There are so many factors that can lead to a temporary increased sensitivity to alcohol that I am skeptical of anecdotal evidence like this, especially when alcohol is involved.
Rohypnol/GHB are certainly used as date rape drugs, but they have an effect that is distinct from just more liquor.
The irony is that there is money to test them, you just need to convince female voters to call their representative and tell them that you'd rather they spend war on terrorism money on getting those rape kits processed instead. Considering that a woman is far more likely to be a victim of rape than terrorism, it's absurd that any rape kit ever sit on the shelf untested.
The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example:
Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?"
Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes"
Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road.
The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home.
(I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
>Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.
I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy.
If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.
The bigger problem with cups would be dark-colored drinks. The concept looks great if we assume a martini. But fairly useless with a cola- or red-juice-based mixer.
Because alleged "awareness campaigns" which focus on the least common risk factors (and there are many such campaigns) are a major annoyance to me: it's well worth reviewing the other study linked here:
And well worth reviewing other literature on results from screenings conducted quickly after a suspected assault.
Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors, not least because it creates an implicit assumption that alcohol and common recreational drugs are not the major risks, when they are far more common and plenty capable of reducing inhibitions or inducing unconsciousness all on their own.
Perhaps a good analogy would be to anti-terror campaigns: we are drawn toward the uncommon and dramatic events, and focus our attention and efforts on them, when far more could be accomplished from dealing with more common but less "flashy" risks.
(another example with rape is the focus on "stranger danger", which creates an implicit assumption of safety in the company of people one already knows, when in fact most rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim rather than by strangers who leap from behind bushes)
In defense of "awareness campaigns" (I had a roommate who was a health educator) the statistics about whether one is more likely to be raped by a stranger or an acquaintance are very, very widely reported.
> Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors
I don't disagree but I think a presentation regarding date rape drugs is normally given after alcohol has already been discussed. An educator who discussed date rape drugs first, or in isolation, would most certainly be Doing It Wrong.
A lot of what leads people to that inaccurate picture of the risk factors, I suspect, is the natural human tendency to assume that none of the people I know would ever do something like that. Not to mention the assumption that familiarity with alcohol implies some sort of mastery over it. You can lead a horse to data but you can't make him drink, or something.
It seems to me that, rather than making straws and drinks that do this, it would be better to see if it could be incorporated into some kind of nail polish that, once dried, could detect this.
I suggest nail polish for two reasons. One is that it removes the need to carry specialized tools: once you've done your nails, you can test 10 drinks and leave the bottle at home. Not having to carry a tool is somewhat more convenient, but it also means the tool can't be forgotten, lost, stolen, or tampered with.
The other advantage is discretion. It's not difficult, with a setup like this, to test a drink without others knowing what you are doing. It could be argued that people shouldn't mind being tested, but from a pragmatic standpoint, the kind of person who spikes a drink is the kind of person who could very easily become dangerous if they know they're being put to the test. A discreet test, therefore, is a safer test, and since these tests are supposed to be all about safety, it follows that a discreet test is also a better test.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. The goal of these things is to prevent date rape by someone unsuspectingly taking particular drugs. There's not much you are going to be able to invent if your goal is to stop date rape by preventing people from knowingly drinking alcohol.
But you just repeated the same thing. Again, I am not suggesting "stop date rape by preventing people from knowingly drinking alcohol" should be a goal. I am saying these devices are harmful. They have the opposite effect from what is intended. They create a false sense of security in regards to the problem, convincing people that as long as their drink hasn't been spiked they are fine. But 99% of date rapes involving drugs aren't from drink spiking, they are just from drinking.
Perhaps both of you would understand each others position better, by meditating on the phrase "security theater".
A straw that detects a handful of numerous dangerous substances is about as useful at its claim of producing "safety" as TSA agents molesting grandmas and teen girls at airports. I'm rather proud of this analogy.
