argument your current government is stupid and venal.

 

[steve_bank]

The right needs bad things to protect society from. You can pretty much count on them taking the path of harm maximization.

And the left is different?
Both "sides" need, create, manufacture bad things to protect society from.

Otherwise politicians would have nothing to do.

The left doesn't go around making life more dangerous like the right does.

Historically that is incorrect.
Gulags, death camps, executions in many places.
History would teach us to be wise to avoid extremes of left and right.
But we do not learn from history.

What I have learned from history up through this very second is that Christianity does not serve as any model for behavior.

Inquisitions, suppression of human rights, executions, forced conversions, religious wars, Crusades. And so on.

Christianity has been and is today extreme. There is only one way, believe as we do.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The right needs bad things to protect society from. You can pretty much count on them taking the path of harm maximization.

And the left is different?
Both "sides" need, create, manufacture bad things to protect society from.

Otherwise politicians would have nothing to do.

The left doesn't go around making life more dangerous like the right does.

Historically that is incorrect.
Gulags, death camps, executions in many places.
History would teach us to be wise to avoid extremes of left and right.
But we do not learn from history.

What I have learned from history up through this very second is that Christianity does not serve as any model for behavior.

Inquisitions, suppression of human rights, executions, forced conversions, religious wars, Crusades. And so on.

Christianity has been and is today extreme. There is only one way, believe as we do.

You're forgetting the biggest thing that changed when Christianity came. The idea that those further down on the social ladder were worthy of dignity. Christianity introduced that idea. That was unique to Christianity and had never happened before. Where ever the idea is found in the modern world, it came, one way or another, from Christianity. Just consider how the Buddhist/Shinto Japanese treated prisoners of war. In the post war trials they didn't understand what all the westerners were going on about. Obviously they used civilian women as sex slaves. Why wouldn't they?

Without it liberalism, socialism and liberal democracy would not have been possible. Even capitalism. It's a Christian idea that those with less power deserve having their property protected. In the pre-Christian Roman legal system witness statements were weighted according to social rank. They thought that was the obvious correct way to do things.

Before Christianity humanity was ranked according to power. Whoever was more powerful was a more worthy human and had a right to treat anyone like he wanted. That's why the ancients had zero moral quibbles about slavery. Since the slaves had no power they didn't deserve respect.

This new idea was, no doubt, the reason why Christianity spread and took over the world. This one thing is such a massive gift to humanity, I think the rest you mention are quibbles.

I'm not a Christian. But I am still extremely grateful Christianity exists and I think it's been a massive boon to humanity

 

[steve_bank]

Z

Anybody with half a bran and an overview of history will see that religion has been a major source of human conflict, from early tibal cures to early civilizations to today.

Today

Hindus vs Sikhs, India
Hindu vs Muslims, Pakistan\India
Muslim vs Muslim, Iran/Arabs
Jews vs Muslims, Israel/Arabs/Persians
Catholics vs Protestants, North Ireland

Here in the USA Evangelicals reject Catholics and Mormons as Christina.

It never ends.

You said you are a fan of Aleister Crowley. Are you one of those who mixes the occult with sex and drugs? Cast any spells lately? Religion is always about creating a feeling of personal power.

And that aspect of religion inclusive of the occult invariably becomes toxic.

AI Overview
Yes, Aleister Crowley created the religious and philosophical system called Thelema in the early 1900s. Central to Thelema is the concept of finding and following your "True Will," with the ethical code: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," paired with "Love is the law, love under will."

Key Aspects of ThelemaDivinity: Thelemites believe every individual possesses a divine spark and is a unique center of the universe.The Gnostic Mass: Crowley designed a central public and private ritual known as the Gnostic Mass, which serves as a eucharistic rite celebrating the union of opposites.Syncretism: The belief system blends Western occultism, ceremonial magic, Kabbalah, and elements of Eastern religions like Buddhism and Yoga.OrganizationsTo organize his teachings, Crowley utilized and led several groups:The A.'. A.'. (Argenteum Astrum): A magical order he founded in 1907 dedicated to spiritual advancement.O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis): An existing fraternal organization that Crowley reformed and aligned with Thelemic teachings.

