Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>And where bars are close to homes, the neo-prohibitionists seek to have the
>establishments lose their liquor licenses citing misbehavior of patrons. If
>that fails, they prevent transfer to new owners and deny new owners a
>license of their own.
>
>There are other methods as well...

An infinitude of them.

>In chicago, in a similiar case along with selective enforcement, a bar
>that had been there since at least the 1940s at least when the old lady
>sitting at end of the bar became a regular, was going to have it's
>liqour license pulled. Why? Because it was discovered if one measured
>through an alley it was too close to some sort of church or something.
>This was discovered when the owners wanted to expand, creating a
>resturant next door. Public outcry and appeal stopped it.

Such laws are a blatant violation of the Establishment clause anyway,
not that the Supreme Court would deign to take notice.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:57 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>
>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>

lol

>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.

Yeah - that'll be enforcable.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:24:57 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>
>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>

lol

>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.

Yeah - that'll be enforcable.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:10:54 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:24:02 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:24:19 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>>>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>>>
>> Everyone should be required to be competent behind the wheel,
>> regardless of how much they drink when they're not driving.
>
>Habitual drunks are not competent behind the wheel.
>

I'd prefer that we measure such things objectively.

>> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
>> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.
>
>Only if he had withdrawal symptoms when sober or if he was caught driving
>drunk.

As far as we know, neither of those applied to him. But he was
certainly an habitual drunk - drunk by your definition, anyway.

Be consistent.

>As much as you wish I were some MADD fanatic, the only thing I am
>interested in is sharing the road with safe drivers. And only because
>drunk drivers are unsafe even when they didn't have much to drink I am for
>a zero tolerance rule.

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

>
>>>I do enjoy an alcoholic beverage, just not when I have to drive aferwards.
>>>And being drunk is not wonderful but stupid and makes you look stupid to
>>>boot.
>>
>> Hmm - being drunk usually makes everyone else look better. YMMV
>
>If you say so...

Well, there's probably nothing that could make you look better.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:10:54 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:24:02 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:24:19 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>>>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>>>
>> Everyone should be required to be competent behind the wheel,
>> regardless of how much they drink when they're not driving.
>
>Habitual drunks are not competent behind the wheel.
>

I'd prefer that we measure such things objectively.

>> I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
>> doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.
>
>Only if he had withdrawal symptoms when sober or if he was caught driving
>drunk.

As far as we know, neither of those applied to him. But he was
certainly an habitual drunk - drunk by your definition, anyway.

Be consistent.

>As much as you wish I were some MADD fanatic, the only thing I am
>interested in is sharing the road with safe drivers. And only because
>drunk drivers are unsafe even when they didn't have much to drink I am for
>a zero tolerance rule.

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

>
>>>I do enjoy an alcoholic beverage, just not when I have to drive aferwards.
>>>And being drunk is not wonderful but stupid and makes you look stupid to
>>>boot.
>>
>> Hmm - being drunk usually makes everyone else look better. YMMV
>
>If you say so...

Well, there's probably nothing that could make you look better.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:59:53 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:30 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:19:42 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You didn't say 'I could ask you ...' but simply asked me whether I stopped
>>>beating my wife, which implicates that I did beat my wife, which is a lie.
>>>
>> Everyone else knew what he meant by it.
>
>Since when have you become the voice of 'everyone else'?

They voted me in once you proved you weren't competent to be that
voice. Didn't you get the memo?

Maybe you should have tipped your cocktail waitress better.

>
>>>On the other hand I said that _if_ you are not able to refrain from
>>>drinking you are an alcoholic, which is not only the truth but also not an
>>>implication that you are.
>>
>> 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?

>
>> Where'd you get your medical degree? MADD?
>
>Say, Olaf, do you always call people you don't agree with names?

Hmmm - I don't see any names in the above reply. Perhaps you could
point it out, Doctor.

