Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:59:32 +0800, Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

>Olaf Gustafson > writes:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:11:10 -0800, "C.H." >
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:48:56 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>>>>You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
>>>>>more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.
>
>>>> A self-proclaimed alcoholic told me if you get drunk more than 3
>>>> times a year (Birthday, New Years, and 1 other time) you're an
>>>> alcoholic.
>
>>>Who cares, what some nutcase drunkard told you?
>
>>Indeed. Why should I care what some nutcase on usenet says either.
>
>Didn't take you long to figure out Chris Hübner. :-)
>

took me longer than it should have though....goddam booze! ;-)

>Careful; he morphs to ensure that his nutcase advertisements reach
>the widest audience so keep updating your killfiles.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:26:06 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>> #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_
>>>> compelled.
>>>
>>>Apparently that's enough.
>>
>> The difference is enormous. If you ARE compelled to do something (in
>> the narrow sense), you WILL do it. If you merely FEEL compelled, you
>> can ignore the feeling.
>
>A lot of people, specifically alcoholics can not simply ignore the feeling.

They quite simply (but not EASILY) can. And many DO.

>And to get back to the original point, having a desire and feeling
>compelled are two entirely different things too.

No, they are not, except perhaps in degree.

>>>I may have the desire to go skiing today instead of working. That doesn't
>>>mean I do feel compelled to do so.
>>
>> Can you draw a bright-line distinction between a compulsion and a
>> desire? One that does not contradict your use of the phrase "If you
>> feel in any way compelled..."?
>
>Yes. Give me a marker and Ill draw it for you.

I'll take that as a "no".

>>>> 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
>>
>> So you're a neo-prohibitionist hypocrite.
>
>No, I am just not a prohibitionist, neo or otherwise. I do not strive in
>any way to limit or prohibit sale, transport, manufacturing or even
>consumption of alcohol.

Except that you don't want anyone consuming it within 8 hours of
driving a motor vehicle, you don't want open containers in cars, and
you don't want bars nearby residential areas (so it's difficult to
walk to them). Probably more; that's all I remember off the top of my head.

>> Clever neo-prohibitionists have gotten the drunk driving laws applied to
>> bicycles.
>
>You won't believe it, drunk driving laws are applied to cars too and if
>you are too drunk to bike you are also too drunk to drive - as seen from
>the standpoint of the law. Or are you trying to say, that you get so drunk
>that you can't ride in a straight line any more and hope that the heavier
>car won't show your impairment off as much as the less stable bike?

I'm saying that if both driving drunk and cycling drunk are legally
drunk driving, you don't get to shrug off my claim that there's no
practical and legal way to get home from the bar by bringing up bicycles.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:26:06 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>> #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_
>>>> compelled.
>>>
>>>Apparently that's enough.
>>
>> The difference is enormous. If you ARE compelled to do something (in
>> the narrow sense), you WILL do it. If you merely FEEL compelled, you
>> can ignore the feeling.
>
>A lot of people, specifically alcoholics can not simply ignore the feeling.

They quite simply (but not EASILY) can. And many DO.

>And to get back to the original point, having a desire and feeling
>compelled are two entirely different things too.

No, they are not, except perhaps in degree.

>>>I may have the desire to go skiing today instead of working. That doesn't
>>>mean I do feel compelled to do so.
>>
>> Can you draw a bright-line distinction between a compulsion and a
>> desire? One that does not contradict your use of the phrase "If you
>> feel in any way compelled..."?
>
>Yes. Give me a marker and Ill draw it for you.

I'll take that as a "no".

>>>> 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
>>
>> So you're a neo-prohibitionist hypocrite.
>
>No, I am just not a prohibitionist, neo or otherwise. I do not strive in
>any way to limit or prohibit sale, transport, manufacturing or even
>consumption of alcohol.

Except that you don't want anyone consuming it within 8 hours of
driving a motor vehicle, you don't want open containers in cars, and
you don't want bars nearby residential areas (so it's difficult to
walk to them). Probably more; that's all I remember off the top of my head.

>> Clever neo-prohibitionists have gotten the drunk driving laws applied to
>> bicycles.
>
>You won't believe it, drunk driving laws are applied to cars too and if
>you are too drunk to bike you are also too drunk to drive - as seen from
>the standpoint of the law. Or are you trying to say, that you get so drunk
>that you can't ride in a straight line any more and hope that the heavier
>car won't show your impairment off as much as the less stable bike?

I'm saying that if both driving drunk and cycling drunk are legally
drunk driving, you don't get to shrug off my claim that there's no
practical and legal way to get home from the bar by bringing up bicycles.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:01:26 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:06:39 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:11 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>
>>>No, merely drinkers, who are unsafe sober, which is a tiny percentage of
>>>drinkers.
>>
>> Well, that's difficult to say since you can't keep your position
>> straight.
>
>It is straight, if it looks crooked to you you are swaying.
>

Ah, the drunken fool blames everyone but himself

>>>> Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
>>>> substance abuse counselor.
>>>
>>>Now now, Brent P would rip you a new one for that and ask you whether you
>>>stopped beating your wife... :-)
>>
>> Brent P is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. You, however,
>> debate worse than most drunks I know.
>
>That my debating is worse for you than trying to outdebate a drunk doesn't
>surprise me, you are not looking too good...

No, your logic is worse than that of a drunk

>
>And for someone who is howling like a three year old about me supposedly
>having called him an alcoholic your statement is completely unacceptable.
>

Hah! that's rich

>Btw, I am still waiting for your proof.

You expect me to PROVE that your own statements are bull****?

No need to - they stand (and fall) on their own merit (or lack
thereof).

Prove yourself.

>
>> I understand just fine - the problem is on your end. Maybe you're
>> just stupid.
>
>You seem to have a problem with pronouns too.

