|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why is alcohol legal: the george best/opening hours thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
which is so different from the widespread reports of drunkenness now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sheesh...and they say Americans are irony-proof! Taking acid, and tripping are not illegal. I said this in response to your statement:
Omni writes: Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. The state of consciousness 'tripping' is not illegal. Nor would 'being drunk' if alcohol were made illegal.
This thread began in the context of questioning why alcohol is legal. The most relevant answer is probably one of profit, both directly to producers and, indirectly via tax revenues, to governments; I suppose the violent failure of Prohibition, and Whisky Rebellions, may also have some influence. Which is largely how I responded to this thread.
I'll repeat my unanswered question: is that the sort of world you prefer? As I hinted in my posts, I would prefer a world where recreational drugs were not criminalized - if cigarettes can be legal and taxed I don't see why many drugs cannot be likewise taxed. I would prefer a world where drugs are not stygmatized. I would prefer a world where money wasn't a problem, where social problems wouldn't rear their heads.
Yet I don't see how to quantify your relevant behaviors' impact in this matter without close surveillance I mentioned the arbitrary position that the law is forced to adopt in an attempt to be clear and practical.
But if we each strike what we consider objectionable behavior from the common pool, there will be no pool at all. Precisely my point...individuals should not make the decision as to whether x should be illegal or not, but the people should make that decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
insurance companies seek to protect themselves from very costly accidents. see the male and high speeds? yeah. those tend to result in very damaging and costly accidents. they don't care too much about fender benders because they tend to be less costly than the premiums paid by consumers. yes, all accidents will make your rates increase, but notice they give discounts to women who tend to be more likely to have minor accidents because they're too busy doing the myriad other things in the car instead of driving like makeup and 'parenting' and such. this is still symptomatic of bad driving. good drivers can get into catastrophic accidents. good drivers don't tend to get into minor accidents.
insurance tables don't reflect driving ability... only liability.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Thank you, Modulous. I understand your position more clearly now.
Modulous writes: Taking acid, and tripping are not illegal. I said this in response to your statement:
Omni writes: Let law and policy regulate unacceptable behavior, not states of consciousness. The state of consciousness 'tripping' is not illegal. Nor would 'being drunk' if alcohol were made illegal. That sounds a bit like hair-splitting; in fact, taking acid is most certainly illegal. I believe that U.S. laws (and most others) regarding illegal drugs apply to both possession and use, and a large body of precedent allows the State to test for the presence of illegal drugs in the individual. Being demonstrably "under the influence" is accepted as evidence of possession and use.
individuals should not make the decision as to whether x should be illegal or not, but the people should make that decision I would generally agree but with strong reservations of individual rights that cannot be infringed upon by the will of the majority, and I would include my conception of cognitive liberty within those reservations. I believe the "people" have no more right to tyranny than the State, and the individual has no obligation to respect an unjust law: the 20th century is replete with horrors accepted--or enacted--in law by the people, as well as those created by perversions of the law. For example, my own State was founded partly on the notion of universal equality and "inalienable rights" but justifies torture of foreigners because they are not citizens under the rubric of the Constitution that codifies those rights, and denies habeas corpus because the torture is not taking place on American soil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Thank you, Modulous. I understand your position more clearly now. No worries - isn't that a great demonstration of the tag line for the forum?
Being demonstrably "under the influence" is accepted as evidence of possession and use. And under most circumstances that is true, but it would have to be shown that you took the drug intentionally. edit to add minor point: if one was to fall into a trip state of consciousness without taking an illegal drug (for example, a flashback), this would not be illegal.
I would generally agree but with strong reservations of individual rights that cannot be infringed upon by the will of the majority, and I would include my conception of cognitive liberty within those reservations. I believe the "people" have no more right to tyranny than the State, and the individual has no obligation to respect an unjust law: the 20th century is replete with horrors accepted--or enacted--in law by the people, as well as those created by perversions of the laws I basically agree here too. It was touched on back in Message 22 This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 28-November-2005 08:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...which is in direct contradiction to your notion that people back then had "greater tolerance" levels and supports my previous claim that most people were partially soused all the time. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-27-2005 03:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not really. I currently pay $900/year in car insurance. Let's say I get into an accident in which my insurance company has to pay for both my damage and the other person's damage. It can easily get into the thousands of dollars, easily much more than $900. Since most accidents would seem to fall between the "minor fender bender" and the "huge, catastophic and fatal", I would think that insurance companies would want to focus on tho
quote: Right. ALL accidents, citations, and tickets will make your rates go up. This is in contrast to what you said before, which was that insurance companies don't even include information on anything other than huge, catastrophic accidencts.
quote: No. Women have fewer accidents overall because they tend to not take as many risks as males.
quote: OK, time to do some work and back up your claim with some stats or reliable info.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Looks like a logical fallacy there RAZD, since you like pointing them out, I thought I'd do the same. just saying that looking at one side of the costs is not sufficient in evaluating the cost of road safety.
