3 minutes ago, fangless said:

I am most definitely am not agreeing with you and it is totally misleading to imply that I am.

 

we most definitely agree. We both want less drug abuse and less drug addicts, and the way there is legalization/decriminalization. It's just you haven't realized it yet, but if you would just look at the facts we would agree, as we have the same goal in mind.

Just now, fangless said:

Totally wrong.  Legality or otherwise has nothing to do with abuse;

Definition of drug abuse; Substance abuse, also known as drug abuse, is use of a drug in amounts or by methods which are harmful to the individual or others.

countries that have decriminalized or legalized drugs see much less drug abuse. it's a fact.

8 hours ago, fangless said:

I don’t care what drug crazed idiots do to themselves with whatever is their drug of choice.  The quicker they remove themselves from the “Gene Pool” the better.  

It is the harm they do to others that I object to.

The war on drugs doesn't prevent people from taking drugs. 

So it would be in your interest to make drugs legal, as it's been proven that it reduces drug abuse. Win win. Glad we agree.

Harming others physically is illegal in itself.

Drug addicts ofcourse harm their families and friends in other ways, but again, the war on drugs just makes addiction worse. The resources spent chasing people should be spent helping addicts.

On 8/29/2020 at 3:10 PM, fangless said:

Legalize what?

Legalize it all.

The war on drugs does more harm than good.

Plus it's immoral to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies, it goes against my idea of basic human rights to tell someone what they can and can't ingest.

We gotta stop this covid19 fear.

In Sweden, nobody wears a mask and there has been no lockdowns.

The average age of covid death in sweden is 82 years old. That is the same as average life expectancy in sweden (82.3 years).

Only 6% of the covid deaths in sweden didn't have comorbidity (that there was other underlying causes for death).

This covid fear is complete nonsense.

Legalize it 

Royal project is selling fertilizer for hydroponics. 

It can be used with regular soil too. Just be careful to not overdose..

The good thing about hydroponic fertilizer is that it contains everything.. all the different nutrients...

150 baht for 1 liter.. it's gonna last years..

If they can just get the Chinese tourists back quickly then the rest of the world can wait until 2025.

3 hours ago, M71 said:

Wow the Central Banksters / IMF have Thailand by the balls as well as every other country on the planet. In debt up to the taxpayers eye balls.

 

Welcome to the new terrorist on the block - no it ain't Bin Laden, no it ain't the Communists - it's COVID-19 ! - the unseen worldwide terrorist you can't see, can't hear, can't touch and can't confront.

 

Stay scared sheeple - and do whatever your told - or we'll come get ya!

 

 

Yeah, and it's never going away

1 hour ago, CrunchWrapSupreme said:

Funny how that's only become a concern as of late, as the sight of government handing cash out to regular, needy people seriously irks some, for some reason.

 

It certainly wasn't a concern during Reaganomics and Dubya's tax cuts, in which the printing presses couldn't spin fast enough putting dollars into the pockets of corporations, their board members, and majority shareholders.

 

Yeah, let's try that again. Surely it'll "trickle down" this time.

Actually, the money is mostly going to corporations and bankers this time too.

The reason the dollar has survived this far is because it's the world's reserve currency. It's about to lose that status soon I think.

Also, the reason we haven't seen inflation on consumer prices is because the inflation has been mostly in stocks and real estate. Because, again, most of the money goes to the bankers...

2 hours ago, brain150 said:

That's called Socialism - or worse Communism.

Governments should stay out of the economy entirely ! Let the market sort it out.

 

A contraction is necessary ! Zombies are dead - let them be dead ! Free resources to do something productive !

Exactly. The government can't save anyone. It's the people that are paying for government, not the other way around.

The government can only take money from the people and give it to someone else. There's no free lunch.

Americans will soon discover/realize that the most expensive way to pay for government is through the printing press when the dollar is destroyed.

Thailand is no tourist destination amid covid-19.

This is like saying that the safest car is your bed at home. 

