Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:13:09 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Being compelled and having a desire are two different things. Please don't
>>>mix these up.
>>
>> #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_
>> compelled.
>
>Apparently that's enough.
>
>> #2: In the widest sense -- and that IS how you used the term -- a
>> desire and a feeling of compulsion are the same thing.
>
>I may have the desire to go skiing today instead of working. That doesn't
>mean I do feel compelled to do so.
>
>>>> It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
>>>> drink.
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> Except that you and the other neo-prohibitionists want to make it
>> impractical.
>
>Nice namecalling here, Matthew. I am not a neo-prohibitionist, and the
>neo-prohibitionists would probably be offended by the beer in my fridge
>(which reminds me, I need to try the new Trader Joe's Hefeweizen tonight
>when I don't have to drive any more).

Uh oh - CH *needs* a drink. Better talk to a counselor.


>I have gone to parties and had
>drinks there when someone else was driving. To call this prohibitionism is
>simply dumb namecalling,

Yeah! not just "namecalling", but "dumb namecalling"!

>that you do because I don't agree with you. Do
>you really have to stoop down to Brent's level of conduct?
>
>>>If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>>money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.
>>
>> Not a matter of 20 bucks. A matter of no cabs at all. And I rarely
>> spend $20 on alcohol for myself at a sitting. Besides, how am I going
>> to get my car back?
>
>Don't drive to the bar in the first place. Use your feet. Or a bicycle.
>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.
>

It's too bad most bars are prevented from being in walking distance of
most homes by zoning ordnances.

Would you work to change them too? Or are you a NIMBY as well?

>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:41:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>>afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.
>>
>> Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
>> even drive sober.
>
>Someone, who has withdrawal symptoms without alcohol should not drive
>sober, simply because he is not safe to drive. That doesn't mean the
>average person, who doesn't get withdrawal symptoms when sober.
>
>Olaf, you may not want to see it, but the only thing I am interested in is
>that people are safe on the road.

And that road is paved with good intentions (maybe not, but I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt just this once). Unfortunately, that
road leads to hell.

> I have seen too many people die on
>the road under the influence of alcohol,

Really? How many?

>a lot of them thinking they were
>sober enough to drive (in fact most of them).

And how do you know they thought that?

>If you can't tell this from
>'prohibition' it's your problem.

I'm not calling it prohibition or even neo-prohibition.

You're confused about who you're responding to.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:32:17 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:41:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>>afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.
>>
>> Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
>> even drive sober.
>
>Someone, who has withdrawal symptoms without alcohol should not drive
>sober, simply because he is not safe to drive. That doesn't mean the
>average person, who doesn't get withdrawal symptoms when sober.
>
>Olaf, you may not want to see it, but the only thing I am interested in is
>that people are safe on the road.

And that road is paved with good intentions (maybe not, but I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt just this once). Unfortunately, that
road leads to hell.

> I have seen too many people die on
>the road under the influence of alcohol,

Really? How many?

>a lot of them thinking they were
>sober enough to drive (in fact most of them).

And how do you know they thought that?

>If you can't tell this from
>'prohibition' it's your problem.

I'm not calling it prohibition or even neo-prohibition.

You're confused about who you're responding to.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:26:42 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:10:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:54:46 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with you that they have the choice to quit. We are talking about
>>>two different things, though. I was specifically referring to the question
>>>of whether an alcoholic simply can say 'I won't drink tonight', which he
>>>usually can't.
>>
>> "usually"?
>
>Usually as in so close to 100% that you can dismiss the very rare case
>where this happens.
>
>> So, I'm an alcoholic because I will drive after 1-2 drinks, right?
>
>Where did I say that you are an alcoholic? And where did I say that anyone
>who drives after 1-2 drinks is an alcoholic?

Google is your friend. You said it - why the hell do you think so
many people are giving you so much **** about your statements?

I'm not sure if your problem is substance related or not, but you do
have a problem. I don't believe you're mentally competent to drive.

>
>>>First leads to second and thus is a problem.
>>
>> So it only takes a sip to get someone drunk?
>
>The first sip in most cases leads to more than a first sip. Few people go
>to parties with the intention to get blasted. A lot of people do get
>blasted just because alcohol inhibits self control.
>

I'm not sure what kind of parties you go to, but it's pretty rare that
I see someone get "blasted" who didn't mean to get that way.

But then again, I probably hang around a classier group of people than
you do - people who know how to exercise self-control.

>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:26:42 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:10:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:54:46 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree with you that they have the choice to quit. We are talking about
>>>two different things, though. I was specifically referring to the question
>>>of whether an alcoholic simply can say 'I won't drink tonight', which he
>>>usually can't.
>>
>> "usually"?
>
>Usually as in so close to 100% that you can dismiss the very rare case
>where this happens.
>
>> So, I'm an alcoholic because I will drive after 1-2 drinks, right?
>
>Where did I say that you are an alcoholic? And where did I say that anyone
>who drives after 1-2 drinks is an alcoholic?