Being competent and being perfect are miles apart. I don't ask for perfection, just competence. Being incompetent should be a barrier to getting a license. Demonstrating incompetence, by such things as hitting parked vehicles on slow residential roads, should trigger evaluation of competence. Just as demonstrating incompetence by driving while incapacitated does.
Hitting a parked vehicle is a very common incident type The fallacy of popularity? This just demonstrates a very lax attitude about having competent (and responsible) drivers, not that this is a good thing to occur eh? btw, do you think that a driver with a record of hitting parked vehicles while sober is likely to be a better driver drunk (or tired or whatever) than a person who hasn't? by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
no not really. if no more people were drunk then than are drunk now that there are more things to drink than wine, then it stands to reason that at least some people had increased tolerances.
further, your use of words like soused demonstrates your normative preferences and that i cannot prove you wrong because you will present every argument to show me that drinking is bad and i'm a heathen. congrats fundie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Right. ALL accidents, citations, and tickets will make your rates go up.
This is in contrast to what you said before, which was that insurance companies don't even include information on anything other than huge, catastrophic accidencts. and yet they have blanket rules and charge males under 25 more no matter what. i know a guy who will wait out a protected left turn just in case someone runs the light. he drives me crazy cause he drives like a granny. he still pays ridiculous rates. why? because they only really care about catastrophic accidents in which they have to replace one or both cars and pay thousands of dollars in medical bills. if they just have to pay about a thousand bucks to fix your bumper and his taillight, they win. if they have to pay to keep someone in traction for 6 months and replace someone's spleen and funeral arangements and two cars, they lose. insurance is a game of risk. No. Women have fewer accidents overall because they tend to not take as many risks as males. i guess it's not sexist if you win...every accident i've ever seen involved a woman. i've seen so many women back into other people, not stop short enough, and simply forget that there were other cars on the road that might be more important than that cell phone call. women tend to take fewer risks, so they don't tend to get into serious accidents. but i'm not talking about women, i'm talking about bad drivers. oh wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Here ya go.
After 40 years on the road, my observation is that in the past, the aggressively nutty driver was inevitably a young male. In recent years, I have found that expectation upended: the lane weaver seems as likely to be a young lady. Perhaps my subjective impression holds some validity:
Women Drivers Crash More Than Men The statistics tell a paradoxical story. According to a controversial study by researchers at the John Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Public Health, women are more likely to be involved in car crashes than men - despite the fact that men are three times more likely to be killed when they do crash. As reported in the June issue of Epidemiology, American women were involved in 5.7 crashes per million miles driven. Men, on the other hand, clocked up just 5.1 crashes per million miles. Given the fact that men drive an estimated 74 per cent more miles per year than women, the figure is surprising indeed. "Although risk-taking behaviours may contribute to the excessive injury mortality among men and younger drivers, up to now age and sex discrepancies in death rates from motor vehicle crashes have not been well understood," says lead author Guohua Li, associate professor of emergency medicine. Using crash statistics gathered by the Fatal Accident Reporting System, the General Estimates System and the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the researchers developed an innovative method called "decomposition" to break down the data into new categories and weigh the relative contribution of three variables: crash fatality, incidence density (number of crashes per million miles) and exposure prevalence (annual average miles driven per driver). Until now, the death rate ratio has always been based on just two factors: fatality and accident rates. The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts. Each year, motor vehicle crashes in America claim a staggering 40,000 lives, cause three million injuries and cost the nation $140 billion. This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-27-2005 09:10 PM Real science did not really get going until Christians began applying the inference of a lawful universe made by a rational God to the study of the physical creation. --Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
thank you. my google has issues.
*sigh* she's the first to scream about sexual stereotypes until they work in her favor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
*sigh* she's the first to scream about sexual stereotypes until they work in her favor. Well, hang on, now. The idea that male drivers cause more accidents isn't just some "cultural stereotype"; it's a commonly-accepted, often-repeated actuarial justification for soaking male drivers with higher insurance premiums. This is the first I'd ever heard that that isn't the case. Even the article itself spells out what a surprising find this turns out to be. I think you're way off-base to criticize Schraf for repeating the conventional wisdom, and to accuse her of promulgating a stereotype for her own benefit. Men do take risks, more so than women. To assert otherwise is to either ignore science or betray a gross misunderstanding of the mind-altering, harmful drug called "testosterone." I am a riskier driver than both my wife and my sister. But also, I've never been in an accident; compared to my wife's one and my sister's three.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
i just happen to look around me instead of trusting statistics.
as a student of a discipline that puts way too much trust in numbers and their alleged reflection of patterns and causality i know the kind of things statistics can be twisted into. why do women get in more accidents now? probably because more women drive now than before. the female to male ratio in the population is higher and still growing. further, all the women who were old enough to let their husbands drive are either widowed or dead. you can't just say oh more men than women get in wrecks when there are other factors that could be affecting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
i just happen to look around me instead of trusting statistics. So, in other words, you're a creationist.
why do women get in more accidents now? probably because more women drive now than before. Well, check the article. They're not comparing raw numbers of accidents for men and women; they're comparing accidents per mean hours driven. So an increase in the number of women drivers, or the amount that women drive, wouldn't have any effect on that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024