What's the problem?

I repeat: You're just stupid.

>
>>>I claim having one beer already may influence your choice of having
>>>another one although you know that you have to drive home.
>>
>> No, you said (among other things) that people shouldn't be allowed to
>> drive if they have had a drink within the previous 8 hours.
>
>I said that this would be the easiest way to make sure that people don't
>drive drunk.

Which was a completely moronic statement.

>
>> Claiming that 1 beer is the equivalent of 2 beers is patently
>> ridiculous.
>
>I did not claim any such thing. If you really are too stupid to understand
>the sentence I posted you shouldn't be on usenet.
>

You did essentially say exactly that, and by induction you also said
that 1 drink was the same as a dozen.

>>>Please stop trying to pass your phantasies off as my opinion.
>>
>> Their your fantasies. Let us know when reality sets in.
>
>No, they are your fantasies. Or if it makes you happy I will call them by
>their real name, namely lies.

heh

>
>Say, didn't your mom teach you that lying is bad?
>

No, but you're wife asked me to tell you to stop beating her.

>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:01:26 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:06:39 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:11 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>
>>>No, merely drinkers, who are unsafe sober, which is a tiny percentage of
>>>drinkers.
>>
>> Well, that's difficult to say since you can't keep your position
>> straight.
>
>It is straight, if it looks crooked to you you are swaying.
>

Ah, the drunken fool blames everyone but himself

>>>> Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
>>>> substance abuse counselor.
>>>
>>>Now now, Brent P would rip you a new one for that and ask you whether you
>>>stopped beating your wife... :-)
>>
>> Brent P is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. You, however,
>> debate worse than most drunks I know.
>
>That my debating is worse for you than trying to outdebate a drunk doesn't
>surprise me, you are not looking too good...

No, your logic is worse than that of a drunk

>
>And for someone who is howling like a three year old about me supposedly
>having called him an alcoholic your statement is completely unacceptable.
>

Hah! that's rich

>Btw, I am still waiting for your proof.

You expect me to PROVE that your own statements are bull****?

No need to - they stand (and fall) on their own merit (or lack
thereof).

Prove yourself.

>
>> I understand just fine - the problem is on your end. Maybe you're
>> just stupid.
>
>You seem to have a problem with pronouns too.

What's the problem?

I repeat: You're just stupid.

>
>>>I claim having one beer already may influence your choice of having
>>>another one although you know that you have to drive home.
>>
>> No, you said (among other things) that people shouldn't be allowed to
>> drive if they have had a drink within the previous 8 hours.
>
>I said that this would be the easiest way to make sure that people don't
>drive drunk.

Which was a completely moronic statement.

>
>> Claiming that 1 beer is the equivalent of 2 beers is patently
>> ridiculous.
>
>I did not claim any such thing. If you really are too stupid to understand
>the sentence I posted you shouldn't be on usenet.
>

You did essentially say exactly that, and by induction you also said
that 1 drink was the same as a dozen.

>>>Please stop trying to pass your phantasies off as my opinion.
>>
>> Their your fantasies. Let us know when reality sets in.
>
>No, they are your fantasies. Or if it makes you happy I will call them by
>their real name, namely lies.

heh

>
>Say, didn't your mom teach you that lying is bad?
>

No, but you're wife asked me to tell you to stop beating her.

>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:54:00 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
>> bind HIS fists either.
>
>I trust Mike Tyson more than I trust the garden variety drunk bozo behind
>the wheel of 3000 lbs of steel and plastic.

More fool you.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:54:00 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
>> bind HIS fists either.
>
>I trust Mike Tyson more than I trust the garden variety drunk bozo behind
>the wheel of 3000 lbs of steel and plastic.

More fool you.

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

If you don't like being associated with those bozos, stop acting like them.

>>>> You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety of
>>>> your nose.
>>>
>>>Your fist won't kill me (and you would not like the retribution either).
>>
>> How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
>> bind HIS fists either.
>
>I trust Mike Tyson more than I trust the garden variety drunk bozo behind
>the wheel of 3000 lbs of steel and plastic.

Then, given Tyson's history, you're a fool.

>> The death rate per 100,000,000 vehicle miles in the US
>> is less than 2. That means on average -- and that average includes both
>> drunk and sober drivers -- if I drive 10 miles I have less than a 1 in 5
>> million chance of killing someone. How much does having a beer or two
>> beforehand make that risk increase? Even if it's double the AVERAGE,
>> it's less than 1 in 2.5 million.
>
>So if the risk of killing someone by driving through a red light is 1
>in a million it's acceptable to do so?

No. It's merely not anything to be hysterically waving the bloody shirt over.

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

If you don't like being associated with those bozos, stop acting like them.

>>>> You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety of
>>>> your nose.
>>>
>>>Your fist won't kill me (and you would not like the retribution either).
>>
>> How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
>> bind HIS fists either.
>
>I trust Mike Tyson more than I trust the garden variety drunk bozo behind
>the wheel of 3000 lbs of steel and plastic.

Then, given Tyson's history, you're a fool.

>> The death rate per 100,000,000 vehicle miles in the US
>> is less than 2. That means on average -- and that average includes both
>> drunk and sober drivers -- if I drive 10 miles I have less than a 1 in 5
>> million chance of killing someone. How much does having a beer or two
>> beforehand make that risk increase? Even if it's double the AVERAGE,
>> it's less than 1 in 2.5 million.
>
>So if the risk of killing someone by driving through a red light is 1
>in a million it's acceptable to do so?

No. It's merely not anything to be hysterically waving the bloody shirt over.

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

It'd be better than your alternative, but no.

>Or where do _you_ draw the line?

I recognize that a line must be drawn, that "any risk is grounds for
prohibition" is not acceptable.