Google is your friend. You said it - why the hell do you think so
many people are giving you so much **** about your statements?

I'm not sure if your problem is substance related or not, but you do
have a problem. I don't believe you're mentally competent to drive.

>
>>>First leads to second and thus is a problem.
>>
>> So it only takes a sip to get someone drunk?
>
>The first sip in most cases leads to more than a first sip. Few people go
>to parties with the intention to get blasted. A lot of people do get
>blasted just because alcohol inhibits self control.
>

I'm not sure what kind of parties you go to, but it's pretty rare that
I see someone get "blasted" who didn't mean to get that way.

But then again, I probably hang around a classier group of people than
you do - people who know how to exercise self-control.

>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:21:23 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:01:07 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> Everyone has a choice, including the "alcoholic".
>
>Then let's say, that in about 100% of cases the alcoholic won't make it on
>the spur of the moment. Would you agree with that?

I'm not even sure how you define "alcoholic". You keep backpedaling
from earlier statements.

>
>> Like he said, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking and driving, but
>> there is something wrong with driving drunk.
>
>There is something wrong with driving impaired. And you are impaired much
>earlier than you think.

How do you know?

>A videogame, especially one that you already know,
>won't show that, but a dangerous situation on the road will.

Heh - you're still on the video game thing, are you?

Well, if there's ANY question about my ability to function after
playing 15 rounds of Spaced Invaders, I challenge Drunky MacGoogle to
a game of darts. If he beats me, I let him drive.

>
>> You need to distinguish between drinking and being drunk.
>
>If you _really_ only drink one beer, you may be sober enough to drive.

You mean if I sit around the bar not drinking for 8 hours after I
finish the beer, right?

>But
>I don't think that's what you mean by 'drinking'.

Oh, so you think you know what I mean by "drinking"? Drinking simply
means drinking. It doesn't imply any specfic quantity of alcohol,
other than that the quantity is greater than zero.

If by "drinking" you meant a fifth of gin, you should say so. I would
certainly agree that no one should drive after drinking that much.

>
>>>Then you are clearly not responsible enough to drive.
>>
>> Sorry, but the law actually agrees with me on thiis one. In the state I
>> live, the legal BAC is still 0.08%
>
>And you measure your BAC before driving how?

I make a note of the number of drinks I've had, the length of time
over which I have consumed them, and throw in a certain amount to
account for any inaccuracies in my method of calculation. IOW, if I
err, it's on the side of caution.

>Does your videogame tell you
>'you have .079% BAC, Mr. Gustafson'?

No, but Drunky McGoogle would NEVER let me drive drunk. He's my
friend.

>
>>>> Go to ANY bar with a parking lot and ask yourself if you believe all
>>>> the cars belong to designated drivers or bar staff.
>>>
>>>A lot of people are too irresponsible to drive.
>>>
>> Perhaps practically speaking, but certainly not legally.
>
>Which is why we need _much_ stricter driving tests and enforcement of some
>basic rules like no cellphones and no alcohol while driving.

Well, most places cellphones are still legal to use while driving, so
better enforcement of that non-existent law won't do anything.

>
>>>> Or quit your frat. Nobody has to drink. It's a simple choice.
>>>
>>>If it's that simple, quit drinking and driving.
>>
>> It would be a simple choice for you to take a long walk off a short
>> pier, but somehow I don't expect you're going to let me make that
>> decision for you.
>
>So because I don't agree with you you want me dead? You must be a rather
>sad individual.

Has your wife recovered from her last beating yet?

>
>> You shouldn't expect to make decisions for others as well, especially
>> when you're trying to decide for me NOT to engage in perfectly LEGAL
>> behavior.
>
>I didn't make decisions for you.

You snip way too much relevant text. I'm not going to look it up, but
you certainly werre telling me which choice to make.

>I just told you that your behavior is
>dangerous, even if it is legal. And that's true.

Not exactly.

>
>>>Otherwise I hope they will catch you and take your license before you
>>>manage to get someone killed.
>>
>> Catch me for having a BAC below .08?
>
>Your video game won't tell you whether you are below .08%.

But the cop's have equipment that will. But since they've never had
any reason to suspect I was driving drunk, they've never used it on
me.

>Neither will
>your self assessment. That's why any drinking and driving is so dangerous,
>it leads to self deception like you are practicing here.

You're fooling yourself.

>
>> You try to distance yourself from MADD, but your agenda is
>> indistinguishable from theirs.
>
>I have nothing to do with MADD.

But your agenda IS indistinguishable from theirs.

>I have no idea, what their agenda is but
>according to that article Brent P published it is not road safety. My
>agenda on the other hand is road safety and alcohol is just a small part
>of that.

That's not self-deception - that's simply a lie.

>If you can't see a difference there, you need new glasses - or
>maybe a few glasses less...

Sorry, but I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal
lobotomy.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:21:23 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:01:07 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> Everyone has a choice, including the "alcoholic".
>
>Then let's say, that in about 100% of cases the alcoholic won't make it on
>the spur of the moment. Would you agree with that?

