Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>>> but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is necessary.
>>
>> DEMAND COMPETENCE not CONTROL.
>
> COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
> for you?)

You don't get it. It just doesn't compute in that little brain of yours.
You want to control people instead of demanding competence from them.
That's the point. That's the point of pushing for ever lower BAC, ever
lower speed limits, ever watching cameras, etc and so forth. CONTROL.

>>> One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>>> risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's a
>>> sure sign of being an alcoholic.

>> Do you really need to beat your wife and children?
>
> No, nor do I defend wife beaters like you defend alcoholics and drunk
> drivers.

I HAVEN'T. You obviously cannot read. Or have some serious mental
imparement. I am arguing against the ever lowering BAC values that define
drunk driving because each year, the number is lower. Tell me, was the
law for .08 BAC in Illinois a few years back based on flawed data? The
..085 BAC before that? The .1 before that? Why is it that the target keeps
moving and the studies keep showing lower numbers? It stinks. It smells.
It's groups looking to justify their continued existance.

When the laws were .1 the studies showed .08 when the laws made it to .08
now the studies show .05, when the laws are .05 the studies will be .03,
and so on and so on. This isn't an area where there are technology
breakthroughs or anything. A sound study from 1985 should produce the
same result as a sound study from 2005. Why don't they? Because of the
agenda IMO.

>> Don't ask such insulting loaded questions.

> If you don't want to be asked questions like that, don't defend drunk
> drivers.

I haven't. If you think so you're a ****ing moron.

>> I have no trouble playing the same game.

> It is _not_ the same game. You defend drunk driving, which is why my
> question is legitimate. I did not in any way defend wife beating, which is
> why your question was just a stupid and intentional insult.

I haven't defended drunk driving. Yet you feel the need to insult me
instead of having a discussion. That tells me I'm right on the mark. It's
a crusade, a need to justify your goals, your beliefs. My mere
questioning of where the line should be drawn as caused you to label me
as an extreme, to insult me, to attack me in this unjustified fashion.
Look at yourself. Look at your behavior. Clearly anything for the cause.
I think the current .08 BAC is low enough and that makes me the enemy to
you. You're proving my arguement that it is about the continued existance
of the crusaders, an incrementalist movement towards a new prohibition.

>> I am about as light of a drinker there is. I actually start feeling
>> sick to my stomach if I have more than 3 beers in 5 hours. I weigh
>> 225lbs and stand 6'4" tall.

> This makes it even more surprising for me that you of all people would
> defend drunk driving.

I haven't. You're obviously a moronic zealot who sees only 'us' and
'them'. Since I don't agree with you 100% you have classified me as one
of 'them'.

> No, it is very likely about .01% given your size and weight. But since
> when does Bud Light qualify as a beer? Yes, I know, I am a beer snob, I
> drink Franziskaner imported from Munich, Germany...

HA! Bud light is mostly water and chemicals! It's pure poison.

>> What do you think impares my driving more? the trivial amount of
>> alcohol in my system or being in pain from the headache? Last I heard
>> driving with a headache is legal.

> And what if you don't drink the Bud Light? Will your quality of life have
> decreased in any significant amount?

It decreases from drinking the **** water. Do you have trouble reading?

> Alcohol impairs people's self assessment, which is why DUI should be
> completely illegal, not only from .05% BAC. The only reason why it isn't
> is, because companies like Busch or Miller have a lot of influence on
> politicians.

Here it is, the one drop. The crusade, the zeal. None shall drink. If you
had a drink 3 years ago, you are impared and should not drive. Ever
lower BAC. Ever more silly. Ever more taking of freedom, ever more police
state check points. It's a crusade. A war on DUI. Fill the prisons with
the people who had a glass of wine with dinner! Took some cough surup and
drove to work? Off with your head! Used mouth wash in the morning and
drove? 30 days in the slammer!

>> Why don't you seek mental help?

> Again you resort to unprovoked insults. Obviously you need help more
> urgently than I thought.

Unprovoked? You started this by accusing me of being an alcoholic,
accusing me of being for drinking and driving, and few other insults you
lobbed at me for the sin of questioning your beliefs.

