Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:11:10 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:48:56 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
>>>more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.
>>>
>> A self-proclaimed alcoholic told me if you get drunk more than 3 times
>> a year (Birthday, New Years, and 1 other time) you're an alcoholic.
>
>Who cares, what some nutcase drunkard told you?
>

Indeed. Why should I care what some nutcase on usenet says either.

>> 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.

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

>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> So if I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>> afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>> limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>> extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.
>
>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.

Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
even drive sober.

At least try to be consistent and logical in your arguments.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:12:24 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>> So if I drink anywhere but home, I'm going to be driving sometime
>> afterwards. So by trying to reduce BAC levels down to ridiculous
>> limits, you're pursuing a neo-prohibitionist agenda by making it
>> extremely difficult to legally return home after drinking.
>
>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.

Yet you have been arguing that people who drink too often shouldn't
even drive sober.

At least try to be consistent and logical in your arguments.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:59:50 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> 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?
>
>No, just greedy.
>
>> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies
>> are any more valid than the ones done then?
>
>Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence.
>

Your tin-foil hat is crooked.

<snip>

>
>Conspiracy theory. You are beginning to sound like Judy.

You've been sounding like Judy ever since you entered this thread.

<snip>

>
>> 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.

Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
substance abuse counselor.

>and that's not freedom. On the other hand I repeatedly said that
>I am for abolishing speed limits, helmet and seatbelt laws (I would not
>drive without a seatbelt nor ride without a helmet but if someone wants to
>it should be his right. Now tell me, Brent, what 'freedoms' did I attack?
>
>>> 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.
>
>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.

>
>>> 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.
>
>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.

>In the first case there is no reason for you to be
>insulted, in the second the whole thing doesn't concern you.
>
>It's funny how touchy you are when it's about you and how vicious and
>dishonorable when it's about me.
>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:59:50 GMT, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> 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?
>
>No, just greedy.
>
>> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies
>> are any more valid than the ones done then?
>
>Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence.
>

Your tin-foil hat is crooked.

<snip>

>
>Conspiracy theory. You are beginning to sound like Judy.

You've been sounding like Judy ever since you entered this thread.

<snip>

>
>> 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.

Perhaps you'd better turn in your license until you are evaluated by a
substance abuse counselor.

>and that's not freedom. On the other hand I repeatedly said that
>I am for abolishing speed limits, helmet and seatbelt laws (I would not
>drive without a seatbelt nor ride without a helmet but if someone wants to
>it should be his right. Now tell me, Brent, what 'freedoms' did I attack?
>
>>> 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.
>
>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.

>
>>> 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.
>
>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.

>In the first case there is no reason for you to be
>insulted, in the second the whole thing doesn't concern you.
>
>It's funny how touchy you are when it's about you and how vicious and
>dishonorable when it's about me.
>
>Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"C.H." > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>
>That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>home! ;-)
>

And besides, all my friends are at the bar too!

Here's how crazy all this zero-tolerance bull**** is.

A friend of mine was pulled over for some minor infraction - I don't
remember what - it could have been as simple as a broken taillight.

In the passenger seat, was someone who was drunk. The cop asked the
driver if she had had anything to drink. She had had a couple and
admitted so.

Since she admitted having any alcohol, the cop said he couldn't let
her drive home. She wasn't drunk, so he couldn't arrest her, but he
did let her call someone to pick her and her drunken passenger up.

Well, the person she called was wasted.

Nice going, eh? MADD puts even drunker drivers on the road!

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:01 -0500, "ParrotRob" >
wrote:

>"C.H." > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>
>That's crazy talk. If I'm too drunk to drive I'm FAR too drunk to WALK
>home! ;-)
>

And besides, all my friends are at the bar too!

Here's how crazy all this zero-tolerance bull**** is.

A friend of mine was pulled over for some minor infraction - I don't
remember what - it could have been as simple as a broken taillight.

In the passenger seat, was someone who was drunk. The cop asked the
driver if she had had anything to drink. She had had a couple and
admitted so.

Since she admitted having any alcohol, the cop said he couldn't let
her drive home. She wasn't drunk, so he couldn't arrest her, but he
did let her call someone to pick her and her drunken passenger up.

Well, the person she called was wasted.

Nice going, eh? MADD puts even drunker drivers on the road!

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.

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.

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