There is a link between Crowley and Hubbard who created Scientology, another toxic ligion.

AI Overview
In Scientology, a thetan is the immortal human soul or spiritual core of an individual. Derived from the Greek letter theta (thought or spirit), it is considered the true self, distinct from the physical body and mind, and possesses infinite past lives.

 

[Elixir]

The idea that those further down on the social ladder were worthy of dignity. Christianity introduced that idea. That was unique to Christianity and had never happened before.

… since the institution of “the social ladder”.
Social ladders were a much later invention than human families, tribes or “societies”.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Z

Anybody with half a bran and an overview of history will see that religion has been a major source of human conflict, from early tibal cures to early civilizations to today.

Today

Hindus vs Sikhs, India
Hindu vs Muslims, Pakistan\India
Muslim vs Muslim, Iran/Arabs
Jews vs Muslims, Israel/Arabs/Persians
Catholics vs Protestants, North Ireland

Here in the USA Evangelicals reject Catholics and Mormons as Christina.

It never ends.

without religion it might be worse

You said you are a fan of Aleister Crowley. Are you one of those who mixes the occult with sex and drugs? Cast any spells lately? Religion is always about creating a feeling of personal power.

And that aspect of religion inclusive of the occult invariably becomes toxic.

The interesting thing about Crowley is that he deconstructed religion and examined its constituent parts. He took the bits that he thought served him the best, and just ignored the parts he didn't like.

It makes him one of the earliest fully individualistic modern humans. No matter what you think of his moral values he is interesting.

AI Overview
Yes, Aleister Crowley created the religious and philosophical system called Thelema in the early 1900s. Central to Thelema is the concept of finding and following your "True Will," with the ethical code: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," paired with "Love is the law, love under will."

Key Aspects of ThelemaDivinity: Thelemites believe every individual possesses a divine spark and is a unique center of the universe.The Gnostic Mass: Crowley designed a central public and private ritual known as the Gnostic Mass, which serves as a eucharistic rite celebrating the union of opposites.Syncretism: The belief system blends Western occultism, ceremonial magic, Kabbalah, and elements of Eastern religions like Buddhism and Yoga.OrganizationsTo organize his teachings, Crowley utilized and led several groups:The A.'. A.'. (Argenteum Astrum): A magical order he founded in 1907 dedicated to spiritual advancement.O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis): An existing fraternal organization that Crowley reformed and aligned with Thelemic teachings.

There is a link between Crowley and Hubbard who created Scientology, another toxic ligion.

AI Overview
In Scientology, a thetan is the immortal human soul or spiritual core of an individual. Derived from the Greek letter theta (thought or spirit), it is considered the true self, distinct from the physical body and mind, and possesses infinite past lives.

Thelema uses a lot of religious language, but its fully compatible with atheism

 

[Playball40]

We still allow people to drive even though they are tired. Even though that is worse that mild enebriation. That's a legal choice we've made.

No it's not; It's a reflection of the fact that technology to detect fatigue at the roadside in the brief timeframe available in a traffic stop has not been available, while tests for alcohol have been.

Roadside testing for other drugs than alcohol has fairly recently become available, and is now routine.

Testing for fatigue is just starting to become practical, and will likely become routine in the next couple of decades. It (like alcohol and drug testing before it) is being trialled in the heavy vehicle context first, as this is a more readily controlled environment, has fewer issues around consent*, and has a higher potential for harm per incident.







* When you are employed driving a company vehicle, the company has the ability and right to tell you what you must or must not do, to an extent that most private motorists would find unacceptable from an external body telling them what to do with their own car. Private motorists already get upset if their insurers try to limit their behaviour, despite the obvious direct interests those insurers have in crash prevention.

My car beeps at me if it thinks I'm 'dozing off'. LOUDLY.