>
>>>I wonder whether you have the honor to apologize for your illegal
>>>accusation.
>>
>> It wasn't illegal and it wasn't an accusation of you actually beating
>> your wife.
>
>Yes, it was.
>

No, it wasn't, Doctor.

>> It was an accusation (of sorts) that you were falsely insinuating (at
>> the very least) that others here are alcoholics.
>
>I asked a simple question, which a non-alcoholic would answer with no, an
>alcoholic possibly with yes. Brent got worked up over it, so he may be an
>alcoholic, although I still don't claim he is.
>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:59:53 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:30 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:19:42 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You didn't say 'I could ask you ...' but simply asked me whether I stopped
>>>beating my wife, which implicates that I did beat my wife, which is a lie.
>>>
>> Everyone else knew what he meant by it.
>
>Since when have you become the voice of 'everyone else'?

They voted me in once you proved you weren't competent to be that
voice. Didn't you get the memo?

Maybe you should have tipped your cocktail waitress better.

>
>>>On the other hand I said that _if_ you are not able to refrain from
>>>drinking you are an alcoholic, which is not only the truth but also not an
>>>implication that you are.
>>
>> 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?

>
>> Where'd you get your medical degree? MADD?
>
>Say, Olaf, do you always call people you don't agree with names?

Hmmm - I don't see any names in the above reply. Perhaps you could
point it out, Doctor.

>
>>>I wonder whether you have the honor to apologize for your illegal
>>>accusation.
>>
>> It wasn't illegal and it wasn't an accusation of you actually beating
>> your wife.
>
>Yes, it was.
>

No, it wasn't, Doctor.

>> It was an accusation (of sorts) that you were falsely insinuating (at
>> the very least) that others here are alcoholics.
>
>I asked a simple question, which a non-alcoholic would answer with no, an
>alcoholic possibly with yes. Brent got worked up over it, so he may be an
>alcoholic, although I still don't claim he is.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:00 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:51:51 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> Let's see the numbers.
>>>
>>>Google is your friend.
>>
>> A quick search led me to this report
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...Rpt/Alc00Chap1.
>> htm
>>
>> Of the fatalities that involved alcohol approximately 75% of them were at
>> BAC over .10. Unfortunately this report does not give more detail. I would
>> be interesteed in seeing the numbers broken out by tenths of a percent. That
>> would give a better picture of who the really dangerous drivers are.
>
>Obviously drivers beyond .1% are going to be tested much more likely than
>someone who has only .03%, thus the number of fatalities broken down by
>percentage would be rather biased.
>
You don't like the stats, so you attempt to discredit them, yet you
don't provide any meaningful data yourself.

>>>>>I want to ban drivers who don't have a grip on themselves.
>>>> Me too.
>>
>>>Then why are you yammering about clamping down on drunk drivers?
>>
>> Because I dont' agree with your definition of a drunk driver.
>
>A person under the influence of alcohol is not able to correctly assess
>their driving ability which is why you can't just leave the assessment to
>the drunks themselves.

I'm perfectly capable of counting the number of drinks and the time
over which I have consumed them, even after a few drinks.

IOW, I have a pretty good idea if there's even a chance I'll blow
over.

>
>>>>>If you drive drunk you indeed don't and if coffee has the same effect
>>>>>on you you should be banned from driving altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Define drunk. That's the problem.
>>>
>>>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>>
>> Why .3? Why not .2 or .4? How did you come up with that number?
>
>Because most studies I read

Ah, well then we should just take your word for it then, eh?

How drunk do you think we are?

> say that the first noticeable effects on
>driving ability start at .3%. You are right, of course, it would make more
>sense to ban alcohol and driving altogether, so the question whether .2 is
>already dangerous simply would vanish.
>
>>>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>>>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.
>>
>> This would be an unecessary law that would have very little benefit. It
>> would also mean taking away police from doing other more important
>> duties that have real benefits.
>
>Saving lives on the road by locking up drunk drivers has real benefits.
>Saving one life by locking up a drunk driver has a lot more benefits than
>writing a hundred '70 in a 65' revenue generating tickets.

