This is the reason for why I refrain from commenting on medications, especially opioids. Why would anyone be against, say, someone taking Kratom? Let people with chronic pain and/or anxiety and/or depression take it. Why would I be against them improving their quality of life as long as they are not posing any harm to society or even themselves? Some people really just want others to suffer, it seems.

And yeah, I do not think there is much harm in drinking alcohol socially either. Get a buzz, take a cab / Uber home, etc. If someone starts a fight because they are piss-poor drunk, or drives under the influence, that does pose harm to society, which changes a lot, IMO. But if you go home and grab a beer, why would I be against that? Not my business. I especially hate it when people think it is their business and they want to control other people's lives.

Like damn, come, swap with me (not you), have a chronic pain with severe anxiety and depression and we will see if you could just think it away like I am sometimes being told to do, or you know, just let me take what works for me without harming anyone, including even myself.

Which different countries use different constants to convert to blood alcohol concentrations. But the conversion factor isn’t constant, even if laws pretend it is.

The same “breath” reading could give you 15% different results depending on the country the test is taken in…

https://www.dart-sensors.com/breath-alcohol-conversions-for-...

Worth reminding the casual reader that the word 'consent' doesn't mean what most people today think it means. The word's definition only means "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". But a modern colloquial definition created in last decade and a half means "i am of sound body and mind to be able to have sex without regretting it later". That very specific definition belies a misunderstanding of what's going on in context. Confusion about this meaning (and its implications) leads to conversations that can't be concluded logically. Because the use of the word 'consent' varies depending on the context, it requires modifier words to express a specific situation.

You can agree to things when you're drunk, obviously. But are you of sound mind and body to not regret that agreement later? That's a specific kind or quality of consent which actually has no official definition or modifier-word (even though it's what a lot of people mean). Examples of what I mean: Do you have enough information to consent without regretting it later? That's informed consent. Have you stated with words or documents that you consent? That's explicit consent. Have you already agreed to certain things when entering the bar (like the rules of the bar, and law in general)? That's implied consent. Are there some things you agree to and others you don't? That's granular consent. Do you agree to be part of my mailing list, or will you click this button if you don't want to be part of my mailing list? That's opt-in and opt-out consent (and passive consent).

But there is no modifier word for "I both have all available information and am of enough sound mind and body to not regret this decision later". Use of this meaning in the wrong context doesn't make sense. You don't need information or sound mind and body to agree to basic social conventions, like a greeting, or holding open a door. And you implicitly consent to things like the Law as an adult member of a country.

Because of the lack of nuance when talking about the concept of consent, it has created a lot of confusion and backlash. It would be less controversial if we had more specific terms of art, to accurately communicate ideas and come to more logical conclusions. I think most of us all agree on acceptable forms of conduct, but we talk past each other when words don't carry enough information.

> If someone can't consent to anything, can they be allowed on the street?

Well, public intoxication is illegal where I live, so presumably no.

>hence is forbidden from a certain level of intoxication

How can a person with impaired judgement be expected to make sound decisions relating to the consequences of their actions? You could say "well, the person should have known better while they were sober than to start drinking when they knew they'd have to drive soon", and I could use that same logic for sex.

You're talking about the consequences of consent being violated. I'm asking something different. If "the reason why a drunk person can't consent to sex is because their judgement is impaired", then there's nothing in that sentence that makes sex special. Replace it with anything else and it's equally true. "The reason why a drunk person can't consent to a loan is because their judgement is impaired." That the consequences of consent being violated in one instance or another are different doesn't change the fact that consent to anything has been defined as impossible in that situation.

I didn't take it literally, either. My question is equally applicable if we replace "saying hi" with "participating in an experiment".

See my response under a sibling comment. The consequences of consent being violated != whether consent can be given.

Well now we're back to the topic of sexual consent!