Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

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.)

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:13:09 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>>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?
>
>Take another taxi.
>
>That's more like $80 in cab fare, since a $20 taxi ride is only going
>to get most people halfway home.

Assuming the car hasn't been towed in the meantime. At which point
you're probably talking at least $150 in towing and storage fees (not
to mention likely damage to the car) on top of the taxi ride. That's
an expensive night out... and C.H. claims he's not a neo-prohibitionist.

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:13:09 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>>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?
>
>Take another taxi.
>
>That's more like $80 in cab fare, since a $20 taxi ride is only going
>to get most people halfway home.

Assuming the car hasn't been towed in the meantime. At which point
you're probably talking at least $150 in towing and storage fees (not
to mention likely damage to the car) on top of the taxi ride. That's
an expensive night out... and C.H. claims he's not a neo-prohibitionist.

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>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).

I personally wouldn't term it alcoholism unless there was physical addiction.

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

I'd have to disagree with them there. Which is not to say that
full-blown alcoholism is the only alcohol problem you can have.

In article >,
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
>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).

I personally wouldn't term it alcoholism unless there was physical addiction.

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

I'd have to disagree with them there. Which is not to say that
full-blown alcoholism is the only alcohol problem you can have.

In article >,
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.

The difference is enormous. If you ARE compelled to do something (in
the narrow sense), you WILL do it. If you merely FEEL compelled, you
can ignore the feeling.

>> #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.

Can you draw a bright-line distinction between a compulsion and a
desire? One that does not contradict your use of the phrase "If you
feel in any way compelled..."?

>> 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

So you're a neo-prohibitionist hypocrite. There was probably no
shortage of hypocrites among the earlier prohibitionists either.

>>>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.

Bar's too damn far away, and walking home is "public intoxication".

>Or a bicycle.

Clever neo-prohibitionists have gotten the drunk driving laws applied
to bicycles.

>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.

There's that neo-prohibitionism; only people who live in cities should
be permitted to drink, and then only nearby. The idea being to
continually narrow down the acceptable circumstances in which drinking
may take place.

In article >,
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.

The difference is enormous. If you ARE compelled to do something (in
the narrow sense), you WILL do it. If you merely FEEL compelled, you
can ignore the feeling.

>> #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.

Can you draw a bright-line distinction between a compulsion and a
desire? One that does not contradict your use of the phrase "If you
feel in any way compelled..."?

>> 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

So you're a neo-prohibitionist hypocrite. There was probably no
shortage of hypocrites among the earlier prohibitionists either.

>>>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.

Bar's too damn far away, and walking home is "public intoxication".

>Or a bicycle.

Clever neo-prohibitionists have gotten the drunk driving laws applied
to bicycles.

>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.

There's that neo-prohibitionism; only people who live in cities should
be permitted to drink, and then only nearby. The idea being to
continually narrow down the acceptable circumstances in which drinking
may take place.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:25:46 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
>>>absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>>>either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.
>>
>> There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!".
>
>No. Neo-prohibitionist says: Wanna drink? No way!

Nope, that would be the old-fashioned paleo-prohibitionist. More
honest than their neo- bretheren, but just as irritating.

>> (of course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking
>> while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not
>> really an option).
>
>I don't care if you walk drunk as long as you are not walking into cars in
>your drunk state. Thus apparently I am not a neo-prohibitionist.

Neo-prohibitionists say this sort of thing in the general case, but
then support each specific prosecution.

>>>I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
>>>restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
>>>too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
>>>freedom in a coffin.
>>
>> 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).

How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
bind HIS fists either.

>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.

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:25:46 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
>>>absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>>>either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.
>>
>> There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!".
>
>No. Neo-prohibitionist says: Wanna drink? No way!

Nope, that would be the old-fashioned paleo-prohibitionist. More
honest than their neo- bretheren, but just as irritating.

>> (of course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking
>> while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not
>> really an option).
>
>I don't care if you walk drunk as long as you are not walking into cars in
>your drunk state. Thus apparently I am not a neo-prohibitionist.

Neo-prohibitionists say this sort of thing in the general case, but
then support each specific prosecution.

>>>I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
>>>restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
>>>too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
>>>freedom in a coffin.
>>
>> 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).

How do you know? I might be built like Mike Tyson. You don't get to
bind HIS fists either.

>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.

In article >,
John David Galt > wrote:
>
>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.)

The NHTSA does not label a wreck alcohol-related if a passenger had a
drink -- it's "driver or non-occupant". I'm not sure if they label
the _death_ of a passenger who had a drink "alcohol related", though.