But do you really save 1 life by locking up a drunk driver?

>
>>>> You should more concerned with them because there are alot more of
>>>> them.
>>
>>>Drunk drivers are much more dangerous though.
>>
>> The really drunk ones are.
>
>You mean the really impaired ones are. And impairment starts much earlier
>than people think,

You better start harping on people getting enough sleep, using OTC
medication, driving while under stress - all those things can cause
more significant impairment than a 0.3 BAC

>specifically people like you who apparently subscribe
>to the old adage of 'a few beers are harmless'. There is no such thing as
>'harmless motorist impairment'.

Your overuse of the word "impairment" makes it virtually meaningless.

>
>>>No, it should come down to the simple matter of whether you are fit for
>>>driving, and that includes both no alcohol and adequate training.
>>
>> There are many peopel who can drive perfectly fine even when their
>> alcohol level is above .00 .
>
>Above .00 maybe, above about .03 or .04 no. The number of mistakes
>increases drastically

Define "drastically"

>and that's just not acceptable behind the wheel of
>3000 lbs of steel and plastic.
>
>And even if it were true, any alcohol consumption sharply

define "sharply"

>decreases the
>capability to assess the own condition, which is why it is impossible to

Hmmm - decreases--->impossible. Fascinating.

>let people just decide whether they are fit to drive.

And yet people make that determination all the time. Most of the
time, they're right. So is it really "impossible"?

>You can bet that the
>.30%-drunkard _thinks_ he is capable of driving safely,

I'll take that bet. How much money would you are to wager?


>but you can also
>bet that he isn't.
>
>The legal limit in a way is dangerous too, it makes people like you think
>that it is okay to drink 'a few',

But it IS okay to drink a few.

>which is why the 8 hour rule in addition
>to BAC rules would make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all.

>
>>>Oh, btw, let's put the same punishment as for alcohol on being on the
>>>[CENSORED] cellphone while driving. Recent studies confirmed my
>>>observations, cellphoniacs are about as dangerous as drunk drivers.
>>
>> I'm sure that if the data was available you would find that the same
>> folks who don't know when they have had too much alcohol to drive
>> properly are the ones who don't know when it is inappropriate to use a
>> cell phone a drive.
>
>... which would mean about 50% of the population need to lose their
>license.

You're already advocating that.


>Would be fine with me, less traffic on the freeways.

Now we see where your real interest lies.

>
>> I'm going to quote Brent P, I hope he does not mind, because what he
>> wrote is very appropriate.
>
>> "Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't
>> make me pro-drunk driving,..... The data shows the real problem area is
>> already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further is going to serve
>> no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The same kind of
>> control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the united christian
>> women's temperance union."
>
>Even if the real problem area was already illegal (which it isn't,
>impairment starts much earlier than the legal limit)

Are you saying the "real problem area" are people with a BAC between
0.00 and 0.08?


>the legal limit makes
>people think it is okay to drink and then drive.

It is as long as you're not drunk.

>
>Few people intentionally get blasted and then drive.

But those are the people you should be worried about.

>Most people go to a
>party, intending to have 'one or two'. The alcohol makes their inhibitions
>disappear and they drink 'two or three more'. Then the host breaks out a
>good bottle of wine. They drink another glass. And they get behind the
>wheel even though they are drunk as a skunk.

And you believe this happens to "most people"?

>
>If people knew that 1) any drinking before driving a car is illegal and 2)
>the risk of getting caught is high enough to matter and 3) the punishment
>is sufficiently severe, alcohol related traffic deaths would sharply
>decrease, even those with more than .10 BAC.

Well, no ****!

First of all, with #2 above you'd likely catch those who were drunk
before they got into an accident. Secondly, with your #3 it's
unlikely that anyone ever convicted of a DUI would ever see the
outside of a prison again.