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Depending how much you drank. More than 2 drinks in an hour is dangerous.  A bad driver can kill just as easily as a drunk driver, not having the skills, knowledge and awareness of a good driver. People who are bad drivers, like many here, shouldn't be on the road anyway, and the only way the carnage will stop here is if they give harder tests, make the police give tickets for bad driving and not wearing helmets, taking away licenses for drunk driving, not allowing anyone under 15 to drive any motor vehicle, meaning scooters for those 15 and 16 minimum for autos. Everyone has seen how bad the drivers are here by the yearly statistics, and drinking is the leading cause of fatalities here, along with distracted drivers and speed.

Ok, I think we're finding some type of agreement here. 

The problem with bad drivers is that they can in some cases pass a very hard test and then they get on the road and they have a temper o they stop caring about safety (get cocky) etc.

If someone had to drive my kids to school. I would rather let you, a professional, having 3 beers in you, knowing that you know that 3 beers means you gotta be extremely careful, drive my kids to school rather than an angry average driver. Or even a <deleted>ty reckless driver in a normal state.

Ofcourse I would prefer if you were sober.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I was a professional driver for many years, putting in twice the mileage as the average person. If I drink, I don't drink much. If I drink more than I should, which is very rare, I will not drive until it wears off.

That's great. Would you agree that if you drink you would still be able to drive safer than someone that is a <deleted>ty driver? I mean if you really had to?

Btw I edited my previous reply

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Again making excuses to drive after drinking. Tells all. Calling someone a moron because they are trying to get a point across to you that is valid, and laughing out loud, shows everyone with any common sense where you're thinking lies. Your words................ Impaired means impaired, you will kill someone.................... My thinking isn't black and white. I have driven after drinking when I was young and not thinking of the consequences. I have driven tired, so I could get home, like everyone has at times. Don't assume that you know how much I know about a topic just because you're thinking differs from mine. This isn't an argument. You just happen to be wrong and , being a drinker that drives after drinking, think you are immune to hurting others because you "drive slower". Don't call someone you don't agree with a moron. That makes you look the part. And don't drink and drive, because you might just kill someone and then will remember what I said here. But then it will be too late for them.

Your driving is impaired compared to an elite level professional driver. Therefore you shouldn't drive. It's dangerous. You could kill someone.

Sorry for calling you a moron.

I just lost it a bit.

Do you agree that everything regarding driving safety is a spectrum? There's no 100% safe and no 100% dangerous?

So there's some people that drove dangerously even when they are sober. Correct?

There's some people that drives much safer than others even when all parties are sober? Correct? Simply because they have better skills and better reaction times.

Speed is a factor in safety. Correct? Slower Speed = more time to react. More time to break. Less damage if collision occurs. Correct?

6 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Impairment means impaired. Weakened. Not up to par. Having a disability. Meaning you are a risk to others on the road. Going slower doesn't mean you can react like a sober driver can. You keep making excuses to drink after drinking. there aren't any. You aren't referring to one or two beers and waiting. You are saying a few beers, which will impair your driving. When will drinkers admit they are risking other's lives? When they are taken to court for manslaughter? And if you live in this country, with some of the worst drivers on earth, where there are more on scooters than in cars, and not wearing helmets, a slight bump hitting them can send them to the pavement to die.

You are thinking way too black and white ... Do you drive when you are a little bit tired? Did you know that when you are a little bit tired you are impaired? Impaired means impaired, you will kill someone.

Also, did you know that different people have different reaction times? Some people react slightly slower, so they should not be allowed to drive. Only the people with the absolute best reaction times in the world should be allowed to drive. Because compared to him/her everyone else is impaired.

I'm done arguing with black and white thinking morons like you lol

I live in Chiang Mai and go to royal project store weekly for years and I have never seen habaneros there.. just jalapenos.

1 hour ago, Dave0206 said:

I think we can all agree her judgement was impaired I assume on a normal day she does not ram bikes and drive at police and public no matter at 10 km or 100 km per hour.

Speed adjusted for you for her inebriated state

I'm talking about meeeeee

3 minutes ago, Miami007 said:

Thailand can survive without tourism. They would just lose about 15% of GDP, if no foreign tourists are coming into the country. Plus the money that is generated in other sectors by tourism... So around 20-25% loss in total. That can be survived.