> I challenge you to find a study that claims DUI is harmless. Conditions
> are that it must not be funded in any way by either the alcohol industry
> including restaurants and it must

I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. WHAT IS YOUR MALFUNCTION?

> You have no study, no argument, not even evidence that drunk driving is
> harmless, only your own assertion that it is, which has exactly zero
> value.

I've never made any such claim or assertion!!!!!!
Find it, quote it, with link to google groups or any other independent
usenet archive if you think I have. You're going to have a hard time
finding it, because it doesn't exist. You're either dishonest or a moron
take your pick.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:42:33 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> At first I started answering your posting as if it was written by someone
> who is worth talking to. But then I came to the point where _you_, who
> accused me of beating my wife, started yammering about being insulted by
> _me_.

No. I used that question to point out what you were doing to me with your
so called questions that called me an alcoholic. On top of that you have
continually made up arguements and attributed them to me.


> Apparently you are not just a despiccable person but also so far in
> denial that you think your lies are justified whereas my truthful
> statement based on your defense of drunk drivers is supposedly an insult.

I have not defended drunk driving. This is clear to anyone who can read.
It is clear you are entirely dishonest and are projecting your own
dishonesty on to me. Where is your cite of a single post of mine that has
that content? WHERE? Why can't you back up these accusations? Because it
doesn't exist.

> Welcome to the funhouse. If you come to your senses and want to continue
> the debate, let me know.

When you learn how to read, and put away your 'us' vs 'them' zealotry let
me know. You are another control freak zealot who when somebody questions
their beliefs, there is no limit to the character attacks, no limits to
the dishonesty in painting this opposition in the most negative way as
you did with your false claims of my arguements and calling me an
alcoholic. Even after I demonstrated what you did to me, by doing it back
to you, it doesn't even sink into your brain. See how insulted you feel
by the 'stop beating your wife' question? Now read back what YOU WROTE
that was in response to. It was an example of your OWN behavior mirrored
back at you. You don't like it, so why do you do it to others?

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:42:33 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> At first I started answering your posting as if it was written by someone
> who is worth talking to. But then I came to the point where _you_, who
> accused me of beating my wife, started yammering about being insulted by
> _me_.

No. I used that question to point out what you were doing to me with your
so called questions that called me an alcoholic. On top of that you have
continually made up arguements and attributed them to me.


> Apparently you are not just a despiccable person but also so far in
> denial that you think your lies are justified whereas my truthful
> statement based on your defense of drunk drivers is supposedly an insult.

I have not defended drunk driving. This is clear to anyone who can read.
It is clear you are entirely dishonest and are projecting your own
dishonesty on to me. Where is your cite of a single post of mine that has
that content? WHERE? Why can't you back up these accusations? Because it
doesn't exist.

> Welcome to the funhouse. If you come to your senses and want to continue
> the debate, let me know.

When you learn how to read, and put away your 'us' vs 'them' zealotry let
me know. You are another control freak zealot who when somebody questions
their beliefs, there is no limit to the character attacks, no limits to
the dishonesty in painting this opposition in the most negative way as
you did with your false claims of my arguements and calling me an
alcoholic. Even after I demonstrated what you did to me, by doing it back
to you, it doesn't even sink into your brain. See how insulted you feel
by the 'stop beating your wife' question? Now read back what YOU WROTE
that was in response to. It was an example of your OWN behavior mirrored
back at you. You don't like it, so why do you do it to others?

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:11 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
> [yammering and insults]
>
> Just in case you don't read or comprehend my other posting: All the
> insults in the world will not intimidate me. You have shown what kind of
> person you really are and you definitely are not worth talking to.

You started down this road the moment you accused me of alcoholism and
mental illness. If you can't take it, don't start it. You're not the
first person to start something then run off.

> Have fun sprouting lies and ranting on, making a complete fool out of
> yourself. Or get help. Your call.

