Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:55:20 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> Not quite. The site is admittedly not very professionally done, a
fate
> >> it shares with a sizeable number of commercial sites. Nevertheless
the
> >> materials used there are real and
> >
> > But how does one determine this? There are *no* references to an
> > scientific journals.
>
> 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.


> 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.

> 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.

> so back
> it up with studies that meet your criteria for

Ooops, again. One cannot logically prove a negative.

Maybe, instead of flailing around, you could provide just one link to
real data?

> >> I wasn't trying to use the newspapers as proof for anything, I
merely
> >> countered the claim of 'Max' that newspapers supposedly only print
> >> accidents with high BAC numbers and that thus driving with low BAC

> >> numbers supposedly is safe.
> >
> > Maybe you should have not been so flip and explained that in the
> > begininning. "I believe what I read in the papers" doesn't have
any of
> > the context you have just included.
>
> 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 are indeed attempting to use newspapers as proof of something:

Max wrote:
> 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.

To which you replied:

Nonsense. Read the papers. Most of the drunk drivers who get checked
after
a crash are somewhere between .05% and 0.1% Most non-alcoholics are not
even able to walk to their car beyond 1.5%.

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> That is true, but the differences are small.
> >
> > 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.

> 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?

> 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...

> > 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.

> 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?

> >> Concerning hangovers, firstly quite some people think they are
hung
> >> over but they still have a sizeable amount of alcohol in their
> >> bloodstream
> > (...)
> >
> > 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.

> >> Unfortunately alcohol
> >> makes this self assessment [of ability to drive] impossible
> >
> > Not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.
>
> 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?

> 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.

> >> which is why DUI is illegal.
> >
> > Also not true for every value of BAC >0.00%.
>
> 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%. That is not above
the legal limit. In fact, in most locations within the U.S. (maybe
all,) you can have twice that BAC and still not be legally DUI.
Therefore, my statement is 100% correct.

Analogy: since some folks can't handle driving at a speed limit of
55MPH, the speed limit should be reduced to 30MPH.

HAND,

E.P.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:24:29 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:42:33 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> At first I started answering your posting as if it was written by someone
>>> who is worth talking to. But then I came to the point where _you_, who
>>> accused me of beating my wife, started yammering about being insulted by
>>> _me_.
>>
>> No. I used that question to point out what you were doing to me with your
>> so called questions that called me an alcoholic.
>
> 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.

You implied I was an alcoholic via your questions. Don't weasel. You went
down that road, and as I knew you don't like being treated that way
yourself. You want me to treat you with respect, you better treat me with
respect.

> 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. If you feel insulted by this just shows that
> you know yourself have a drinking problem.

> I wonder whether you have the honor to apologize for your illegal
> accusation. I doubt it.

So here you do the same thing _AGAIN_.

You're a zealot sir. A no good zealot who sees everyone who doesn't
believe like he does to be the enemy. The problem is yours sir.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:24:29 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:42:33 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> At first I started answering your posting as if it was written by someone
>>> who is worth talking to. But then I came to the point where _you_, who
>>> accused me of beating my wife, started yammering about being insulted by
>>> _me_.
>>
>> No. I used that question to point out what you were doing to me with your
>> so called questions that called me an alcoholic.
>
> 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.

You implied I was an alcoholic via your questions. Don't weasel. You went
down that road, and as I knew you don't like being treated that way
yourself. You want me to treat you with respect, you better treat me with
respect.

> 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. If you feel insulted by this just shows that
> you know yourself have a drinking problem.

> I wonder whether you have the honor to apologize for your illegal
> accusation. I doubt it.

So here you do the same thing _AGAIN_.

You're a zealot sir. A no good zealot who sees everyone who doesn't
believe like he does to be the enemy. The problem is yours sir.

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

>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.
>
>>>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).

You're buying into the propaganda. History is rife with addicts of all
sorts of substances who have MADE THE CHOICE to quit.

Or are you going to take the propagandaist line that anyone who could do
that really wasn't an addict to begin with?


>
>>>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 don't know of any states where it's currently legal, but there were
indeed states where the driver could legally drink and drive.

Drinking and driving is not a problem. Driving drunk is.


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

If everyone who drank and drive killed someone, there'd hardly be anyone
left to attend MADD meetings.

Hmm - I might be onto something there

>Chris

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

>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.
>
>>>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).

You're buying into the propaganda. History is rife with addicts of all
sorts of substances who have MADE THE CHOICE to quit.

Or are you going to take the propagandaist line that anyone who could do
that really wasn't an addict to begin with?


>
>>>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 don't know of any states where it's currently legal, but there were
indeed states where the driver could legally drink and drive.

Drinking and driving is not a problem. Driving drunk is.


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

If everyone who drank and drive killed someone, there'd hardly be anyone
left to attend MADD meetings.

Hmm - I might be onto something there

>Chris

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> 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. And driving when drunk is even more stupid and makes you look very
> stupid or dead or both, which would be quite acceptable if it didn't
> drastically increase the risk of someone else getting killed.

So one drink makes you impared in 2005, but back in 1987 it didn't.