But in addition to tourism, who would buy a lot of these new condos? Many target foreign buyers or Thais who rent them on Airbnb. 

Which country will open or invest in factories in Thailand, if managers or owners can not supervise operations on site?

Exports will eventually suffer as no Thai companies can send staff abroad to meet with customers.

Closing borders will shrink total economic outputin the long r - especially once other countries open and the world passes on bothering with nations which continue closures

 

Returning to an economic model seen in the middle ages (Or before 1900) is possible, but maybe not what the modern Thais who are middle-class to HiSo prefer. Definitely will get rough for most expat in the country when the economy collapses

 

I wasn't clear enough in my question I think.... 

The economy is like a house of cards. If 20% of business suddenly shut down, it means millions of people will start defaulting on all types of debts. Rents will no longer be paid etc etc. This creates a domino effect. Eventually it goes all the way to the banks ... The banks start to get in trouble etc.. u k ow what I mean? Won't this happen in Thailand too? This much be way worse than the 2008/2009 financial crisis, and banks went bankrupt then and had to be bailed out etc.

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Driving after three for anyone is impaired. You are no different than anyone else. When you drink, you think you are driving safely, but if anyone was watching you that was sober, they would see the difference. There have been thousands of people that have died because of others drinking a "few" beers..............https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-driving-under-influence

Everybody is different.

Impairment doesn't mean it's more dangerous.

If I'm impaired I might have 100% slower reaction time. But if I drive 10% of the speed it means I Will have 9 times longer to react. So despite my 100% slower reaction time I will be able to react in time more frequently than if I was sober.

These numbers are obviously pulled out of thin air. But the point is that driving slower and more carefully outweighs the impairment.

7 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Nothing nullifies stats. You just think you're okay while driving. Just like everyone else until they kill or maim someone or themselves. Two beers in an hour and you wait awhile, you're alright. Three will definitely impair anyone's driving ability.

1. I was not included in the stats.

2. Stats have room for outliers.

Sure, the average guy drives worse after a few beers. But I'm not average.

Yes I admit that my reaction speed is down and my brain is impaired. But I more than make up for it by driving so much more careful and slow. Because I'm aware or the impairment.

Ofcourse there's a limit. I wouldn't drive after 10 beers for sure. Lol

23 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Sorry to burst your bubble..............

Most people will claim that they’re under the limit and thus fine to drive after drinking one or two alcoholic drinks. But are you safe to drive after one or two drinks?

SCIENCE SAYS, NO. There’s no absolute safe level of alcohol consumption for competent/safe driving. And even just one drink is enough to impair your driving ability, affecting things like your ability to see or locate moving lights, judge distances, and you’re more likely to take risks when driving, too.

Drive at the legal limit of 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and you’re twice as likely to be involved in a collision than before drinking. Beyond 0.05 BAC you’re a staggering eight times more likely to be involved in a collision than before you had a drink.

Alcohol hits your brain within minutes of being consumed and hangs around until your body metabolises the alcohol, and the time it takes to do this varies depending on the type of drink you consume, your height, age, size, and sex, the length of time you consumed the alcohol across, whether food was consumed, the health of your liver, and your fitness, etc.

 

When can I drive after drinking?

The guidelines state that males can drink no more than two standard drinks in the first hour (containing no more than 10g of alcohol each), followed by one standard drink every hour after than. A standard drink might be 30ml of spirits, 285ml of beer or 375ml of low-alcohol beer, 100ml of wine or 60ml of sherry or port.

 

 

Effects of drinking and driving

As the alcohol lobs in your brain, the brain’s activity begins to slow down. This is a fact. And this means, if you’re driving a car, that you’ll start focussing on one thing at a time, like steering, but you won’t notice peripheral things, like a child running out onto the street or a car braking ahead of you, or maybe even the traffic lights changing. According to research, a blood alcohol of 0.02% is enough to see hand shaking appear and thus an inability to control lane position while driving, with the result that the driver is more likely to wander in and out of their lane. And, as mentioned, perception of what’s occurring around them also diminishes, even if the driver doesn’t realise it.

