Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:08:00 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:45:54 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:22:34 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heh - that's what the substance abuse "treatment" industrial complex
>>>> wants everyone to think - more money for them.
>>>
>>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic,
>>
>> So if I think to myself, I sure would like a beer right now, I'm an
>> alcoholic?
>
>No, but if you have to have one you are, and that is what 'compelled'
>means.
>

That's quite a narrow definition of compelled. That's not common
usage

>>>because that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.
>>
>> Nobody _has_ to drink. It's a simple choice.
>
>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>

Everyone has a choice, including the "alcoholic".

>>>If you don't have to drink don't drink before driving,
>>
>> Well, I was brought up to believe that it's okay to drink WHILE
>> driving as long as you're not drunk.
>
>As far as I know even having an open container in the car is illegal, let
>alone drinking while driving.


I said that's how "I was brought up". The District Attorney came and
talked to my class in junior high and told us even he liked to stop
and get a beer to drink while he drove home after work.

Like he said, there is NOTHING wrong with drinking and driving, but
there is something wrong with driving drunk.

You need to distinguish between drinking and being drunk.

>
>> It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I don't actually drink
>> WHILE driving anymore, but you're nuts if you think I'm going to call
>> a cab just because I've had a couple of drinks.
>
>Then you are clearly not responsible enough to drive.

Sorry, but the law actually agrees with me on thiis one. In the state
I live, the legal BAC is still 0.08%

>
>> Go to ANY bar with a parking lot and ask yourself if you believe all
>> the cars belong to designated drivers or bar staff.
>
>A lot of people are too irresponsible to drive.
>

Perhaps practically speaking, but certainly not legally.

>>>if you have to drink, seek help,
>>
>> Or quit your frat. Nobody has to drink. It's a simple choice.
>
>If it's that simple, quit drinking and driving.

It would be a simple choice for you to take a long walk off a short
pier, but somehow I don't expect you're going to let me make that
decision for you.

You shouldn't expect to make decisions for others as well, especially
when you're trying to decide for me NOT to engage in perfectly LEGAL
behavior.

>Otherwise I hope they will
>catch you and take your license before you manage to get someone killed.

Catch me for having a BAC below .08?

That's not going to happen under existing laws.

You try to distance yourself from MADD, but your agenda is
indistinguishable from theirs.

>
>Chris

C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:16:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> Every single study on alcohol and traffic I have read so far (and
I
> >> have read quite a few)...
> >
> > That's great. Since you've read them, and there is more than one,
it
> > stands to reason that *one* would be on-line, or at least at some
decent
> > university research library. If you've got something more than a
German
> > clone of MADD's propaganda, I'd love to see it.
>
> http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf

There, that wasn't so tough.

> >> Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to bring any
evidence
> >> that driving drunk is _not_ dangerous.
> >
> > I don't think anyone has made that claim anywhere. Go ahead and
find
> > such a claim, if you can.
>
> Then why are you crying the blues about laws prohibiting this
dangerous
> conduct?

I have not done that anywhere, either. All *I* ever wanted was data to
substantiate significant impairment at 0.03% BAC.

Please avoid the strawman arguments.

> >> Here is a challenge: You believe, that drunk driving is harmless
> >
> > Ooops, strawman argument. Along the lines of "have you stopped
beating
> > your wife yet?" sorts of commentary. Bad form.
>
> Again, if you don't think, that drunk driving is harmless, why do you
> complain about me saying so?

If I say *anywhere* that I believe such a thing, you may feel free to
quote me. If you cannot find such a quote, then you are mistaken.

> >> so back it up with studies that meet your criteria for
> >
> > Ooops, again. One cannot logically prove a negative.
>
> 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.

If you cannot rationally discuss an issue, then maybe you should
refrain.

> >> If you had read the posting my answer referred to you would have
seen
> >> the correct context.
> >
> > I saw what he wrote, and your response. None of the original
comment,
> > nor your responses, in any way reflects your "clarification" above.
>
> You might want to reread the paragraphs, comprehension seems to elude
you
> today.

I have read them thoroughly. I even went so far as to juxtapose them
in the same post. Since you have nothing more than an ad hominem
comment as rebuttal, I will assume you have nothing of value to add.

