Not really, it's like taking a left from a highway

You have to get off at your exit

Also, @CallMeBlondie Forgot to give you the link for the jughandle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jughandle

Thank you! I don’t even want to tell you what I thought it was.

I’m sure once you drive these new exits or whatever they are... they’re much easier than explaining them on Wikipedia

The Michigan left seems to be for people who missed their turn. Or maybe it works better for trucks

I definitely don’t drive a truck

The jug handle is just like exiting a freeway or motorway, and its also great if you are confused with the area and don't know if you are taking a left or right up ahead. You can be in the right hand lane and go either way.

Roundabouts work when people know how to use them, but it required paying attention so people don't.

I dunno, you can circle the drain for a couple hours and you'll figure it out eventually.

What I find most perplexing is the new uncontrolled intersections.

Thank you @Grenade123

Now imagine explaining that in a script on tv. Not very easy

@pratel think the idea is that people focus more on driving than on things off the road or right in front of them. Also general those intersections are using psychology to make you drive slower

Like pillars right against the edges

I would never suggest that what works in another country would work here in the US totally unchanged

But it does provide useful data that can guide rational decision making

Since this is a debate, help me with this...
Is it right for politicians to act as doctors? For example, the “opioid epidemic” Politicians say everyone who takes pain meds will become addicts, overdose and die. To solve the problem they’ve enacted legislation that’s actually hurting responsible pain patients... veterans/cancer patients/chronic pain patients... by cutting off their access to pain meds, which, in turn has forced record numbers of them to turn to suicide.

Yes, it is right for politicians to regulate the legality and use of medical compounds.

True, but by saving lives their actually hurting lives... right?

I’m not saying they shouldn’t regulate. I just don’t think the politicians should cut off all access

At a national level, politics is a calculation of human lives. We could talk about whether they're causing more harm than good, but the fact that the legislation causes people any amount of suffering isn't a refutation of the act by itself.

But yes, a total cutoff is probably not the best decision.

So how do I get this message to politicians?

Sending them messages, but they mostly ignore those.

You can stage a protest, but it probably won't be big enough.

You could strike out violently, but then you'd be dismissed as a loonie.

And thank you for answering my question. A large part of the reason I signed up here was because Tim seems like a decent guy who actually cares

I’m not violent at all

I’m not the protest type either

Oh, the opioid debate

Tim really does seem to be doing his best to understand issues, and he gets a lot of respect from me for that, even when I think he's wrong.

As a medical provider I think we've swung too far the other way now

I also am 10th Amendment Cat for a reason. Regulation of professions is not enumerated in the Constitution and therefore authority to regulate it resides with the states and not the federal gov't.

Thank you! I cannot tell you how many patients are considering or have taken their own lives because of this

I understand the FDA and regulation of medications that are part of commerce

Which is a shame.

Solid statistics would be nice.

But regulating what I can prescribe is supposed to be a state decision

I know, I have them in my notes. I’ll get them for you as soon as I can

It really is a shame how many constitutional clauses get ignored/reinterpreted for convenience these days.