• abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t think this is “car brained”. They’re not saying anything around public transit, just that we need to have a test for DWI and weed. People shouldn’t be jailed for 30 years regardless of the presence of the test or not, but we do still need some other test. Otherwise I guarantee that “don’t drive while baked” will be the next infomercial you see in a few years.

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        Missing the point a bit, we shouldn’t base legalization around if people are going to drive their cars on a substance.

        • abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          100% agreed. Like I said I think it should be legal regardless, the punishments are way too severe for what it is. But on a completely different note, we do still need the tests. I love drinking and I love smoking, but there are rules of the road, and one of those is “don’t drive the death machine with impaired judgement”.

          But yes you’re right, the legality shouldn’t be based on if “but what if they drive”. I’m more saying “if you do some life-disregarding level ignorant” shit you’re still getting in trouble.

    • HappyFrog
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      I honestly … for calling me “car brained”. That insult hurt me more than any other I’ve received. I want to protect pedestrians and cyclists from people driving cars under the influence. I want to limit driving people’s freedom to make life better for everyone.

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s honestly a very odd reaction, for what it’s worth I meant it lightheartedly.

        Of course I think pedestrians and cyclists also deserve safety.

        I would like to point out however that a majority of incidents are drunk drivers who do not already have a device like that in their car, so it’s a tad bit absurd to indicate your hard line for legalization is that when it would only apply after the fact anyway.

        • HappyFrog
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Sorry, that was too rude, I just got really upset… It’s odd, I’ve never really gotten angry at internet comments until now.

          I just wanted to point out my single issue with weed, which is more an issue with car centric infrastructure.

          • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Sorry for making you angry!

            Yeah, it’s hard, it’s not like you’re wrong that driving while baked is more dangerous then sober, but to your point I think the way our infrastructure is built where pedestrians are an afterthought if thought about at all, definitely contributes to make it even more dangerous.

            I wish we had more walkable/bike-friendly locations, it’s just not super likely given how large the US is

          • lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Nothing you said was rude. In fact everything you said was correct on all counts. I think the other person was just joking

            • HappyFrog
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              I edited my comment. I said that I despised them and said “fuck you”. Not that bad, but I changed it to be a little less abrasive.

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                thank you for explaining, I was a little confused about the exchange until I read this. I think the edit was valid and a positive but I just wish there was an edit history for better context sometimes.