500
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Muffi@programming.dev 6 points 1 hour ago

One of the biggest culture shocks as a Danish person visiting California, was seeing how normalised driving high was. I smoke pretty regularly, but I would never even think about getting behind the wheel after a single puff.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 48 minutes ago

I agree with you people shouldn't, but this is about our police being able to do whatever they want and ruining lives purely based on their intuition, which is frequently wrong and unriable at best.

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 50 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I totally believe police sincerely think they can tell based on experience, but it's false confidence.

Story time: One night on my way home I was pulled over for a broken taillight, which I truthfully told the officer I wasn't aware of. After taking another look she gave me a warning but said, with a little lilt in her voice, "Lotta dust in there, looks like it's been broken for a while... surprised you haven't noticed it." As if she "knew" I was lying, because cops have heard it all before.

I really wanted to unload on her that I was on my way home from working at my job and then taking my shift sitting in the hospital room keeping my 10-year-old daughter company until she fell asleep. She had been undergoing cancer treatments for the last 2 months. So excuse the hell outta me but there were a lot of things I'd missed lately. Like Thanksgiving. And Christmas. And apparently a broken taillight. I'll get to it when I get to it but I can't make any promises.

That smirky little accusing tone of voice still sticks with me after 20 years. So fuck your smug-ass attitude, Officer I Know What I Know, because no you sure as fucking hell didn't.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Officer threatened to slam my dad on the ground in front of us all for telling him politely to have a nice day.

Officer screamed at us in high school when we called for help because someone was beating up our friend then did nothing.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 21 points 7 hours ago

I've only been too high to drive once. And you know what? I didn't drive. I was too high.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 26 points 8 hours ago

Sir, your skin is too dark to drive

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 7 hours ago

As virtually anyone who has ever been to college knows: they can't.

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 37 points 9 hours ago

ah yes, the police. the people with a reputation for always properly assessing every situation

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 56 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn't have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol.

Elderly driving is the conversation we don't apparently want to have. Just because Gamgam can still get around on her own, in the house she's lived in for 40 years, does NOT make her capable of driving a two ton piece of metal.

Their reaction speed is like a drunk person. Their decision making skills, also akin to drunk people. Elderly drivers injure and/or kill pedestrians and drivers every year, and we're supposed to be OK with it because they're old? Fuck no. They should be tested every year if they still want to drive, and losing their license means losing their vehicle too.

[-] zzx@lemmy.world 2 points 59 minutes ago

What do you think of this?

https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536

Results We selected nine studies in the review and meta-analysis. Driving under the influence of cannabis was associated with a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle collisions compared with unimpaired driving (odds ratio 1.92 (95% confidence interval 1.35 to 2.73); P=0.0003); we noted heterogeneity among the individual study effects (I2=81). Collision risk estimates were higher in case-control studies (2.79 (1.23 to 6.33); P=0.01) and studies of fatal collisions (2.10 (1.31 to 3.36); P=0.002) than in culpability studies (1.65 (1.11 to 2.46); P=0.07) and studies of non-fatal collisions (1.74 (0.88 to 3.46); P=0.11).

Conclusions Acute cannabis consumption is associated with an increased risk of a motor vehicle crash, especially for fatal collisions. This information could be used as the basis for campaigns against drug impaired driving, developing regional or national policies to control acute drug use while driving, and raising public awareness.

Sci-hub link: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e536

[-] Zozano@lemy.lol 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

First anecdote:

I'm convinced driving stoned is still a problem (though I understand my experiences may be an outlier);

My friend used to drive stoned regularly, and while in the car with him he failed to notice traffic lights and stop signs. These are mistakes he didn't make while sober.

Caveat: he was an inexperienced driver at the time, so he probably hadn't developed intuitive driving habits, so being stoned meant he needed to manually assess every action.

Second anecdote:

I feel that driving drunk is so bad, not necessarily because of distraction or motor control (though once sufficiently drunk, these are absolutely an issue)

I feel the most dangerous part about driving drunk is the overconfidence which comes with it. People are much more likely to take risks while drunk. Conversely, people who are stoned are paranoid, so they're locked in and focused on not looking like they're driving inebriated.

