Seems that the biggest problem with many Australians accepting gay marriage is the use of the word “marriage”. Lev Cherkasski has come up with a great solution – remove the word “marriage” from the laws of the land. So by legal definition we can all have a “civil union”, and outside of the law we can call it what we want. So I can tell people I am getting married, and if they have issue with it being a gay marriage, then so be it – but the legal impediment is removed and equality is attained. And with marriage being a Religious institution deep down, it makes sense to separate it from State.
Why not scrap Marriage altogether? Why not leave religion to religion and have the legislature stick to what it knows best; Civil procedure. Under such a revision, a future Civil Union act would recognize a Civil Union between two consenting adults for the purposes of family custody, asset transfer, financial liability and estate planning. That is where legal interference would end. Should individual couples then wish to extend their commitment to one another through a traditional Marriage, they would do as they do presently, wed in a house of god in the presence of the almighty spirit to pledge devotion to one another for eternity and live happily ever after. Should a religious authority recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage, they would certainly not have a shortage of willing couples wishing to tie the knot.
It is because they know they are stoned and compensate for it when driving.
Real-world data from auto accidents indicate that a drunk driver is approximately 10 times more likely to cause a fatal accident than a stoned driver. In most studies, smoking one-third of a joint or less has virtually no impact on a driver’s performance. A couple of studies even suggest that pot smokers are less likely to cause an accident than sober drivers.
…Participants in one study who smoked one-third of a joint perceived themselves as being impaired, even though the experiment suggested they were not. By contrast, subjects who had two drinks thought they were fine, despite performing poorly in driving tests. In the driving simulators, pot smokers drove significantly slower than the drunk drivers, even with researchers reminding them to speed up. They also gave the car in front of them a lot more room and were less likely to pass. Alcohol, on the other hand, increases risk-taking behavior. Drunk drivers drive faster, tailgate, and pass recklessly.
The most consistent result of the driving studies is that taking marijuana and alcohol together creates a much greater hazard than taking either one alone. Drivers who are drunk and high seem to suffer from the worst effects of both drugs: They meander, pass recklessly, drive too fast, take unnecessary risks, and are unaware of their incapacity.
Full story at Slate
And, to confirm that this is real, US states that have legalized marijuana have seen a 9% decrease in road fatalities. Perhaps many drinkers would prefer to be stoned, if only it were legal and readily available…
I’ve not searched to see if this idea already exists, so perhaps it isn’t original, but here goes:
- There are those that flaunt speed limits (because they feel they are above the law, that the law is an ass, etc), and those who respect the purpose of the law (saves lives).
- There are those that cheat on their tax returns (because they feel they are above tax law, that tax law is an ass, etc) and those who respect the purpose of tax (provides important services).
To me, it seems that people who speed are of the same mindset as those who are tax cheats. Solution: audit self-employed people with a history of speeding fines.