I understand the position (and enjoy your analogy), I just simply disagree with it. I find it hard to believe that anyone who is drinking an alcoholic beverage is going to be tricked into thinking the effects of said alcohol are any different just because a straw or cup says "SAFE."
Go ask some college aged women about it and see what you find. Ignorance of the effects of alcohol is incredibly widespread. Thousands of women a year swear they had their drink spiked but actually just got black-out drunk. Convincing women that all they need to worry about is the 1% case, and that the 99% case doesn't exist is harmful.
The problem is "drunk" is a range (or "very drunk", as you would have it). Clearly it's wrong to have sex with someone who's passed out. And with someone who's almost passed out. And with someone who's almost almost passed out. After that it gets a bit more murky. How drunk is the other party? Is there an existing relationship?
Now I know I may be stupid engineer but isn't much simpler solution to have someone trusted who to call from time to time. With everybody having smartphones an gps app that for given period of time sends messages to trusted 3rd party about your location and being able to call if something is out of order is also a solution.
Just before going upstairs she just calls to the "warden" and if she is speaking coherent ... do whatever you like. If not - the trusted party can take a cab or signal the police.
"Now I know I may be stupid engineer but isn't much simpler solution"
I'm with you on this. Nothing stupider than slapping a technical solution on a social problem and calling it good.
Hmm, going out to drink unknown substances out of other peoples cups and letting other people mix potions for you and drinking out of cups people leave laying around unsupervised for others to mess with, is unsafe now, so "open mouth and out comes ridiculous cross between rube goldberg, life magazine predictions from 75 years ago about the future, and star trek technobabble". No, its just an obsolete, dangerous, dumb way to spend your time. You wanna do something stupid, fine, have fun, but don't come crying to me about how us smart people "have" to do something about your dumb decisions.
Kinda like free love was cool before HIV. Or going drunk driving was a great idea when you drove your own horse, but really dumb idea after cars. Sorry to break it to all the whiners but like it or not we live in the 2010s so deal with it or suffer. Going out drinking means pretty scary odds of date rape. So unless you're dense as neutronium, don't do it.
Before the chorus of how dare I blame the victim, well I have the right to blame them because I'm not an idiot. Going out drinking might have been fun in ye olden daze but its not ye olden daze anymore, its dumb and dangerous and THAT is why I have the right to blame the victim. I didn't get this brilliant knowledge from a reveled religion or a secret sauce, but from incessant whining of journalist reports, any other moron out there should be able to figure out the same thing I figured out, which is not to go out drinking anymore. Too bad for the victim if they're too dumb or lazy to think like the human being they are. Actions do have consequences.
I do have genuine pity for like "the first" date rape victims, how could she have possibly known and she'd not to blame. But we've had a lot of journalism since then. Not for some idiot who went out last night with a virtual bullseye painted on their fun parts, knowing fully whats probably about to happen, knowing that when the inevitable happens, they can just blame "society" or maybe blame the "techies for not inventing a cure"... anyone to blame but themselves.
There are perfectly good social solutions to this social problem. BYOB. Carry a fashionable hip flask. Strange as it may sound, you can socialize with friends without consuming liquids of any sort (insane concept, huh?). Take up an intoxicant that's safer than alcohol and harder (impossible?) to spike, like weed. "Back when I was a kid" we got totally drunk BEFORE we went out, who wants to repeatedly pay $7 a glass for something I can get drunk on at home for 75 cents/can, especially when you're a poor student. Only get drunk with actual friends at home instead of criminal strangers at a bar who want to take advantage of you. We're all smart here, its not very hard to figure out. These "revolutionary" ideas might negatively impact someones entrenched profitable business model? Tough cookies. Cry me a river.
But don't spew random tech all over an outmoded idiotic behavior and call it brilliant. Its just obsolete thrashing about. Wanna suffer? Fine go out and do it. I'm not going to feel any pity when the inevitable happens.
Don't worry, people are still going to find the numerous other ways to act stupid and hurt themselves.