>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:00 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:51:51 -0500, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>> Let's see the numbers.
>>>
>>>Google is your friend.
>>
>> A quick search led me to this report
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...Rpt/Alc00Chap1.
>> htm
>>
>> Of the fatalities that involved alcohol approximately 75% of them were at
>> BAC over .10. Unfortunately this report does not give more detail. I would
>> be interesteed in seeing the numbers broken out by tenths of a percent. That
>> would give a better picture of who the really dangerous drivers are.
>
>Obviously drivers beyond .1% are going to be tested much more likely than
>someone who has only .03%, thus the number of fatalities broken down by
>percentage would be rather biased.
>
You don't like the stats, so you attempt to discredit them, yet you
don't provide any meaningful data yourself.

>>>>>I want to ban drivers who don't have a grip on themselves.
>>>> Me too.
>>
>>>Then why are you yammering about clamping down on drunk drivers?
>>
>> Because I dont' agree with your definition of a drunk driver.
>
>A person under the influence of alcohol is not able to correctly assess
>their driving ability which is why you can't just leave the assessment to
>the drunks themselves.

I'm perfectly capable of counting the number of drinks and the time
over which I have consumed them, even after a few drinks.

IOW, I have a pretty good idea if there's even a chance I'll blow
over.

>
>>>>>If you drive drunk you indeed don't and if coffee has the same effect
>>>>>on you you should be banned from driving altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Define drunk. That's the problem.
>>>
>>>Drunk = a BAC that may impair the driver, i.e. everything over .3
>>
>> Why .3? Why not .2 or .4? How did you come up with that number?
>
>Because most studies I read

Ah, well then we should just take your word for it then, eh?

How drunk do you think we are?

> say that the first noticeable effects on
>driving ability start at .3%. You are right, of course, it would make more
>sense to ban alcohol and driving altogether, so the question whether .2 is
>already dangerous simply would vanish.
>
>>>I think the most apropriate thing to do would be to introduce a
>>>restriction of no alcohol within 8 hours before driving.
>>
>> This would be an unecessary law that would have very little benefit. It
>> would also mean taking away police from doing other more important
>> duties that have real benefits.
>
>Saving lives on the road by locking up drunk drivers has real benefits.
>Saving one life by locking up a drunk driver has a lot more benefits than
>writing a hundred '70 in a 65' revenue generating tickets.

But do you really save 1 life by locking up a drunk driver?

>
>>>> You should more concerned with them because there are alot more of
>>>> them.
>>
>>>Drunk drivers are much more dangerous though.
>>
>> The really drunk ones are.
>
>You mean the really impaired ones are. And impairment starts much earlier
>than people think,

You better start harping on people getting enough sleep, using OTC
medication, driving while under stress - all those things can cause
more significant impairment than a 0.3 BAC

>specifically people like you who apparently subscribe
>to the old adage of 'a few beers are harmless'. There is no such thing as
>'harmless motorist impairment'.

Your overuse of the word "impairment" makes it virtually meaningless.

>
>>>No, it should come down to the simple matter of whether you are fit for
>>>driving, and that includes both no alcohol and adequate training.
>>
>> There are many peopel who can drive perfectly fine even when their
>> alcohol level is above .00 .
>
>Above .00 maybe, above about .03 or .04 no. The number of mistakes
>increases drastically

Define "drastically"

>and that's just not acceptable behind the wheel of
>3000 lbs of steel and plastic.
>
>And even if it were true, any alcohol consumption sharply

define "sharply"

>decreases the
>capability to assess the own condition, which is why it is impossible to

Hmmm - decreases--->impossible. Fascinating.

>let people just decide whether they are fit to drive.

And yet people make that determination all the time. Most of the
time, they're right. So is it really "impossible"?

>You can bet that the
>.30%-drunkard _thinks_ he is capable of driving safely,

I'll take that bet. How much money would you are to wager?