> >> > By body mass alone, you have no idea what the differences in
alcohol
> >> > effect might be. Gender plays a role, as does % body fat.
> >>
> >> I think you are confusing the amount of alcohol it takes to get to
a
> >> certain BAC with the BAC itself.
> >
> > No, it is you who seems to be confused. Alcohol *effect* is not
> > strictly limited to BAC.
>
> Proof?

Do some reading within your own cite. All sorts of factors come into
play.

> >> The BAC has a direct influence on the brain, which is quite close
to
> >> proportional to the BAC.
> >
> > Proof, absent the other factors of which I have spoken?
>
> Simple logic.

Except that what followed that was anything but simple, and far from
logic. Anyway, discounting the other factors to suit your argument
fails the logic test on its face.

> >> On the other hand of course a heavy man has to drink more to get
to
> >> the same BAC.
> >
> > That's not the only factor...
>
> No, but it is the biggest factor.

Oddly, it isn't. But go ahead and believe what suits you.

> >> > In any case, BAC *alone* is not necessarily what defines
impairment.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't, but it is the only indicator of probable impairment
> >> available.
> >
> > False.
>
> 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.

> >> And it is infinitely more reliable than the self evaluation of a
drunk
> >> person.
> >
> > 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?

> >> > The study made pains to point out that the hung-over subjects
had 0%
> >> > BAC.
> >>
> >> Could you provide me with a reference please?
> >
> > Type "swedish traffic hangover driving" (without the quotes) into
Google
> > to get tens of secondary references. Alas, the translated version
that
> > I read is not available on-line.
>
> 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.

> 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.

If the multiple secondary references aren't good enough, fine by me.
What was that about "hair in the soup," again?

> 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?

> >> The problem is that the person is not aware of the limit where his

> >> self assessment will be affected and thus is not able to make this

> >> assessment,
> >
> > 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.

> >> which is why driving drunk is illegal.
> >
> > 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.

> 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.

> >> DUI doesn't mean 'BAC>0.00%' but 'driving under the influence'
which
> >> means that you were above the legal limit.
> >
> > 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.

> > Analogy: since some folks can't handle driving at a speed limit of
> > 55MPH, the speed limit should be reduced to 30MPH.
>
> If someone cannot drive safely at 55mph they need to be banned from
> driving a car. And if someone cannot curb his appetite for alcohol
before
> he also needs to be banned from driving.

In some cases, people can drive more competently than most other
drivers when driving with a sub-legal limit BAC. That's not hard,
considering the near universal lack of training and standards in the
U.S.

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.

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.
And using LCD thinking is how we got into the no-training, no-education
nanny-statism driving situation we find ourselves in currently.
HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:16:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> Every single study on alcohol and traffic I have read so far (and
I
> >> have read quite a few)...
> >
> > That's great. Since you've read them, and there is more than one,
it
> > stands to reason that *one* would be on-line, or at least at some
decent
> > university research library. If you've got something more than a
German
> > clone of MADD's propaganda, I'd love to see it.
>
> http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf

There, that wasn't so tough.

> >> Neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to bring any
evidence
> >> that driving drunk is _not_ dangerous.
> >
> > I don't think anyone has made that claim anywhere. Go ahead and
find
> > such a claim, if you can.
>
> Then why are you crying the blues about laws prohibiting this
dangerous
> conduct?

I have not done that anywhere, either. All *I* ever wanted was data to
substantiate significant impairment at 0.03% BAC.

Please avoid the strawman arguments.

> >> Here is a challenge: You believe, that drunk driving is harmless
> >
> > Ooops, strawman argument. Along the lines of "have you stopped
beating
> > your wife yet?" sorts of commentary. Bad form.
>
> Again, if you don't think, that drunk driving is harmless, why do you
> complain about me saying so?

If I say *anywhere* that I believe such a thing, you may feel free to
quote me. If you cannot find such a quote, then you are mistaken.

> >> so back it up with studies that meet your criteria for
> >
> > Ooops, again. One cannot logically prove a negative.
>
> 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.

If you cannot rationally discuss an issue, then maybe you should
refrain.