> Or going drunk driving was a great idea when you drove your own horse, but really dumb idea after cars.
I don't think the danger to self is a big differentiatory between drunk horseback riding vs. drunk driving, rather, the difference in the external costs is.
TL;DR: 1014 people claimed they were drugged and sexually assaulted. "In 21 cases (2%), a sedative or disinhibiting drug was detected..." So-called "date rape" drugs were a subset of these cases.
Create a spiral straw from two trips, like a candy cane. One strip turns one color in the presence of Alcohol and turns darker the more it detects - and the other strip turns a different color in the presence of anything else that you want to detect for.
I can't edit my post it seems, but yes, I am most definitely being sarcastic here.
I absolutely believe that it is wrong to rape someone, and that getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you is rape.
In my experience, society does not think that, which is why we use phrases like "date rape," and talk about "date rape drugs" without ever mentioning alcohol.
A better solution is to learn the behaviors that rapists use - being pushy and overbearing, not taking no for an answer, cutting out of the herd, stuff like that. If your buddy behaves like that, don't let him get away with it.
And it's useless to detect rape drugs because the biggest rape drug is alcohol.
OK so I am glad I read this. I wasn't sure how to take your first comment, as is a classic on the net - I read into it emotionally as praise for the actions you described. I'm glad to read that I had the wrong end of the stick.
No, I think the rest of civilization should be warped around preserving "bar culture" and our best minds should be eternally in a cat and mouse game of straw maker vs underground organic chemist.
(Note I was kidding)
Going out drinking is no longer a sane activity. So don't.
62 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 109 ms ] threadRohypnol/GHB are certainly used as date rape drugs, but they have an effect that is distinct from just more liquor.
Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home.
(I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy.
If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.
It's a tricky problem, even before you consider false-positives and the false sense of security in general.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6122532
And well worth reviewing other literature on results from screenings conducted quickly after a suspected assault.
Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors, not least because it creates an implicit assumption that alcohol and common recreational drugs are not the major risks, when they are far more common and plenty capable of reducing inhibitions or inducing unconsciousness all on their own.
Perhaps a good analogy would be to anti-terror campaigns: we are drawn toward the uncommon and dramatic events, and focus our attention and efforts on them, when far more could be accomplished from dealing with more common but less "flashy" risks.
(another example with rape is the focus on "stranger danger", which creates an implicit assumption of safety in the company of people one already knows, when in fact most rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim rather than by strangers who leap from behind bushes)
> Focusing on "date rape drugs" presents a vastly inaccurate picture of the real risk factors
I don't disagree but I think a presentation regarding date rape drugs is normally given after alcohol has already been discussed. An educator who discussed date rape drugs first, or in isolation, would most certainly be Doing It Wrong.
A lot of what leads people to that inaccurate picture of the risk factors, I suspect, is the natural human tendency to assume that none of the people I know would ever do something like that. Not to mention the assumption that familiarity with alcohol implies some sort of mastery over it. You can lead a horse to data but you can't make him drink, or something.
I suggest nail polish for two reasons. One is that it removes the need to carry specialized tools: once you've done your nails, you can test 10 drinks and leave the bottle at home. Not having to carry a tool is somewhat more convenient, but it also means the tool can't be forgotten, lost, stolen, or tampered with.
The other advantage is discretion. It's not difficult, with a setup like this, to test a drink without others knowing what you are doing. It could be argued that people shouldn't mind being tested, but from a pragmatic standpoint, the kind of person who spikes a drink is the kind of person who could very easily become dangerous if they know they're being put to the test. A discreet test, therefore, is a safer test, and since these tests are supposed to be all about safety, it follows that a discreet test is also a better test.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-ra...
In April, the 23-year-old striker was jailed for five years for raping a teenager who was too drunk to consent to sex with him
A straw that detects a handful of numerous dangerous substances is about as useful at its claim of producing "safety" as TSA agents molesting grandmas and teen girls at airports. I'm rather proud of this analogy.