>but you can also
>bet that he isn't.
>
>The legal limit in a way is dangerous too, it makes people like you think
>that it is okay to drink 'a few',

But it IS okay to drink a few.

>which is why the 8 hour rule in addition
>to BAC rules would make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense at all.

>
>>>Oh, btw, let's put the same punishment as for alcohol on being on the
>>>[CENSORED] cellphone while driving. Recent studies confirmed my
>>>observations, cellphoniacs are about as dangerous as drunk drivers.
>>
>> I'm sure that if the data was available you would find that the same
>> folks who don't know when they have had too much alcohol to drive
>> properly are the ones who don't know when it is inappropriate to use a
>> cell phone a drive.
>
>... which would mean about 50% of the population need to lose their
>license.

You're already advocating that.


>Would be fine with me, less traffic on the freeways.

Now we see where your real interest lies.

>
>> I'm going to quote Brent P, I hope he does not mind, because what he
>> wrote is very appropriate.
>
>> "Just because I don't draw the line in the same place you do, doesn't
>> make me pro-drunk driving,..... The data shows the real problem area is
>> already illegal. that lowering the BAC level further is going to serve
>> no useful purpose. It's simply control freakism. The same kind of
>> control freakism that sparked the war on drugs and the united christian
>> women's temperance union."
>
>Even if the real problem area was already illegal (which it isn't,
>impairment starts much earlier than the legal limit)

Are you saying the "real problem area" are people with a BAC between
0.00 and 0.08?


>the legal limit makes
>people think it is okay to drink and then drive.

It is as long as you're not drunk.

>
>Few people intentionally get blasted and then drive.

But those are the people you should be worried about.

>Most people go to a
>party, intending to have 'one or two'. The alcohol makes their inhibitions
>disappear and they drink 'two or three more'. Then the host breaks out a
>good bottle of wine. They drink another glass. And they get behind the
>wheel even though they are drunk as a skunk.

And you believe this happens to "most people"?

>
>If people knew that 1) any drinking before driving a car is illegal and 2)
>the risk of getting caught is high enough to matter and 3) the punishment
>is sufficiently severe, alcohol related traffic deaths would sharply
>decrease, even those with more than .10 BAC.

Well, no ****!

First of all, with #2 above you'd likely catch those who were drunk
before they got into an accident. Secondly, with your #3 it's
unlikely that anyone ever convicted of a DUI would ever see the
outside of a prison again.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:53:55 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:40:20 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:11:10 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Using the legal definition of 'drunk' and the 'alcoholics' definition
>>>> of alcoholic, most drinkers are alcoholics.
>>>
>>>Well, even according to this definition I am not an alcoholic.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but if that's true then you don't have enough experience
>> with alcohol to be passing judgment on those who drink responsibly and
>> then drive.
>
>Your 'I play a videogame to see whether I am sober enough to drive' is
>responsible? BRUHAHAHAHAHA!
>

Bwahahahahaha

You can't even distinguish when someone is kidding around and when
they're not.

>>>> Misery loves company.
>>>
>>>Misery is what you will be in when you kill someone because you were too
>>>dumb or too reckless to refrain from driving although you were drunk.
>>
>> But I won't kill anyone.
>
>You are suffering from the classic case of self deception.

Ah yes....here it comes.

>You may even
>kill someone sober

Not gonna happen.

>and the risk of you killing someone even when driving
>with legal BAC is _drastically_ higher.


Again, I ask you to define "drastically".

>To assert that you will not kill
>anyone, let alone that you will not kill anyone drunk, is quite simply
>wrong.

Wrong? So you do in fact "know" that I will kill someone?

Sorry, brah. I might be wrong about that, but odds are I'm not.

>
>> Sorry to disappoint you, but most people who drink and drive don't even
>> cause accidents, especially when they aren't even legally drunk.
>
>Also self deception.

Well, here's your opportunity to show me that MOST people who drink
and drive cause accidents.

can you point to even 1 study that shows this?

>
>Chris