Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

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.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:43:47 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:48 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:41:12 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>> Yeah - that's rich. Not only are you a medical doctor capable of
>> diagnosing alcoholism over the internet, you're a tough guy too.
>
>I never called you an alcoholic, despite all your claims to the contrary.

Ah, but you did.

>And it doesn't take a tough guy to defend himself against some bigmouth
>like you.

Of course not, since I am a peaceful person. I will defend myself if
attacked however. We have CCW laws here, so you'd best be careful.

>
>>>You as a drunk driver will quite likely kill someone. By the way, even the
>>>attempt to break my nose is illegal.
>>
>> But he wouldn't make an attempt to break your nose.
>
>As long as he doesn't try to, he has nothing to worry about.

And he wouldn't.

>
>> Your fear of his fist is as irrational as your fear of someone having a
>> single drink 7 hours before getting behind the wheel of a car.
>
>I don't have any fear of his fist at all, so it can't be irrational.


But you admitted to it, just like you admitted to beating your wife.

>And I
>don't fear someone who had a single drink but people like you, who can't
>decide between 'a few', 'a single drink', 'I count drinks', 'I have never
>been tested but I know I am below .08' and so on.

Yup, I'm a safe drinker.

>Because these are the
>people, who end up drinking too much and causing accidents.

But I don't cause accidents. I'd bet that you do.

>
>>>> You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep,
>>>> that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through.
>>>
>>>No. That's just the will to survive coming through. That some zealots
>>>happen to want to survive too doesn't change that.
>>
>> Right - so do you, or don't you think alcohol should be restricted (for
>> adults).
>
>So do I what?

Are you REALLY that stupid that you can't parse a simple sentence
written in what would appear to be your native tongue?

>
>And no, I don't think alcohol should be restricted.


Then why did you say it should be?

>On the contrary, I
>believe that the 21 year minimum for drinking causes a lot of the problems
>with kids thinking it's 'cool' and 'grownup' to drink. In Germany the

**** you and your "In Germany" arguments.

I don't live in Europe, and I don't think you do either. Europe ain't
the best of all possible worlds.

>minimum drinking age for beer and wine is fourteen if you are with your
>parents and 16 if you are alone. For hard liquor it is 18. And yet the
>quote of alcoholics in the population is by no means higher than over
>here, not even among the underage drinkers.
>
>The only thing I am interested in limiting is the number of dead people on
>the road due to drinking and driving.

Good for you - however your approach to your stated interest is
whacked.

>
>>>>>If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in
>>>>>a safe environment, in other words, at home.
>>>>
>>>> Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism.
>>>
>>>Where did you get that nonsense from?
>>
>> It's part of the mantra of the SATIC - You must have forgotten your
>> basic training
>
>WTF is SATIC?

Not paying attention, are you?

Substance Abuse Treatment Industrial Complex

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:43:47 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:16:48 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:41:12 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>> Yeah - that's rich. Not only are you a medical doctor capable of
>> diagnosing alcoholism over the internet, you're a tough guy too.
>
>I never called you an alcoholic, despite all your claims to the contrary.

Ah, but you did.

>And it doesn't take a tough guy to defend himself against some bigmouth
>like you.

Of course not, since I am a peaceful person. I will defend myself if
attacked however. We have CCW laws here, so you'd best be careful.

>
>>>You as a drunk driver will quite likely kill someone. By the way, even the
>>>attempt to break my nose is illegal.
>>
>> But he wouldn't make an attempt to break your nose.
>
>As long as he doesn't try to, he has nothing to worry about.

And he wouldn't.

>
>> Your fear of his fist is as irrational as your fear of someone having a
>> single drink 7 hours before getting behind the wheel of a car.
>
>I don't have any fear of his fist at all, so it can't be irrational.


But you admitted to it, just like you admitted to beating your wife.

>And I
>don't fear someone who had a single drink but people like you, who can't
>decide between 'a few', 'a single drink', 'I count drinks', 'I have never
>been tested but I know I am below .08' and so on.

Yup, I'm a safe drinker.

>Because these are the
>people, who end up drinking too much and causing accidents.

But I don't cause accidents. I'd bet that you do.