Just before going upstairs she just calls to the "warden" and if she is speaking coherent ... do whatever you like. If not - the trusted party can take a cab or signal the police.
I'm with you on this. Nothing stupider than slapping a technical solution on a social problem and calling it good.
Hmm, going out to drink unknown substances out of other peoples cups and letting other people mix potions for you and drinking out of cups people leave laying around unsupervised for others to mess with, is unsafe now, so "open mouth and out comes ridiculous cross between rube goldberg, life magazine predictions from 75 years ago about the future, and star trek technobabble". No, its just an obsolete, dangerous, dumb way to spend your time. You wanna do something stupid, fine, have fun, but don't come crying to me about how us smart people "have" to do something about your dumb decisions.
Kinda like free love was cool before HIV. Or going drunk driving was a great idea when you drove your own horse, but really dumb idea after cars. Sorry to break it to all the whiners but like it or not we live in the 2010s so deal with it or suffer. Going out drinking means pretty scary odds of date rape. So unless you're dense as neutronium, don't do it.
Before the chorus of how dare I blame the victim, well I have the right to blame them because I'm not an idiot. Going out drinking might have been fun in ye olden daze but its not ye olden daze anymore, its dumb and dangerous and THAT is why I have the right to blame the victim. I didn't get this brilliant knowledge from a reveled religion or a secret sauce, but from incessant whining of journalist reports, any other moron out there should be able to figure out the same thing I figured out, which is not to go out drinking anymore. Too bad for the victim if they're too dumb or lazy to think like the human being they are. Actions do have consequences.
I do have genuine pity for like "the first" date rape victims, how could she have possibly known and she'd not to blame. But we've had a lot of journalism since then. Not for some idiot who went out last night with a virtual bullseye painted on their fun parts, knowing fully whats probably about to happen, knowing that when the inevitable happens, they can just blame "society" or maybe blame the "techies for not inventing a cure"... anyone to blame but themselves.
There are perfectly good social solutions to this social problem. BYOB. Carry a fashionable hip flask. Strange as it may sound, you can socialize with friends without consuming liquids of any sort (insane concept, huh?). Take up an intoxicant that's safer than alcohol and harder (impossible?) to spike, like weed. "Back when I was a kid" we got totally drunk BEFORE we went out, who wants to repeatedly pay $7 a glass for something I can get drunk on at home for 75 cents/can, especially when you're a poor student. Only get drunk with actual friends at home instead of criminal strangers at a bar who want to take advantage of you. We're all smart here, its not very hard to figure out. These "revolutionary" ideas might negatively impact someones entrenched profitable business model? Tough cookies. Cry me a river.
But don't spew random tech all over an outmoded idiotic behavior and call it brilliant. Its just obsolete thrashing about. Wanna suffer? Fine go out and do it. I'm not going to feel any pity when the inevitable happens.
Don't worry, people are still going to find the numerous other ways to act stupid and hurt themselves.
I don't think the danger to self is a big differentiatory between drunk horseback riding vs. drunk driving, rather, the difference in the external costs is.
Still though, lurid may be an appropriate adjective.
Do you have a link for that?
TL;DR: 1014 people claimed they were drugged and sexually assaulted. "In 21 cases (2%), a sedative or disinhibiting drug was detected..." So-called "date rape" drugs were a subset of these cases.
(Again, no judgement on those that choose to use drugs, I certainly do and I think that drug users are as deserving of protection as anyone else)
I absolutely believe that it is wrong to rape someone, and that getting people drunk to get them to sleep with you is rape.
In my experience, society does not think that, which is why we use phrases like "date rape," and talk about "date rape drugs" without ever mentioning alcohol.
Or something. I'm glad you're not a terrible person.
And it's useless to detect rape drugs because the biggest rape drug is alcohol.
(Note I was kidding)
Going out drinking is no longer a sane activity. So don't.
- is the problem big enough for bars to care about?
- do cup producers increase their rev/profit with this cup?