Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:
>
>Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
>the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
>as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
>any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
>That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)

The NHTSA does not label a wreck alcohol-related if a passenger had a
drink -- it's "driver or non-occupant". I'm not sure if they label
the _death_ of a passenger who had a drink "alcohol related", though.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:15:41 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by
>>>participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to
>>>increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink.
>>
>> Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk
>> cannot stand.
>
>The principle of not unneccessarily increasing risk for others is the
>base of our society. Drinking and driving is about as unnecessary as it
>gets.
>
>>>The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you
>>>have to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk
>>>does stand.
>>
>> Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all
>> unnecessary driving would be forbidden.
>
>How do you define unnecessary driving?

There's the problem, isn't it? Once you accept the principal that
anything "unnecessary" which causes increased risk to others may and should be
banned, and understand that a whole host of activities normally
considered benign do cause an increased risk to others, you open the
door to micromanagement of your life by whoever does define
"unnecessary".

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:15:41 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by
>>>participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to
>>>increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink.
>>
>> Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk
>> cannot stand.
>
>The principle of not unneccessarily increasing risk for others is the
>base of our society. Drinking and driving is about as unnecessary as it
>gets.
>
>>>The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you
>>>have to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk
>>>does stand.
>>
>> Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all
>> unnecessary driving would be forbidden.
>
>How do you define unnecessary driving?

There's the problem, isn't it? Once you accept the principal that
anything "unnecessary" which causes increased risk to others may and should be
banned, and understand that a whole host of activities normally
considered benign do cause an increased risk to others, you open the
door to micromanagement of your life by whoever does define
"unnecessary".

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:17:00 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>>>>
>>>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.
>>>
>>>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>>>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>>
>> So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because
>> they are often drunk?
>
>No, only the ones who have withdrawal symptoms when sober.
>
>> Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining through true and strong.
>
>Poor Matthew, it must suck when the arguments run dry and you have to
>resort to namecalling...

I prefer to call it aim-revealing as opposed to name-calling.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:17:00 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>>>>
>>>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.
>>>
>>>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>>>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>>
>> So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because
>> they are often drunk?
>
>No, only the ones who have withdrawal symptoms when sober.
>
>> Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining through true and strong.
>
>Poor Matthew, it must suck when the arguments run dry and you have to
>resort to namecalling...

I prefer to call it aim-revealing as opposed to name-calling.

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Assuming the car hasn't been towed in the meantime. At which point
> you're probably talking at least $150 in towing and storage fees (not
> to mention likely damage to the car) on top of the taxi ride. That's
> an expensive night out... and C.H. claims he's not a neo-prohibitionist.

Or never seeing the car again if the city's towing program or police are
corrupt enough.

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Assuming the car hasn't been towed in the meantime. At which point
> you're probably talking at least $150 in towing and storage fees (not
> to mention likely damage to the car) on top of the taxi ride. That's
> an expensive night out... and C.H. claims he's not a neo-prohibitionist.

Or never seeing the car again if the city's towing program or police are
corrupt enough.

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>And if you can't do either but feel you have to drink at a bar move
>>somewhere, where a bar is in walking distance.

> There's that neo-prohibitionism; only people who live in cities should
> be permitted to drink, and then only nearby. The idea being to
> continually narrow down the acceptable circumstances in which drinking
> may take place.

And where bars are close to homes, the neo-prohibitionists seek to have the
establishments lose their liquor licenses citing misbehavior of patrons. If
that fails, they prevent transfer to new owners and deny new owners a
license of their own.

There are other methods as well...
In chicago, in a similiar case along with selective enforcement, a bar
that had been there since at least the 1940s at least when the old lady
sitting at end of the bar became a regular, was going to have it's
liqour license pulled. Why? Because it was discovered if one measured
through an alley it was too close to some sort of church or something.
This was discovered when the owners wanted to expand, creating a
resturant next door. Public outcry and appeal stopped it.

Key posts:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...fdc27182f45e5c
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...0758fc3a054f0f

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>And if you can't do either but feel you have to drink at a bar move
>>somewhere, where a bar is in walking distance.

> There's that neo-prohibitionism; only people who live in cities should
> be permitted to drink, and then only nearby. The idea being to
> continually narrow down the acceptable circumstances in which drinking
> may take place.

And where bars are close to homes, the neo-prohibitionists seek to have the
establishments lose their liquor licenses citing misbehavior of patrons. If
that fails, they prevent transfer to new owners and deny new owners a
license of their own.

There are other methods as well...
In chicago, in a similiar case along with selective enforcement, a bar
that had been there since at least the 1940s at least when the old lady
sitting at end of the bar became a regular, was going to have it's
liqour license pulled. Why? Because it was discovered if one measured
through an alley it was too close to some sort of church or something.
This was discovered when the owners wanted to expand, creating a
resturant next door. Public outcry and appeal stopped it.

Key posts:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...fdc27182f45e5c
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...0758fc3a054f0f

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>And where bars are close to homes, the neo-prohibitionists seek to have the
>establishments lose their liquor licenses citing misbehavior of patrons. If
>that fails, they prevent transfer to new owners and deny new owners a
>license of their own.
>
>There are other methods as well...

An infinitude of them.

>In chicago, in a similiar case along with selective enforcement, a bar
>that had been there since at least the 1940s at least when the old lady
>sitting at end of the bar became a regular, was going to have it's
>liqour license pulled. Why? Because it was discovered if one measured
>through an alley it was too close to some sort of church or something.
>This was discovered when the owners wanted to expand, creating a
>resturant next door. Public outcry and appeal stopped it.

Such laws are a blatant violation of the Establishment clause anyway,
not that the Supreme Court would deign to take notice.