• mean_bean279@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        83
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They legalized mushrooms and some other drugs and then (if I recall) made it to where possession wasn’t a crime. Half of Oregon (I imagine you can identify it based on population density) now most likely thinks legalizing drugs means allowing the bad behavior that comes from some of its users. Rather than realizing that alcohol is legal and has bad users as well that cause major harm to our communities but we wouldn’t dare take that away again.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I live in Indiana right on the central Illinois border. Weed is legal in Illinois but illegal in Indiana. You would think all those towns by the Indiana border would welcome the tax revenue from having dispensaries in them (Michigan towns do this to attract Indiana buyers). Nope. Those redneck counties decided that crime would run rampant in their little towns and passed resolutions banning dispensaries.

          People from around here still go to Illinois to buy weed. They just drive an hour to do it. It’s worth it to them, but they would definitely buy more often if it was one county over. And while we’re not a huge city, it’s a decent enough sized market that they would definitely get a lot of business. Morons.

          • Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know someone who has actually. They didn’t actually harm anyone but they did wave a knife around and it 100% would’ve got bad had they not been tackled to the ground. This shouldn’t stop u from doing shrooms tho just know your limits.

            • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yikes! Must have been a very bad trip. That sounds more like defensive behavior though, rather than violent intent.

              You really shouldn’t tackle people who are holding knives. I was watching Cops once and this lady was waving around an 8" chef’s knife. One cop tackled her and the knife ended up embedded to the hilt in her chest. Idk if she died, but she was definitely fucked up.

      • Encode1307@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Drugs were decriminalized. Crime and overdose has gone up everywhere but a majority of Oregonians seem to believe that decriminalization is the cause.

          • bufordt
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Crime and overdoses went up across the country, not just in states where drugs were decriminalized.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In addition to the other poster’s clarification, I’d also like to add that even if it was related to the drugs, IMO “banning things that can be related to criminal behavior” isn’t the move.

            Alcohol is a prime example of this, as in the meme. People often make bad decisions related to it, sometimes like driving, sometimes even cold blooded murder, and they can die from it as well, alcohol poisoning, cirrhosis, you can even die from the withdrawls, but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be able to enjoy a beer or two after a long shift at work on a hot ass day.

            Similarly, while true that people can overdose on heroin, or can commit crimes to get it, it isn’t necessarily right for me to tell you that you can’t use it if you want, just don’t commit those crimes or you will be punished.

            Frankly, though you can’t overdose, I’ve known people who stole to get video games, comics, records, etc, just other normal worldly possessions they wanted more than they had morals. The same crime happened with no drugs involved. Does that mean we need to ban alcohol, comics, records, games, anything people steal ever? No, because that is silly, “don’t steal” covers it regardless of motivation for theft, IMO “because crime can be done with/for it” is a pisspoor reasoning for banning something.

      • Encode1307@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish it was just those mouth breathers. It’s also people sick of seeing people smoking fentanyl in Portland, but like I said, that’s happening in most cities, not just Portland

      • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, Oregon by comparison to a large swath of states is definitely on the top end of intelligence. But 48% of a state is definitely still not happy about drug legalization and decriminalization. That’s just something we will deal with as political attitudes change.

        • angrymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Someone can be unhappy with drug legalization, but believing in strawman to support your point is not cool

          • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            You literally responded to someone who said “this is half of Oregon” and then proceeded to strawman your own foolish opinion that the state must be stupid.

            Do you understand what being a hypocrite is or do you just actively engage in comments in bad faith?

  • SadSadSatellite @lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m interested in what the harsher dui laws have done to drunk driving rates. Are less people doing it and less people dying? Or are there just a lot more fines and arrests from people driving home from restaurants and bars?

    I’ll clarify I refuse to drive with more than two beers in me, I really only have more than that at home, but I do feel like the somewhat arbitrary alcohol limits seem harsh And the fact you can be pulled over and forced into a BAC test for really any reason feels a little ‘Minority Report’.

    Again I’m not condoning drunk driving, just interested in the shift in effected lives.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Better public transportation, walkable streets, and non car-centric urban planning in general has done far more to prevent drunk driving than harsher laws. Data shows that the incidence of DUIs are more or less proportional to the need for residents in a city to drive in general. DUIs are rarely premeditated, purposeful crimes. Very few people are at the bar rubbing their hands together as they down their fourth shot, anticipating the moment when they get behind the wheel. The vast majority of DUIs are the result of poor planning and poor decisions when you just want to get home, and in situations like that the threat of punishment or simply the voice of their conscience is also a lot more likely to be ignored. Providing easy alternatives to droving goes a long way to preventing DUIs. People are way less likely to be in a position to DUI when the metro is the most convenient way to and from the bar.

    • tenchiken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      BAC limits are at least supposed to be based on averages recorded from “test subjects were impaired / affected at this level or higher”… It’s not a bad metric to use in itself, but the level applied and how it’s enforced are definitely able to be questioned harder.

      The fact that cops use “they seemed influenced” as a catch all to threaten and excuse shitty behavior is the bigger problem by far. It’s squarely under the other traffic laws in my mind … While well intentioned, the vast majority of people will just behave the same regardless. Only 2 real things happen:

      1. Abuse of said laws for monetary / power gains
      2. Actual death/harm caused by major infractions holds a real chance at penalty or enforcement

      Balancing between them is the bigger problem.

      Ultimately, societal change on personal responsibility would be the better solution, but humans will always be “but I should be allowed to break the rule because I won’t hurt anyone!”… Or they are sociopathic and just don’t care if their fun hurts others.

      • SadSadSatellite @lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think BAC is probably the best real indicator we have, the issue that stands out to me about it is (unsure if state or national) the legal limit has been lowered twice in my memory, and it was due to groups like MAAD pushing, not scientific studies.

        Note: MAAD was just an example I chose, I really know nothing about them. They could be complete abolishonists or concerned citizens, I have no opinion.

        • starman2112
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In my opinion, I have no problem lowering the BAC floor. You cannot tell when you’re too drunk to drive. It’s much safer to just follow the maxim of if you’re going to drink, don’t drive; if you’re going to drive, don’t drink. It’s so easy to not drink alcohol. Easier than drinking even; you just have to not buy it.

          My opinion might be skewed because I know several alcoholics who insist that they’re good (if not “better”) drivers when they’re buzzed. I hate my city’s drug culture. People treat me like a damn unicorn because I don’t use alcohol, nicotine, or THC.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Easier than drinking even; you just have to not buy it.

            I don’t buy more than 1 beer when I go out. I end up drinking 4-5 because people buy me drinks for singing. I literally sing for my supper liquid bread.

            • starman2112
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, the fact that people are enablers didn’t even cross my mind. Even more reason to hate the drug culture.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just FYI it stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They are MADD not MAAD. I remember the church bus accident on I-71 in Kentucky. That’s when they got a ton of political capital.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Harsher laws don’t reduce crime. We have over 40 years of data in the US to corroborate that. They just increase your prison population.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36178871/

      Conclusion: There was a marginally significant [p = 0.07] higher incidence rate of drunk-driving episodes among residents of states with no minimum jail sentence compared to those in states with a minimum jail sentence for the first time DUI.

      Minimum sentences for first offense are correlated with lower rates of drunk driving. This doesn’t prove causation, of course, and continuing to ratchet up sentencing will obviously have diminishing returns, but it does seem to help a bit.

  • satans_crackpipe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The pfp for that NIMBY/whatabout troll account is perfect. I can smell her room full of horse posters and chintzy crucifixes.