That's what half of Oregon thinks right now
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1161 points (98.3% liked)
Murdered by Words
4 readers
1 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Mind enlightening me... What's going on in Oregon?
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.
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.
Thank you for explaining!
Nobody has ever gone on a violent rampage on mushrooms.
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.
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.
Drugs were decriminalized. Crime and overdose has gone up everywhere but a majority of Oregonians seem to believe that decriminalization is the cause.
Is it the half that wants to be annexed by Idaho? It is, isn't it?
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
So Oregon is stupid.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Abuse of said laws for monetary / power gains
- 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.
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.
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.
My interest group is MAAD. Mostly Alcoholics Are Driving. We aim to outlaw cars and trucks.
It's for the children.
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.
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.
Yeah, the fact that people are enablers didn't even cross my mind. Even more reason to hate the drug culture.
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.
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.
That number is not insignificant though. I appreciate the recent study, thanks.
The pfp for that NIMBY/whatabout troll account is perfect. I can smell her room full of horse posters and chintzy crucifixes.
A sprinkle of hidden stereotypical sexism is also always well received online.
Not to mention that homicide is still a crime lmao