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 32 points 9 hours ago

This is yet another reason we desperately need good public transit. We all get old. Why do we have to choose between endangering other people's lives and participating in society?

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 21 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Because the auto industry paid lobbyists for decades to prevent the spread of local and national rail and tram lines?

Sorry, that's kind of an oblique answer, the direct answer is money. A few extraordinarily wealthy people made a few more people rich by sacrificing what is right and good for America, with what is convenient and enriching for them. And now all our urban areas are designed for cars instead of people, which makes them shitty and inhospitable.

As a society, we would understand better, if more of us had the ability and desire to see how other industrialized nations live, but instead we just ramrod "American exceptionalism" until lil Johnny thinks his patch of Iowa, or Alabama, or Texas or wherever is equal to, or superior to anywhere else. All without ever having to leave the state, at all. I mean, what if they don't have FOOD there?

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 22 points 10 hours ago

Everyone should be tested periodically for reaction time and situational awareness. Every two years if you want to keep your license.

“Boo hoo! That means people won’t be able to drive if they don’t pass!”

GOOD.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] christopher@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago

I hope when I'm too old to drive I have the good sense to quit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] serenissi@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I think a DRE with a doctorate can tell for sure.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Stoned folks will drive straighter than an arrow at slower speeds. They are safer than an asswipe glued to their Galaxy or iPhone.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago

Cobb County Police in Georgia got some bad press for this a few years back. An officer took a weekend course to certify he could tell when people were drunk or high, and then he ruined a bunch of innocent people’s lives.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug-whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

Oh then they can come back with a fucking warrant like any other “we can tell you committed a crime”

[-] noxy@yiffit.net 16 points 11 hours ago

if a police is saying something, that police is lying

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 22 points 12 hours ago

We give someone with a high school diploma a few weeks of training a badge and a gun. They don't even have to fully understand the law.

And now they can tell if you're high or not from first sight.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

You don't think cops cant tell what's white or wrong?

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 66 points 15 hours ago

I mean, so can I in a sense -- guys passed out on my couch. "Yup, he's too high to drive."

In seriousness, I wish they'd just bust people driving recklessly. It's almost every day now that I'm almost side swiped by an aggressive muscle car driver; it's driving me crazy. I don't care what they're on, alcohol, cocaine, meth, or just pure uncut Machismo, I need those people fucking jailed before it's my kid on the news about getting hit and run'd.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 34 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

The police are legally allowed to lie about everything not under oath or not to another public servant. It is one reason to never bother with their polygraph. They lie about the results, and then act like their lie is proof.

They lie to the press all the time about officers names, ages, and whereabouts. It is their reflex to just lie and worry about it later.

Even breathalyzer are less reliable than the police would dare admit.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 124 points 18 hours ago

i have witnessed 100% sober drivers, blowing zero on a breathalyzer being arrested because the cops felt like it. anyone else failing so hard at their jobs would be fired, and these people are supposed to be trusted with extra responsibilities and human killing devices.

acab

[-] Anivia@feddit.org 2 points 48 minutes ago

Portable breathalyzers are notoriously unreliable and it's definitely possible for them to indicate zero on someone that is drunk. And also the other way around, which is why the tests always have to repeated with a stationary breathalyzer or a blood sample to be used as evidence in court.

That being said, it's still not acceptable for cops to arrest people without probable cause

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 40 points 16 hours ago

Nobody (especially pharmaceutical corporations) ever wants to talk about prescription mind altering medications and how normalized its become to be heavily medicated and still drive a vehicle on the highway. I've run into people in public at grocery stores and restaurants who obviously have had way too much medication and are literal zombies or wide eyed freaks then get into a car and drive away.

This isn't shaming anyone for taking medication. It's a good thing in the right circumstances but if someone has taken so much that it affects their ability to react to things quickly while operating a vehicle, it's definitely something to worry about. It's something I think about all the time when I'm driving down a public highway anywhere.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
500 points (99.0% liked)

News

23282 readers
3812 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS