Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

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.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new
>> prohibition to continue their existance IMO.
>
>I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
>afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
>impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
>drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.
>

Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex
wants everyone to think - more money for them.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:54:02 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> MADD and other orgs achieved their goals and are now pushing for a new
>> prohibition to continue their existance IMO.
>
>I like a beer or a glass of wine now and then, I just don't drive
>afterwards until the effect of the alcohol has completely worn off (both
>impairment and BAC wise). If someone is unable to make sure they don't
>drink if you have to drive afterwards, they are an alcoholic.
>

Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex
wants everyone to think - more money for them.

On 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, wrote:

>
>What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data.
>
>> Most non-alcoholics are not
>> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.
>
>I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an alcohol
>coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve,
>outside of some embalming process.

Yeah, and he obviously meant 0.15% - someone (not driving) achieved
over 0.9% as reported in the news last week.

The people doing the tests didn't believe it either until they tested
it 4 times

On 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, wrote:

>
>What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data.
>
>> Most non-alcoholics are not
>> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.
>
>I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an alcohol
>coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve,
>outside of some embalming process.

Yeah, and he obviously meant 0.15% - someone (not driving) achieved
over 0.9% as reported in the news last week.

The people doing the tests didn't believe it either until they tested
it 4 times

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm
> I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police
> officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them
> show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made
> the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done.
>
> So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver
> is impaired.

Of course not, but you just proved our point. It's NOT "DUI" if the driver
is NOT impaired, now is it? So you can't very well have a driver that is
not impaired guilty of DUI, now can you?

Is that way too much logic for you?

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>John David Galt Jan 10, 5:06 pm
> I agree. Granted that this requires judgment on the part of the police
> officer, most cop cars these days have video cameras, & I've seen them
> show a jury just how badly the guy was driving before the officer made
> the decision to pull him over. That's how it should be done.
>
> So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the driver
> is impaired.

Of course not, but you just proved our point. It's NOT "DUI" if the driver
is NOT impaired, now is it? So you can't very well have a driver that is
not impaired guilty of DUI, now can you?

Is that way too much logic for you?

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>ParrotRob Jan 10, 3:43 pm
> I can't believe I'm responding to you, but absolutely yes! Drivers
> should
> be judged on how much they are impaired, rather than an arbitrary
> numerical
> value. I guarantee you there are millions of people who are much more
> impaired at, say, .04% BAC than am I at the legal .08%.
>
> HAHAHA. Another one of these deadly DUIs who says "It's ok for me to do
> it cause i actually drive better when i'm drunk." How many people have
> you killed, psychopath.

Either exactly as many as you have or less than you have. By the way, where
exactly did I say it was OK for me to drive when I'm drunk? I believe I
simply said I'm less impaired, now didn't I?

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>ParrotRob Jan 10, 3:43 pm
> I can't believe I'm responding to you, but absolutely yes! Drivers
> should
> be judged on how much they are impaired, rather than an arbitrary
> numerical
> value. I guarantee you there are millions of people who are much more
> impaired at, say, .04% BAC than am I at the legal .08%.
>
> HAHAHA. Another one of these deadly DUIs who says "It's ok for me to do
> it cause i actually drive better when i'm drunk." How many people have
> you killed, psychopath.

Either exactly as many as you have or less than you have. By the way, where
exactly did I say it was OK for me to drive when I'm drunk? I believe I
simply said I'm less impaired, now didn't I?

C.H. wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:27:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > x-posting trimmed...
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:48:49 -0500, Max wrote:
> >>
> >> Where did you get that number from? About every study about
alcohol
> >> and driving I read mentioned that non-alcoholic drivers already
are
> >> affected from .03%.
> >
> > Do you have any links to substantiate this claim?
>
> Example:
>
> http://www.psy-online.de/mpu/wirkung.htm
>
> Guaranteed not MADD influenced.

This site is obviously not a scientific research paper. Is a
cartoonish MADD-alike.

Maybe there is real, scientific research to back up the claims, but it
certainly isn't in evidence on that particular page.

> >> > And the drivers that cause the accidents all have BAC's around
..16
> >> > to .25, and if you are at .25 you are really hammered and you'll
know
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get
checked
> >> after a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1%
> >
> > What papers? Newspapers? I would prefer to get real, hard data.
>
> Newspapers usually print what is in the police report and you can be
sure
> the police report errs on the high side (revenue increase).

No matter what is published in newspapers, it is not controlled,
scientific data. Anecdotal, yes. Rigorous research, no.

> >> Most non-alcoholics are not
> >> even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.
> >
> > I should think not. 0.50% BAC would put most all humans in an
alcohol
> > coma, at the very least. 1.5% would be very difficult to achieve,
> > outside of some embalming process.
>
> Sorry, I meant .15%. In Germany BAC is measured in Promille (tenth of
a
> percent), so 1.5 Promille = .15%.

0.15% is not beyond the realm of functional for plenty of people, even
non-alcoholics. Due to liver damage, alcoholics often have a
*decreased* tolerance for alcohol. Being able to walk, talk, play
darts or some other physical activity does not in any way imply ability
to safely operate a motor vehicle.

BAC, in and of itself, is not an accurate indicator of intoxication. A
45kg woman at 0.03% and a 90kg man at 0.03% are not equally impaired.
There have been some Swedish studies to suggest that people who are
hung over (0.00% BAC) can be less fit to drive than someone over the
legal BAC. The same goes for sleepy drivers.

HAND,

E.P.