Drinking and driving statistics

Looking at research data, it seems that when questioned almost no-one can accurately predict whether, after one or two drinks, they’re under or over the legal limit. This has led to various medial professional groups calling for a lowering of the blood alcohol limit from 0.05% to 0.02% and then onto 0%. But then, research also shows that fatigue and dehydration can be just as affecting as a blood alcohol limit of 0.05%. Around 15% of collisions in Australia are alcohol-related (but alcohol was the contributing factor in 30% of fatal collisions), while 17% are related to fatigue. But I digress.

Essentially, just about everyone agrees that while the blood alcohol limit might be 0.05% there really is no safe level of alcohol you can have in your system and still be ‘fine’ to drive a vehicle. And while I hate to sound like a parent, if you’re planning on drinking, then organise an alternative way of getting home. Don’t risk driving even after just one drink.

A 160-pound man that consumes two alcoholic beverages will experience some loss of judgment, decreased ability to rapidly track a moving target and reduced multitasking ability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Women, who generally weigh less than men, would see a higher BAC per drink.

Three alcoholic drinks will bring a person’s blood alcohol level to approximately 0.05%, which can impair the ability to rapidly focus vision, lower alertness and decrease coordination — to the point that steering becomes difficult and response to driving emergencies becomes blunted.

After approximately four alcoholic drinks, one’s balance, vision and reaction time are often affected. It becomes harder to detect roadway dangers. Reasoning and information processing are often measurably impaired. This corresponds most closely to a BAC of 0.08%.

A blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% is generally associated with a clear loss of reaction time and control. There will be a reduced ability to maintain proper lane position or to brake appropriately.

Taking preventive measures

In 2000, Congress passed legislation making 0.08 BAC the national standard for impaired driving in the United States. That level had already been associated with a decrease in alcohol-related highway fatalities in states enforcing it. 

SEE ALSO: 6 Need-to-Know Tips for Summer Holidays

Studies dating back to the 1960s have demonstrated the correlation between BAC and accident risk. The relative risk of being in a crash is 1.38 times higher at a BAC of 0.05 than at a BAC of 0.00. At 0.08, the risk is 2.69 times higher. At 0.10, the crash risk climbs to five times higher.

When you consider the medical evidence, including the physiological effects and the relative risk of crash, you can understand why some countries (including Australia, France, Germany and Italy) set the legal limit at 0.05 BAC — and why in 2013 the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that 0.05 become the new limit in the U.S.

Another solution to curb drunk driving could be found in ignition interlocks, which are essentially Breathalyzer devices connected to the vehicle’s ignition system to ensure that only a sober driver can start the car.

LISTEN UP: Add the Michigan Medicine News Break to your Alexa-enabled device, or subscribe to our daily updates on iTunes, Google Play and Stitcher.

All states use ignition interlocks to some degree, but as of January, only 23 states require interlocks for all DUI offenders. A 2015 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that states with these laws have fewer alcohol-involved crash deaths.

Still, no matter a country’s rules or intervention plans, it is the responsibility of every driver to understand that there is no “safe” BAC level.

And the bottom line is simple: the more you drink, the less you are able to drive safely, and the higher the likelihood of an accident.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on July 22, 2016 on The Conversation. You can read the original version here.

More Articles About:

Preventing Injury

,

Safety

,

Wellness and Prevention

Michigan Health News Right to Your Inbox

 

 

Michigan Health News Right to Your Inbox

 

 

Quick Menu

• Podcasts
• COVID-19 Articles
• Featured Writers
• Contact Public Relations

News From Michigan Health Lab

Read about Michigan Medicine’s latest research and medical breakthroughs on our science-driven sister blog.

Lab Report

Study Suggests New Potential Approach Against Fatal Childhood Brain Cancer

Body Work

The COVID-19 Heroes You Haven’t Met Yet: Behind the Scenes of a Pandemic

Lab Report

Oxygen Therapy Harms Lung Microbiome in Mice

Rounds

Understanding Racial Disparities for Women with Uterine Fibroids

I'm an exception because if I ever drove after a few beers I would drive so much slower and so much more careful than usual so that it would nullify all of the above stats and arguments.