>
>>>> You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep,
>>>> that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through.
>>>
>>>No. That's just the will to survive coming through. That some zealots
>>>happen to want to survive too doesn't change that.
>>
>> Right - so do you, or don't you think alcohol should be restricted (for
>> adults).
>
>So do I what?

Are you REALLY that stupid that you can't parse a simple sentence
written in what would appear to be your native tongue?

>
>And no, I don't think alcohol should be restricted.


Then why did you say it should be?

>On the contrary, I
>believe that the 21 year minimum for drinking causes a lot of the problems
>with kids thinking it's 'cool' and 'grownup' to drink. In Germany the

**** you and your "In Germany" arguments.

I don't live in Europe, and I don't think you do either. Europe ain't
the best of all possible worlds.

>minimum drinking age for beer and wine is fourteen if you are with your
>parents and 16 if you are alone. For hard liquor it is 18. And yet the
>quote of alcoholics in the population is by no means higher than over
>here, not even among the underage drinkers.
>
>The only thing I am interested in limiting is the number of dead people on
>the road due to drinking and driving.

Good for you - however your approach to your stated interest is
whacked.

>
>>>>>If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in
>>>>>a safe environment, in other words, at home.
>>>>
>>>> Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism.
>>>
>>>Where did you get that nonsense from?
>>
>> It's part of the mantra of the SATIC - You must have forgotten your
>> basic training
>
>WTF is SATIC?

Not paying attention, are you?

Substance Abuse Treatment Industrial Complex

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:22:21 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:19:58 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>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 decided not to have it after all, so you can send your counselor home.

It's not my counselor

>
>>>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.
>
>If your belly is too fat to walk over to the zone that bars are allowed in

When was the last time you walked even 10 miles, let alone 60?

>you need more exercise and walking will provide you with that.
>
>> Would you work to change them too? Or are you a NIMBY as well?
>
>I will readily admit that the last thing I need in my neighborhood is a
>bar that blasts loud music and has inconsiderate patrons who slam their
>car doors or blabber loudly and drunkenly after midnight.

Hmm - that's the last kind of bar I'd want to go to also.

Most neighborhood bars aren't like that - when they still existed
anyway.

>
>Fortunately (obviously unlike you) I am physically quite fit and have no
>problem to walk a mile to get to a bar, if I choose so.

Try walking 5 miles (each way)

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:22:21 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:19:58 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>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 decided not to have it after all, so you can send your counselor home.

It's not my counselor

>
>>>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.
>
>If your belly is too fat to walk over to the zone that bars are allowed in

When was the last time you walked even 10 miles, let alone 60?

>you need more exercise and walking will provide you with that.
>
>> Would you work to change them too? Or are you a NIMBY as well?
>
>I will readily admit that the last thing I need in my neighborhood is a
>bar that blasts loud music and has inconsiderate patrons who slam their
>car doors or blabber loudly and drunkenly after midnight.

Hmm - that's the last kind of bar I'd want to go to also.

Most neighborhood bars aren't like that - when they still existed
anyway.

>
>Fortunately (obviously unlike you) I am physically quite fit and have no
>problem to walk a mile to get to a bar, if I choose so.

Try walking 5 miles (each way)

>
>Chris

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:07:05 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

>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..


Bwahahahaaha

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:07:05 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote:

>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..


Bwahahahaaha

Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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? :-]
> >>
> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
> >
> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
> >
> >O L A F !
> >
> >One of the results of having too much to drink...
>
> Fool

So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
to drink?

--
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

Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> >> > "C.H." > wrote:
> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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? :-]
> >>
> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks.
> >
> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name?
> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation...
> >
> >O L A F !
> >
> >One of the results of having too much to drink...
>
> Fool

So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds
like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much
to drink?

--
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. wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >
> >>
http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf
> >
> > There, that wasn't so tough.
>
> And I said that it was exactly where?

I had the idea you found it difficult because it took you 2-3 rounds of
posting to finally generate what I originally requested. I never
claimed you said it was tough. I decided it must be tough because you
couldn't seem to figure it out the very first time.

> >> Either you know drunk driving is dangerous and still complain
about
> >> efforts to decrease this danger or you think drunk driving is
> >> harmless. Which one is it going to be?
> >
> > False choice. There are more than two choices - and this again
reeks of
> > the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of arguments.
>
> Your nose needs a smell adjustment. Maybe your own smell has offset
it
> somewhat?

