Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

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

In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> 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

..3 that's 3.75 times the legal limit of .08 !

In article >, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
> 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

..3 that's 3.75 times the legal limit of .08 !

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:11 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>>>> The only freedom you seem to be for is that of thinking exactly like
>>>> you. Everyone else is to be attacked, accused, and discredited by
>>>> whichever means necessary.
>>>
>>>Where did I attack any freedom? I specifically attacked drinking and
>>>driving
>>
>> As well as drinkers who also drive sober. Short term memory loss?
>> That's a symptom of chronic alcohol abuse.
>
>No, merely drinkers, who are unsafe sober, which is a tiny percentage of
>drinkers.

Well, that's difficult to say since you can't keep your position
straight.

>
>> Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
>> substance abuse counselor.
>
>Now now, Brent P would rip you a new one for that and ask you whether you
>stopped beating your wife... :-)

Brent P is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. You, however,
debate worse than most drunks I know.

>
>My short term memory is fine, your ability to read and understand text
>apparently isn't. Maybe it's the alcohol?

I understand just fine - the problem is on your end. Maybe you're
just stupid.

>
>>>I always supported a zero alcohol rule. That doesn't have anything to do
>>>with MADD, just with my personal interest in not being nailed by a drunk
>>>bozo.
>>
>> And I don't want to be killed by a bozo either. Therefore, you
>> shouldn't be driving.
>
>You mean, therefore _you_ shouldn't be driving.
>
>>>Yes, it does. Either you want to experience the 'great effects of being
>>>drunk' or you don't.
>>
>> But having 1 beer isn't going to get you drunk. You're claiming it
>> will.
>
>I claim having one beer already may influence your choice of having
>another one although you know that you have to drive home.

No, you said (among other things) that people shouldn't be allowed to
drive if they have had a drink within the previous 8 hours.

Claiming that 1 beer is the equivalent of 2 beers is patently
ridiculous.

>Please stop
>trying to pass your phantasies off as my opinion.

Their your fantasies. Let us know when reality sets in.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:11 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:47:55 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>>>> The only freedom you seem to be for is that of thinking exactly like
>>>> you. Everyone else is to be attacked, accused, and discredited by
>>>> whichever means necessary.
>>>
>>>Where did I attack any freedom? I specifically attacked drinking and
>>>driving
>>
>> As well as drinkers who also drive sober. Short term memory loss?
>> That's a symptom of chronic alcohol abuse.
>
>No, merely drinkers, who are unsafe sober, which is a tiny percentage of
>drinkers.

Well, that's difficult to say since you can't keep your position
straight.

>
>> Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
>> substance abuse counselor.
>
>Now now, Brent P would rip you a new one for that and ask you whether you
>stopped beating your wife... :-)

Brent P is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. You, however,
debate worse than most drunks I know.

>
>My short term memory is fine, your ability to read and understand text
>apparently isn't. Maybe it's the alcohol?

I understand just fine - the problem is on your end. Maybe you're
just stupid.

>
>>>I always supported a zero alcohol rule. That doesn't have anything to do
>>>with MADD, just with my personal interest in not being nailed by a drunk
>>>bozo.
>>
>> And I don't want to be killed by a bozo either. Therefore, you
>> shouldn't be driving.
>
>You mean, therefore _you_ shouldn't be driving.
>
>>>Yes, it does. Either you want to experience the 'great effects of being
>>>drunk' or you don't.
>>
>> But having 1 beer isn't going to get you drunk. You're claiming it
>> will.
>
>I claim having one beer already may influence your choice of having
>another one although you know that you have to drive home.

No, you said (among other things) that people shouldn't be allowed to
drive if they have had a drink within the previous 8 hours.

Claiming that 1 beer is the equivalent of 2 beers is patently
ridiculous.

>Please stop
>trying to pass your phantasies off as my opinion.

Their your fantasies. Let us know when reality sets in.

>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:35:10 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>>You as a drunk driver will quite likely kill someone.
>
>Not so likely. The death rate per 100,000,000 vehicle miles in the US
>is less than 2. That means on average -- and that average includes
>both drunk and sober drivers -- if I drive 10 miles I have
>less than a 1 in 5 million chance of killing someone. How much does
>having a beer or two beforehand make that risk increase? Even if it's
>double the AVERAGE, it's less than 1 in 2.5 million.

He probably thinks if he plays the lottery every week, he's likely to
win $50 million.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:35:10 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>>You as a drunk driver will quite likely kill someone.
>
>Not so likely. The death rate per 100,000,000 vehicle miles in the US
>is less than 2. That means on average -- and that average includes
>both drunk and sober drivers -- if I drive 10 miles I have
>less than a 1 in 5 million chance of killing someone. How much does
>having a beer or two beforehand make that risk increase? Even if it's
>double the AVERAGE, it's less than 1 in 2.5 million.

He probably thinks if he plays the lottery every week, he's likely to
win $50 million.

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.

>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. 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.

>
>>>driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>>>fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.
>>
>> 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).

>
>>>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

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.

>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. 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.

>
>>>driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>>>fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.
>>
>> 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).

>
>>>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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:36:48 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:13:09 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Being compelled and having a desire are two different things. Please don't
>>>mix these up.
>>
>> #1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_
>> compelled.
>
>Apparently that's enough.
>
>> #2: In the widest sense -- and that IS how you used the term -- a
>> desire and a feeling of compulsion are the same thing.
>
>I may have the desire to go skiing today instead of working. That doesn't
>mean I do feel compelled to do so.
>
>>>> It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
>>>> drink.
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with that.
>>
>> Except that you and the other neo-prohibitionists want to make it
>> impractical.
>
>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 have gone to parties and had
>drinks there when someone else was driving. To call this prohibitionism is
>simply dumb namecalling,

Yeah! not just "namecalling", but "dumb namecalling"!

>that you do because I don't agree with you. Do
>you really have to stoop down to Brent's level of conduct?
>
>>>If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>>money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.
>>
>> Not a matter of 20 bucks. A matter of no cabs at all. And I rarely
>> spend $20 on alcohol for myself at a sitting. Besides, how am I going
>> to get my car back?
>
>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.

Would you work to change them too? Or are you a NIMBY as well?

>Chris