Incrementalism at it's finest. Unlike the sheeple I have a memory. A good
one. I remember what was being taught back in the 1980s.

Measuring imparement for the task of driving due to alcohol isn't a
complex or difficult thing to do. A study from 1985 should have the same
result as a study from 2005. The fact that each year the studies point to
lower and lower BAC levels is proof of the political agenda cooking the
books beind them. In fact, I recall when this subject came up with the
push to .08 BAC was that new studies were being done for the push to .05
and .03 once .08 was achieved. The anti-drunk-driving bunch kept
argueing that the data was sound, that below .08 wasn't going to happen.
That there was nothing like this going on at all. Yet here you are,
proof it was lie, arguing that .03 is impared as some in r.a.d suspected
would occur in the future. The push for one drop = legally drunk, the
new prohibition is clearly a reality with at least you.

You're walking, talking proof of the incrementalism.

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> 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. And driving when drunk is even more stupid and makes you look very
> stupid or dead or both, which would be quite acceptable if it didn't
> drastically increase the risk of someone else getting killed.

So one drink makes you impared in 2005, but back in 1987 it didn't.

Incrementalism at it's finest. Unlike the sheeple I have a memory. A good
one. I remember what was being taught back in the 1980s.

Measuring imparement for the task of driving due to alcohol isn't a
complex or difficult thing to do. A study from 1985 should have the same
result as a study from 2005. The fact that each year the studies point to
lower and lower BAC levels is proof of the political agenda cooking the
books beind them. In fact, I recall when this subject came up with the
push to .08 BAC was that new studies were being done for the push to .05
and .03 once .08 was achieved. The anti-drunk-driving bunch kept
argueing that the data was sound, that below .08 wasn't going to happen.
That there was nothing like this going on at all. Yet here you are,
proof it was lie, arguing that .03 is impared as some in r.a.d suspected
would occur in the future. The push for one drop = legally drunk, the
new prohibition is clearly a reality with at least you.

You're walking, talking proof of the incrementalism.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:29:50 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:11 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> [yammering and insults]
>>>
>>> Just in case you don't read or comprehend my other posting: All the
>>> insults in the world will not intimidate me. You have shown what kind of
>>> person you really are and you definitely are not worth talking to.
>>
>> You started down this road the moment you accused me of alcoholism and
>> mental illness.
>
> I did neither, which you would know if you read my postings thoroughly.

Unlike you I can prove you did.

> You need to learn the difference between an if-clause and a statement.

You're weaseling and lying. You know what you did and you specifically did
it on purpose to accuse. This is but your lame attempt to weasel out of it.

Here is the statement which I responded to in kind:

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
-> risk your life and others'?

Where's that 'if'? I don't see any 'if'. It's accusation through a
question and you knew full well what you were doing. And now you lie
to cover your ass.

> You
> also need to learn the difference between a true if clause ('if you have
> to drink you are an alcoholic') and a false statement ('you have been
> beating your wife').

Let me quote you then. Unlike you, I don't make things up, and I can back
them up. The question I responded with was to demonstrate EXACTLY what
you had done. You don't like it, too bad. Don't play hardball then. You
want to play hardball with me, expect to get hurt because I am not the
kind of person who just sits back and lets you get away with that
nonsense.

>> If you can't take it, don't start it. You're not the first person to
>> start something then run off.

> I did not accuse you of a felony, but you accused me of one, and that even
> though you knew your accusation is untrue.

I demonstrated your method of insulting debate. Seems you don't like it
when it's done to you, so why do you do it?

> And your sad attempts of
> defending your unacceptable conduct show clearly that you know you were
> way out of line and just don't have the balls or the honor to admit it.

I have the balls. More balls than you. You start this personally
insulting method of accusation through questions and then when I fling it
back at you, you cry foul, like a little child. Not used to people
standing up to your bullying tatics I take it.

> Again, if you had read my postings properly you would have seen that I
> never even accused you of alcoholism or mental illness (which by the way
> you openly accused me of), but merely stated that if you are incapable of
> refraining from drinking you are an alcoholic, which is a fact.

Really. Let me quote you some more.

Accusation of mental illness and drunk driving in a single post:

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:31:06 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply
-> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be
-> wrong.
<...>
-> but if you really think drinking
-> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before
-> you hurt someone.

The previous quote is one place you accuse me of alcoholism.

> Let's see whether you will prove honorable enough to apologize for falsely
> accusing me of a felony.

I simply demonstrated what you were doing. You don't like it, don't start
it. And don't go down the 'if' road with the quoted portion. The 'if'
doesn't make one bit of a difference. You should be apologizing to me.

Unlike you, I can back up what I say. You just make it up as you go
along, like most zealots who find they have to discredit anyone who
disagrees with them in the slightest.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:29:50 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:11 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>> [yammering and insults]
>>>
>>> Just in case you don't read or comprehend my other posting: All the
>>> insults in the world will not intimidate me. You have shown what kind of
>>> person you really are and you definitely are not worth talking to.
>>
>> You started down this road the moment you accused me of alcoholism and
>> mental illness.
>
> I did neither, which you would know if you read my postings thoroughly.