> >> If you had read the posting my answer referred to you would have
seen
> >> the correct context.
> >
> > I saw what he wrote, and your response. None of the original
comment,
> > nor your responses, in any way reflects your "clarification" above.
>
> You might want to reread the paragraphs, comprehension seems to elude
you
> today.

I have read them thoroughly. I even went so far as to juxtapose them
in the same post. Since you have nothing more than an ad hominem
comment as rebuttal, I will assume you have nothing of value to add.

> >> > By body mass alone, you have no idea what the differences in
alcohol
> >> > effect might be. Gender plays a role, as does % body fat.
> >>
> >> I think you are confusing the amount of alcohol it takes to get to
a
> >> certain BAC with the BAC itself.
> >
> > No, it is you who seems to be confused. Alcohol *effect* is not
> > strictly limited to BAC.
>
> Proof?

Do some reading within your own cite. All sorts of factors come into
play.

> >> The BAC has a direct influence on the brain, which is quite close
to
> >> proportional to the BAC.
> >
> > Proof, absent the other factors of which I have spoken?
>
> Simple logic.

Except that what followed that was anything but simple, and far from
logic. Anyway, discounting the other factors to suit your argument
fails the logic test on its face.

> >> On the other hand of course a heavy man has to drink more to get
to
> >> the same BAC.
> >
> > That's not the only factor...
>
> No, but it is the biggest factor.

Oddly, it isn't. But go ahead and believe what suits you.

> >> > In any case, BAC *alone* is not necessarily what defines
impairment.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't, but it is the only indicator of probable impairment
> >> available.
> >
> > False.
>
> 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.

> >> And it is infinitely more reliable than the self evaluation of a
drunk
> >> person.
> >
> > 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?

> >> > The study made pains to point out that the hung-over subjects
had 0%
> >> > BAC.
> >>
> >> Could you provide me with a reference please?
> >
> > Type "swedish traffic hangover driving" (without the quotes) into
Google
> > to get tens of secondary references. Alas, the translated version
that
> > I read is not available on-line.
>
> 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.

> 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.

If the multiple secondary references aren't good enough, fine by me.
What was that about "hair in the soup," again?

> 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?

> >> The problem is that the person is not aware of the limit where his

> >> self assessment will be affected and thus is not able to make this

> >> assessment,
> >
> > 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.

> >> which is why driving drunk is illegal.
> >
> > 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.

> 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.

> >> DUI doesn't mean 'BAC>0.00%' but 'driving under the influence'
which
> >> means that you were above the legal limit.
> >
> > 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.

> > Analogy: since some folks can't handle driving at a speed limit of
> > 55MPH, the speed limit should be reduced to 30MPH.
>
> If someone cannot drive safely at 55mph they need to be banned from
> driving a car. And if someone cannot curb his appetite for alcohol
before
> he also needs to be banned from driving.

In some cases, people can drive more competently than most other
drivers when driving with a sub-legal limit BAC. That's not hard,
considering the near universal lack of training and standards in the
U.S.

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.

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.
And using LCD thinking is how we got into the no-training, no-education
nanny-statism driving situation we find ourselves in currently.
HAND,

E.P.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:54:46 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:33:02 -0700, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:08:00 -0800, "C.H." >
>>
>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> You're buying into the propaganda. History is rife with addicts of all
>> sorts of substances who have MADE THE CHOICE to quit.
>
>I agree with you that they have the choice to quit. We are talking about
>two different things, though. I was specifically referring to the question
>of whether an alcoholic simply can say 'I won't drink tonight', which he
>usually can't.

"usually"?

So, I'm an alcoholic because I will drive after 1-2 drinks, right?

But I'm NOT an alcoholic because I CAN simply say "I won't drink
tonight" and I don't drink?

Make up your addled mind.


> Few people possess the willpower to do this on their own.

So, it's a question of willpower, not whether they meet *your*
definition of "alcoholic".

>So we can assume that for the alcoholic at a party the question is not 'do
>I drink tonight?'.

But if he chooses not to drink, then he's not an alcoholic.

But if he does drink at parties, then he is?