Are you this rude all the time, or just in usenet, where you can hide
behind your monitor?

> > If you cannot rationally discuss an issue, then maybe you should
> > refrain.
>
> The question is valid. Why don't you simply answer it instead of
trying to
> weasel out?

The question is *not* valid, because there are more choices than the
ones you offered. False choice, or false dichotomies, are logic
errors. When you can figure out how to be rational, please feel free
to have a discussion.

> >> So what other indicators do you see? Other than lab testing the
person
> >> for hours?
> >
> > I'm sure you could come up with a bunch of tests that could be
> > administered right at the roadside, that would only take a few
minutes.
> > Good, qualitative testing.
>
> I am interested to hear what you have in mind. 'I am sure you
could...'
> does not cut it.

I'm allowing you to use your brain.

There are tests that can be administered, by non-scientists, that can,
in a few minutes, roughly determine someone's level of intoxication.
These can be administered right at the side of the road, and often are.

Think a little bit, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

> >> > What if the person has measurable BAC but is not drunk?
>
> >> How does the person know whether they have a measurable BAC but
are not
> >> drunk or whether they are just too drunk to know they are drunk?
> >
> > Doesn't really answer the question, does it?
>
> It gives a reason why you can't simply say, 'ok, you think you are
not
> drunk, so you can drive.'

An invalid reason. A measurable BAC does not imply loss of reasoning,
nor the inability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

> Most people who are totally blastered, think
> they can still drive. And many do.

You don't go directly from one glass of wine with dinner to "totally
blastered" (whatever "blastered" means - I assume some kind of German
idiom for "really intoxicated.")

Anyway, one glass of wine will cause measureable BAC, but not
necessarily loss of ability to adequately operate a motor vehicle.

> >> I went through the first two pages and didn't find any link to the
> > study.
> >
> > Hence the term "secondary references." If you are going to reply,
at
> > least try and reading what I write before typing.
>
> Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources
on the
> web are about as accurate as tarot.

If you don't like them, then find the thing yourself. I don't know
Swedish, so I can't get at the primary reference, and the translation
to English is obviously not available in e-copy.

The fact that all those different folks used the same numbers strongly
implies that a real document backs them up. And these aren't "web
sources" but links to newspaper articles. Before, you believed what
was in the papers. Now you all of a sudden don't?

How odd.

> >> If the study exists you should have no problem posting the URL.
> >
> > The study is quoted by quite a number of different sources,
including
> > newspapers and .edu addresses. In addition, I have read the study
> > myself. If you want to dig up an e-copy, be my guest.
>
> I have seen so much bull**** at .edu adresses that I mostly discount
what
> I find there. Secondary references are worthless.

You can be as dismissive as you want, it matters not at all. Like any
other person with a closed mind and open mouth, facts don't seem to
penetrate whatever preconceived notions exist.

> > If the multiple secondary references aren't good enough, fine by
me.
> > What was that about "hair in the soup," again?
>
> I delivered the primary reference you asked for.

A .pdf in German. Yeah, it was useful. </sarcasm>

But you finally did deliver. Oddly, the original thing you delivered
was supposed to be OK enough for me...

Talk about a hypocrite.

> >> I did find a reference, though, that says that the 'hangover' in
> >> reality probably is leftover alcohol in the system:
> >>
> >> http://autonet.ca/EdmontonDrive/Stor...m?StoryID=8931
> >
> > An opinion piece. Are you now picking and choosing the references
that
> > suit your preconceptions?
>
> So your secondary references are okay, but mine isn't although it
concerns
> the same subject? Amusing.

It's not the same subject. It's not based on research, and has nothing
to do with the Swedish research. If secondary references are good
enough, then they are good enough. If not, then they are not. Pick a
position and stick to it.

> >> > At what BAC does this assessment become impossible?
> >>
> >> Early enough to make people think that they are still on the safe
> > side.
> >
> > That is not quantitative.
>
> That's all that matters.

No, I want a quantitative number.

At what BAC does self-assessment become impossible?

