Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:16:11 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:14 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:54:52 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
>>>for you?)
>>>
>>>If you had any alcohol your ability to assess your driving capabilities
>>>decreases to the point of non-existence,
>>
>> Which is why I always test my driving skills out on a video game
>> before I leave the bar. If I get a crappy score, I'll call a cab.
>
>You really think some playing around with a driving simulator is an
>indicator of whether you are capable of driving? You indeed need help.
>

One of your problems is you can't tell when someone is being
facetious.

Your type is so easy to wind up.

>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:15:02 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:53:09 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>>>but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>>>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's
>>>a sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>>>
>> Do you really think a skilled driver and a professional drinker is
>> risking lives because his BAC is 0.09%?
>
>A professional drinker who drives, risks lives, because even sober his
>brain doesn't function as well as the one of a person without a substance
>abuse problem.

Heh - that all depends on the professional drinker and the "sober"
one.

But why do you assume that professional drinkers have substance abuse
problems?

Feeling lonely at your AA meetings?

>
>> If so, you should seek help, because that's a sure sign of psychological
>> problems.
>
>Thinking that a drunk alcoholic risks lives is a sign of psychological
>problems?

Thinking 0.09% is "drunk" is a sign of your problem

>You indeed do have a psychological and very likely a substance
>abuse problem as well.



>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:15:02 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:53:09 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:56 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>
>>>I agree with you that driver training needs to be drastically improved,
>>>but at the same time clamping down on alcohol and cellphones is
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>One question: Do you really need alcohol so bad that you are willing to
>>>risk your life and others'? If so, you should seek help, because that's
>>>a sure sign of being an alcoholic.
>>>
>> Do you really think a skilled driver and a professional drinker is
>> risking lives because his BAC is 0.09%?
>
>A professional drinker who drives, risks lives, because even sober his
>brain doesn't function as well as the one of a person without a substance
>abuse problem.

Heh - that all depends on the professional drinker and the "sober"
one.

But why do you assume that professional drinkers have substance abuse
problems?

Feeling lonely at your AA meetings?

>
>> If so, you should seek help, because that's a sure sign of psychological
>> problems.
>
>Thinking that a drunk alcoholic risks lives is a sign of psychological
>problems?

Thinking 0.09% is "drunk" is a sign of your problem

>You indeed do have a psychological and very likely a substance
>abuse problem as well.



>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:24:19 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>>
>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.
>
>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>

Everyone should be required to be competent behind the wheel,
regardless of how much they drink when they're not driving.

I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.

>>>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>>>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>>>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>>>seek help.
>>
>> I'm sorry you don't enjoy the wonderful effects of alcohol (not to
>> mention the delicious taste of beverages containing it, and the
>> sensation of drinking it), but please stop trying to ruin it for the
>> rest of us.
>
>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.

Hmm - being drunk usually makes everyone else look better. YMMV

>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.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:24:19 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>
>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.
>>
>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.
>
>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>unsafe both drunk and sober.
>

Everyone should be required to be competent behind the wheel,
regardless of how much they drink when they're not driving.

I suppose you think it was a good thing that the guy who told his
doctor he drank a 6-pack a day lost his license.

>>>I have no problem whatsoever to go to a party and enjoy myself without the
>>>'help' of alcohol if I have to drive home afterwards. If the same is true
>>>for you, why don't you simply do it? And if it is not true, please go,
>>>seek help.
>>
>> I'm sorry you don't enjoy the wonderful effects of alcohol (not to
>> mention the delicious taste of beverages containing it, and the
>> sensation of drinking it), but please stop trying to ruin it for the
>> rest of us.
>
>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.

Hmm - being drunk usually makes everyone else look better. YMMV

>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.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:19:42 -0800, "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.
>

Everyone else knew what he meant by it.

>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.

You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?

Where'd you get your medical degree? MADD?

> 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.

It wasn't illegal and it wasn't an accusation of you actually beating
your wife.

It was an accusation (of sorts) that you were falsely insinuating (at
the very least) that others here are alcoholics.

>I doubt it.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:19:42 -0800, "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.
>

Everyone else knew what he meant by it.

>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.

You think you can diagnose alcoholism that easily?

Where'd you get your medical degree? MADD?

> 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.

It wasn't illegal and it wasn't an accusation of you actually beating
your wife.

It was an accusation (of sorts) that you were falsely insinuating (at
the very least) that others here are alcoholics.

>I doubt it.
>
>Chris

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:48:55 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>I hope you still have some honor left in you and can get over your rage
>and hatred and apologize for what you did.

heh

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:48:55 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>I hope you still have some honor left in you and can get over your rage
>and hatred and apologize for what you did.

heh

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