>
>> Or are you going to take the propagandaist line that anyone who could do
>> that really wasn't an addict to begin with?
>
>No. See above.

Hmmm - that still seems to be what you're saying. If a person does
stop using their drug of choice (without help from the SATIC), they
were never a real "addict" to begin with.

>
>>>As far as I know even having an open container in the car is illegal, let
>>>alone drinking while driving.
>>
>> I don't know of any states where it's currently legal, but there were
>> indeed states where the driver could legally drink and drive.
>
>I don't doubt that.
>
>> Drinking and driving is not a problem. Driving drunk is.
>
>First leads to second and thus is a problem.

So it only takes a sip to get someone drunk?

>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:54:46 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:33:02 -0700, Mike Z. Helm wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:08:00 -0800, "C.H." >
>>
>>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>>
>> You're buying into the propaganda. History is rife with addicts of all
>> sorts of substances who have MADE THE CHOICE to quit.
>
>I agree with you that they have the choice to quit. We are talking about
>two different things, though. I was specifically referring to the question
>of whether an alcoholic simply can say 'I won't drink tonight', which he
>usually can't.

"usually"?

So, I'm an alcoholic because I will drive after 1-2 drinks, right?

But I'm NOT an alcoholic because I CAN simply say "I won't drink
tonight" and I don't drink?

Make up your addled mind.


> Few people possess the willpower to do this on their own.

So, it's a question of willpower, not whether they meet *your*
definition of "alcoholic".

>So we can assume that for the alcoholic at a party the question is not 'do
>I drink tonight?'.

But if he chooses not to drink, then he's not an alcoholic.

But if he does drink at parties, then he is?

>
>> Or are you going to take the propagandaist line that anyone who could do
>> that really wasn't an addict to begin with?
>
>No. See above.

Hmmm - that still seems to be what you're saying. If a person does
stop using their drug of choice (without help from the SATIC), they
were never a real "addict" to begin with.

>
>>>As far as I know even having an open container in the car is illegal, let
>>>alone drinking while driving.
>>
>> I don't know of any states where it's currently legal, but there were
>> indeed states where the driver could legally drink and drive.
>
>I don't doubt that.
>
>> Drinking and driving is not a problem. Driving drunk is.
>
>First leads to second and thus is a problem.

So it only takes a sip to get someone drunk?

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:07:36 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>C.H. > wrote:
>>
>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>
>Of course the alcoholic has a choice. Simple one, really: to drink,
>or not to drink. The complication is that the latter choice is
>accompanied by far more pain than the former. It's still a choice.

A bit of an oversimplification, but accurate nonetheless.

The pain you speak of is short-term. It also implies that the
"alcoholic" is physically addicted (unless you meant mental pain as
well).

According to C.H. (and everyone in the substance abuse treatment
industry), you don't have to be physically addicted to be an
"alcoholic"

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:07:36 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>C.H. > wrote:
>>
>>If you think an alcoholic has a choice (without getting help) you need to
>>read up on the subject a bit (physical and mental drug dependency).
>
>Of course the alcoholic has a choice. Simple one, really: to drink,
>or not to drink. The complication is that the latter choice is
>accompanied by far more pain than the former. It's still a choice.

A bit of an oversimplification, but accurate nonetheless.

The pain you speak of is short-term. It also implies that the
"alcoholic" is physically addicted (unless you meant mental pain as
well).

According to C.H. (and everyone in the substance abuse treatment
industry), you don't have to be physically addicted to be an
"alcoholic"

lenny fackler wrote:
> So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the
> driver is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion
> should be allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to
> society?

Yes. The basis of rightful law is "no harm, no foul", NOT prevention.

lenny fackler wrote:
> So you think DUI should be allowed unless the cop can prove the
> driver is impaired. Do you also think heroin and cocaine possesion
> should be allowed unless the cops can prove the user is a threat to
> society?

Yes. The basis of rightful law is "no harm, no foul", NOT prevention.

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.

Sounds like another statistic that lumps together those slightly over
the limit with those way over, and is therefore worthless. (But not
as bad as the US-NHTSA practice of labeling a wreck alcohol-related if
any participant -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.
That's truly dishonest, and the MADD types eat it right up.)