Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

"C.H." > writes:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:35:10 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>>>> There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!".
>>>
>>>No. Neo-prohibitionist says: Wanna drink? No way!

>> Nope, that would be the old-fashioned paleo-prohibitionist. More
>> honest than their neo- bretheren, but just as irritating.

>Irritating is an in-duh-vidual like you who tries to stick me into
>a bracket with all kinds of bozos just because I don't condone your
>drinking and driving.

Irritating is that you need to stereotype people. Perhaps it's due
to limited mental capacity that you can't treat and think of people
as individuals.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>
> "C.H." >
>
> >> But it IS okay to drink a few.
> >
> > Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this.
>
> Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the
> road after a few drinks.

Then they'd be a wide-awake drunk, doped up as well..

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Mike Z. Helm > wrote:
>
> "C.H." >
>
> >> But it IS okay to drink a few.
> >
> > Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this.
>
> Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the
> road after a few drinks.

Then they'd be a wide-awake drunk, doped up as well..

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:30 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>>>> 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".

>So you think everyone should be allowed to risk your life any time they
>please because you don't want to be micromanaged?

Micro-management is myopic

>Or where do _you_ draw the line?

At people who try to make rules to prevent symptoms in order to cure
a disease.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:30 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:

>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>>>> 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".

>So you think everyone should be allowed to risk your life any time they
>please because you don't want to be micromanaged?

Micro-management is myopic

>Or where do _you_ draw the line?

At people who try to make rules to prevent symptoms in order to cure
a disease.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Scott M. Kozel" > writes:
>"C.H." > wrote:
>> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> > "C.H." > wrote:

>> >>> You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?

>> >>No, you can't, because even people who may be able to refrain from
>> >>drinking in certain situations can be alcoholics.
>> >
>> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>>
>> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.

>Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]

I'll drink to that!
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Scott M. Kozel" > writes:
>"C.H." > wrote:
>> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>> > "C.H." > wrote:

>> >>> You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?

>> >>No, you can't, because even people who may be able to refrain from
>> >>drinking in certain situations can be alcoholics.
>> >
>> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
>>
>> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk.

>Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-]

I'll drink to that!
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:15 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

>> Which is to say, 1 sip makes a person drunk.

>No. You need a refresher course in basic logical reasoning.

>A->B means by no means B->A.

Physician; cure thyself!
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:15 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:

>> Which is to say, 1 sip makes a person drunk.

>No. You need a refresher course in basic logical reasoning.

>A->B means by no means B->A.

Physician; cure thyself!
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"C.H." > writes:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:22:06 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> "C.H." > writes:
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>>>> C.H. wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
>>
>>>Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources
>>>on the web are about as accurate as tarot.
>>
>> Why are you so anxious to discredit your own references?

>I didn't discredit anything.

>> DVR lists the references that it uses.

>As does any scientific study. The web sites gcsmchemist suggested to
>support his swedish 'study' on the other hand didn't list any references,
>but just claim to have read it somewhere.

DVR is a _secondary_. It doesn't appear to reference any supportive
work it has itself undertaken. You've stated *above* "Secondary
references by sources on the web are about as accurate as tarot."

>>>The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some cop or
>>>judge.

>> The law doesn't define impairment. It only defines "arbitrary" numbers
>> to quantify intoxication.

>Say, where in the quoted sentence did I talk about impairment?

So you're saying that the law is the law is the law; and it
shouldn't take into account *actual* impairment in its definition?

>>>What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough because
>>>people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and the
>>>BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn
>>>from your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether
>>>you are still legal or not.

>> If the legal BAC limit is too low, then you would be correct.

>What makes you come to this conclusion?

From drinking. Prost!

I know when I'm at about 0.02. I know when I'm over 0.04. And I can
tell the difference.

Either your drinking has dulled your senses or you were born
insensitive. :-)

>> You may be in the habit of out-drinking your sensibility. Probably not a
>> difficult task.

>I am not in the habit to out-drink anything.

So if it's not a habit, it's just out of opportunism?

>> Others are not necessarily afflicted by the same.

>You seem to be afflicted by the misguided idea that you can still drive
>when you are drunk.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!