Lies. Let us talk about lies. How about those false claims you made
regarding my arguements. Why can't you just produce a url to the posts in
the google archive? Why? Because you're lying plain and simple. The so
called 'lies' you accuse me of are arguements YOU CREATED and assigned to
me. Think otherwise, well it's easy. quote the posts and give the url to
them in any accepted usenet archive. I challenged you in the last posts
and you deleted the quoted material and responded in the manner above
because you can't. You can't cite what DOES NOT EXIST.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:11 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
> [yammering and insults]
>
> Just in case you don't read or comprehend my other posting: All the
> insults in the world will not intimidate me. You have shown what kind of
> person you really are and you definitely are not worth talking to.

You started down this road the moment you accused me of alcoholism and
mental illness. If you can't take it, don't start it. You're not the
first person to start something then run off.

> Have fun sprouting lies and ranting on, making a complete fool out of
> yourself. Or get help. Your call.

Lies. Let us talk about lies. How about those false claims you made
regarding my arguements. Why can't you just produce a url to the posts in
the google archive? Why? Because you're lying plain and simple. The so
called 'lies' you accuse me of are arguements YOU CREATED and assigned to
me. Think otherwise, well it's easy. quote the posts and give the url to
them in any accepted usenet archive. I challenged you in the last posts
and you deleted the quoted material and responded in the manner above
because you can't. You can't cite what DOES NOT EXIST.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:28:51 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>>> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
>>> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
>>> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
>>> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.
>>
>> Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before
>> go back to the neo-prohibitionists.
>
>Example:
>http://www.uke.uni-hamburg.de/instit.../drogsymp3.pdf

"Seite nicht gefunden / Document not found"

>> However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>> agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>> open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.
>
>That they publish neo-prohibitionist agenda doesn't mean they cannot be
>right about alcohol and driving.

It does mean they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust a study about
gun control commissioned by the NRA, or one on oil drilling funded by
Greenpeace either.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:28:51 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>>> Several of the studies I am referring to have been conducted in Europe and
>>> thus have nothing to do with MADD. The Germans have determined that the
>>> risk of causing a fatal accident driving drunk (above the legal limit of
>>> 0.05%) is at least 6 times as high than are driving sober.
>>
>> Then let's see a real cite then. Because the ones presented here before
>> go back to the neo-prohibitionists.
>
>Example:
>http://www.uke.uni-hamburg.de/instit.../drogsymp3.pdf

"Seite nicht gefunden / Document not found"

>> However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>> agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>> open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.
>
>That they publish neo-prohibitionist agenda doesn't mean they cannot be
>right about alcohol and driving.

It does mean they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust a study about
gun control commissioned by the NRA, or one on oil drilling funded by
Greenpeace either.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:11:21 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>
>>>However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>>>agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>>>open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.
>>
>> The US isn't the ONLY place filled with control freaks, though. The
>> Germans, autobahns notwithstanding, have a national reputation for
>> it. Even the Italians have their control freaks, as the recent
>> smoking ban demonstrates.
>
>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>others, and that is completely unacceptable.

On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By
merely being there you increase the risk of others. The principle
"anything that increases others' risks should be forbidden" cannot
stand.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:11:21 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>
>>>However MADD and other orgs are still pushing a neo-prohibitionist
>>>agenda. The USA is simply filled with control freaks. Instead of being
>>>open, the method of recent decades has been incrementalism.
>>
>> The US isn't the ONLY place filled with control freaks, though. The
>> Germans, autobahns notwithstanding, have a national reputation for
>> it. Even the Italians have their control freaks, as the recent
>> smoking ban demonstrates.
>
>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>others, and that is completely unacceptable.

On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By
merely being there you increase the risk of others. The principle
"anything that increases others' risks should be forbidden" cannot
stand.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:04:36 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>> traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>> others, and that is completely unacceptable.
>>
>> Yet as a society we let people who normally drive as poorly as a drunk do so
>> everyday.
>
>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.

Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.

>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's a
>sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>
>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>seek help.

I'm sorry you don't enjoy the wonderful effects of alcohol (not to
mention the delicious taste of beverages containing it, and the
sensation of drinking it), but please stop trying to ruin it for the
rest of us.