I'm not even sure how you define "alcoholic". You keep backpedaling
from earlier statements.

>
>> Like he said, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking and driving, but
>> there is something wrong with driving drunk.
>
>There is something wrong with driving impaired. And you are impaired much
>earlier than you think.

How do you know?

>A videogame, especially one that you already know,
>won't show that, but a dangerous situation on the road will.

Heh - you're still on the video game thing, are you?

Well, if there's ANY question about my ability to function after
playing 15 rounds of Spaced Invaders, I challenge Drunky MacGoogle to
a game of darts. If he beats me, I let him drive.

>
>> You need to distinguish between drinking and being drunk.
>
>If you _really_ only drink one beer, you may be sober enough to drive.

You mean if I sit around the bar not drinking for 8 hours after I
finish the beer, right?

>But
>I don't think that's what you mean by 'drinking'.

Oh, so you think you know what I mean by "drinking"? Drinking simply
means drinking. It doesn't imply any specfic quantity of alcohol,
other than that the quantity is greater than zero.

If by "drinking" you meant a fifth of gin, you should say so. I would
certainly agree that no one should drive after drinking that much.

>
>>>Then you are clearly not responsible enough to drive.
>>
>> Sorry, but the law actually agrees with me on thiis one. In the state I
>> live, the legal BAC is still 0.08%
>
>And you measure your BAC before driving how?

I make a note of the number of drinks I've had, the length of time
over which I have consumed them, and throw in a certain amount to
account for any inaccuracies in my method of calculation. IOW, if I
err, it's on the side of caution.

>Does your videogame tell you
>'you have .079% BAC, Mr. Gustafson'?

No, but Drunky McGoogle would NEVER let me drive drunk. He's my
friend.

>
>>>> Go to ANY bar with a parking lot and ask yourself if you believe all
>>>> the cars belong to designated drivers or bar staff.
>>>
>>>A lot of people are too irresponsible to drive.
>>>
>> Perhaps practically speaking, but certainly not legally.
>
>Which is why we need _much_ stricter driving tests and enforcement of some
>basic rules like no cellphones and no alcohol while driving.

Well, most places cellphones are still legal to use while driving, so
better enforcement of that non-existent law won't do anything.

>
>>>> Or quit your frat. Nobody has to drink. It's a simple choice.
>>>
>>>If it's that simple, quit drinking and driving.
>>
>> It would be a simple choice for you to take a long walk off a short
>> pier, but somehow I don't expect you're going to let me make that
>> decision for you.
>
>So because I don't agree with you you want me dead? You must be a rather
>sad individual.

Has your wife recovered from her last beating yet?

>
>> You shouldn't expect to make decisions for others as well, especially
>> when you're trying to decide for me NOT to engage in perfectly LEGAL
>> behavior.
>
>I didn't make decisions for you.

You snip way too much relevant text. I'm not going to look it up, but
you certainly werre telling me which choice to make.

>I just told you that your behavior is
>dangerous, even if it is legal. And that's true.

Not exactly.

>
>>>Otherwise I hope they will catch you and take your license before you
>>>manage to get someone killed.
>>
>> Catch me for having a BAC below .08?
>
>Your video game won't tell you whether you are below .08%.

But the cop's have equipment that will. But since they've never had
any reason to suspect I was driving drunk, they've never used it on
me.

>Neither will
>your self assessment. That's why any drinking and driving is so dangerous,
>it leads to self deception like you are practicing here.

You're fooling yourself.

>
>> You try to distance yourself from MADD, but your agenda is
>> indistinguishable from theirs.
>
>I have nothing to do with MADD.

But your agenda IS indistinguishable from theirs.

>I have no idea, what their agenda is but
>according to that article Brent P published it is not road safety. My
>agenda on the other hand is road safety and alcohol is just a small part
>of that.

That's not self-deception - that's simply a lie.

>If you can't see a difference there, you need new glasses - or
>maybe a few glasses less...

Sorry, but I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal
lobotomy.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:04:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:57 GMT, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>>>
>>
>> lol
>
>.3 that's 3.75 times the legal limit of .08 !
>

Doh!

Allright - I give. I'd say anyone w/ a BAC of 0.3 is drunk.

Damn, and I haven't had a drink all day.


Is it happy hour yet? I know this really great place on the other
side of town.

Hop in your car and follow me.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:04:14 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:57 GMT, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>>>
>>
>> lol
>
>.3 that's 3.75 times the legal limit of .08 !
>

Doh!

Allright - I give. I'd say anyone w/ a BAC of 0.3 is drunk.

Damn, and I haven't had a drink all day.


Is it happy hour yet? I know this really great place on the other
side of town.

Hop in your car and follow me.

"C.H." > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, ParrotRob wrote:
>
>> "C.H." > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if
>>> you
>>> absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>>> either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.
>>
>> That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>> home! ;-)
>
> So you already start having problems walking at .03%?

Nope. But neither do I have problems driving, either. I think I'll have a
few and cruise around your neighborhood tonight.