> >> > Ah, but "driving drunk" is a moving target. In fact, the
definition
> >> > of "drunk" seems to shift with time and location. Hardly the
absolut
> >> > thing you present it to be.
> >>
> >> Absolut will make you drunk in fairly short order. :-)
> >
> > You caught my pun. Nice work.
>
> It was a good one for a change.

Uh, for a change? I don't habitually make puns.

You have an answer for everything, don't you?

> >> And where did the definition of 'drunk' shift?
> >
> > In different states, DUI is defined differently, and has been
higher in
> > the past in most every state.
>
> Smoking has been thought harmless in the past. So has drunk driving
for
> many years. Doesn't mean either is.

You asked for when the definition shifted, and I gave it. The reply
you just made doesn't have anything to do with anything.

> >> > You are claiming that "influence" begins at 0.03%.
> >>
> >> Yes, the influence begins at .03% or even earlier.
> >
> > Your opinion. If you wish to parse every word, I suggest you start
at
> > the beginning, and not flail around post after post trying to make
a
> > weak argument stronger.
>
> Read the material I have shown you. It clearly says that impairment
begins
> at .03% or even earlier. Until you find a halfway credible study
saying
> something different my argument is supported while yours isn't.

"For some individuals." You are reading the part you like, and
ignoring the part you don't. Your own document supports my position!

> Or do you think it is acceptable to go through a red light 3 seconds
after
> it turned red, just because there was a bozo who went through the
same
> light 4 seconds after red?

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

> Every driver has to drive as best they can to minimize danger on the
road.
> Driving drunk is not conductive to driving as best one can, so it is
to be
> avoided.

I completely agree. But enacting legislation that outlaws
sub-impairment level BAC is just more LCD nanny-statism.

> > The bottom line is this: your line of logic leads us to a
situation
> > where a person can have one (1) drink with dinner, and be subject
to
> > very strict and punative DUI laws, without any proof of actual
> > impairment for the individual in question. While this may not
affect
> > you in any way, that is not a rationale for increased stringence
within
> > the law.
>
> There are lots of laws, that don't take into account the individual
in
> question.

And there are a lot of laws that don't.

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

Uh, do you have the slightest clue what a judge does? And right now,
we are at the whim of cops on who gets pulled over and tested, and who
doesn't.

> 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.

There are external devices that can constantly measure BAC. Or, use
the common sense of applying the knowledge I already have on ethanol
uptake and rate of catabolism.

> But a roadside test would be much worse. Imagine the cop doesn't like
your
> nose and just writes 'failed' on the test and you lose your license.
Now
> imagine you are sober and the same thing happens. That's the way they
used
> to do it in Russia or China. I don't want that to happen over here.

Gosh, maybe there might be some device that you could, oh, exhale into
that would show that you are below a legal limit? Naw, it'd never
work.

The current trend toward lower and lower limits is approaching a
situation where you catch folks who are not impaired, and yet still
have measurable BAC. Under your suggestion of "8 hours from bottle to
throttle," I could drink a beer, and drive three hours later, have a
measurable BAC and be what - jailed? stiffly fined? not because I am
impaired, but because I exceeded some arbitrary standard. Sort of like
current speed limit laws.

> > Explicitly, I am very much against impaired driving (no matter how
that
> > impairment occurs), but at the same time, very low absolute limits
to
> > BAC don't make sense, because not every reacts to alcohol the same.

>
> There needs to be a legal limit and it needs to be about where in the
> average person impairment starts.

There is not such animal as the "average person." And even your own
reference states that the 0.03 standard you promote is not an average
result.

> > And using LCD thinking is how we got into the no-training,
no-education
> > nanny-statism driving situation we find ourselves in currently.
HAND,
>
> With that argument you can get rid of just about any law. To manage a
> civilized society there has to be a certain amount of laws. That
there are
> too many laws in many areas is correct

Which only implies that the laws that impact you negatively should be
done away with, right?

> but that doesn't mean that in
> other areas, specifically areas, where self assessment and self
control
> are already weakened by alcohol, relaxing the law would work.

I don't recall ever advocating for relaxed standards. Ever-stricter
standards are what I am objecting to.

Yet another instance of "have you stopped beating your wife." Knock it
off.

E.P.