Unlike you I can prove you did.

> You need to learn the difference between an if-clause and a statement.

You're weaseling and lying. You know what you did and you specifically did
it on purpose to accuse. This is but your lame attempt to weasel out of it.

Here is the statement which I responded to in kind:

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
-> risk your life and others'?

Where's that 'if'? I don't see any 'if'. It's accusation through a
question and you knew full well what you were doing. And now you lie
to cover your ass.

> You
> also need to learn the difference between a true if clause ('if you have
> to drink you are an alcoholic') and a false statement ('you have been
> beating your wife').

Let me quote you then. Unlike you, I don't make things up, and I can back
them up. The question I responded with was to demonstrate EXACTLY what
you had done. You don't like it, too bad. Don't play hardball then. You
want to play hardball with me, expect to get hurt because I am not the
kind of person who just sits back and lets you get away with that
nonsense.

>> If you can't take it, don't start it. You're not the first person to
>> start something then run off.

> I did not accuse you of a felony, but you accused me of one, and that even
> though you knew your accusation is untrue.

I demonstrated your method of insulting debate. Seems you don't like it
when it's done to you, so why do you do it?

> And your sad attempts of
> defending your unacceptable conduct show clearly that you know you were
> way out of line and just don't have the balls or the honor to admit it.

I have the balls. More balls than you. You start this personally
insulting method of accusation through questions and then when I fling it
back at you, you cry foul, like a little child. Not used to people
standing up to your bullying tatics I take it.

> Again, if you had read my postings properly you would have seen that I
> never even accused you of alcoholism or mental illness (which by the way
> you openly accused me of), but merely stated that if you are incapable of
> refraining from drinking you are an alcoholic, which is a fact.

Really. Let me quote you some more.

Accusation of mental illness and drunk driving in a single post:

-> From: "C.H." >
-> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road,alt.true-crime
-> Subject: Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?
-> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:31:06 -0800
-> Message-ID: >
<...>
-> What you suffer from is called denial. You have a problem and you simply
-> don't want to see it and thus every evidence of this problem must be
-> wrong.
<...>
-> but if you really think drinking
-> and driving is harmless, you need a reality check, and you need it before
-> you hurt someone.

The previous quote is one place you accuse me of alcoholism.

> Let's see whether you will prove honorable enough to apologize for falsely
> accusing me of a felony.

I simply demonstrated what you were doing. You don't like it, don't start
it. And don't go down the 'if' road with the quoted portion. The 'if'
doesn't make one bit of a difference. You should be apologizing to me.

Unlike you, I can back up what I say. You just make it up as you go
along, like most zealots who find they have to discredit anyone who
disagrees with them in the slightest.

In article >, C.H. wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. 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.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
>> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

> 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.

I am clairifying his statement to you. And your one drop notion is silly.
It's incramentalism at it's finest.

>>> You can drink all you want when you are at home or don't have to drive
>>> afterwards. That's not prohibition in the least.

>> Bull****. The whole point one drop extremist zealotry is prohibition.
>> Incrementally built prohibition created around limiting transportation.

> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if
> you want half-drunk) drivers.

Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement
studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent? Why should we
believe they are more competent now? that these studies are any more
valid than the ones done then? Really, these are simple tests, they don't
require anything more than simple scientific method, so why do the
results vary? Why the change in results and recommendations?

> 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.

This is all about control. The prohibitionists see alcohol as evil. They
saw it that way in the begining of the 20th century, they see it that way
in the begining of the 21st. But unlike before, this time the chosen
route is incronmentalism. No outright bans. Just make it progressively
more difficult to have a legal drink. This has nothing to do with
driving, like many things driving is the mechanism through which action
is taken for the greater goals.

>>> Driving is a privilege and with it comes responsibility, which includes
>>> making sure you are not impaired when driving. If you can't do that
>>> because you are too cheap to call a cab, you are not responsible enough
>>> to drive.

>> Here it is again, the driving is a privilege arguement being used once
>> again as a way to control people.

> Traffic has rules. Some make sense, some don't. Would you advocate
> allowing everyone to run red lights just because driver X wants that?
> Would you allow people to drive through school zones at 60mph because
> driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
> fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.
> You at least tried to argument up to here but from here it reads like a
> paper from Conspiracy Theory 101.

Your lame counter arguements. How many times have I seen this strawman
crapola? Countless. If I had a nickel.... Anyway, I've already cited how
MADD goes well beyond simple drunk driving, so it's not a conspiracy
theory, just read the MADD website.

> I am all for personal freedoms. Killing people is not a personal freedom,
> whether you do it because you want to or whether you do it because you
> have not enough common sense to keep drinking and driving apart.

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.

> I agree with you that the MADD is a (small) zealot group, but just the
> fact that zealots want something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't
> make sense.

You're following their line. You support their ever decreasing BAC
values.

> If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a
> safe environment, in other words, at home.

Here we go again with the accusation through question. The 'if' doesn't
make it acceptable either.